Why am I, a survivor of Catholic education, a former atheist, a current agnostic, and a sociology student, reading a book such as this? Part of the answer lies in that last point. Sociology has given me an open mind and an appetite for new ideas. I borrowed the book from a friend because I'm interested in exploring what she believes. Having read it in full, I now understand the point of view of creationists far better than I used to do. It's all great stuff and they bring a lot of integrity to their quest for truth. I'm very glad she agreed to lend me the book. Possibly she hoped she was performing an act of evangelism - and possibly, just maybe, she was.
Which is the other part of why I wanted to read it. I'm far enough out of high school now to be questioning again. That's why I'm so keen on the whole new ideas thing. This isn't an invitation to any evangelical Christians reading this to try to work a conversion. At this stage, I'm just exploring. And to my atheist friends, please don't fear for my sanity... at this stage, I'm just exploring!
Back to the book. I learned a lot from reading it, but there are two things that I found particularly enlightening.
First, I've always wondered why there is any need for Christians to seek to reconcile their faith with modern science. Surely, I thought, if they want to believe that the Bible is literally accurate, they can explain away everything else using the omniscience of God - "He works his mysterious ways". The book explains that the search for understanding really has an evangelical motivation. Fundamentalist Christians are exhorted to spread the faith to others, and they're hardly going to be able to do that if they can't convincingly argue the truth of the Bible.
Of course, the book is also written for the inner skeptic, to enable Christians to more firmly embrace their faith and eradicate their own doubt. But the constant repetition, throughout the book, of exhortation to "share with anyone who 'asks you a reason for the hope that is in you' (1 Peter 3:15)" makes clear that the main purpose of the understanding they seek is to help Christians spread the Good News.
The second thing that I found astounding about the book was the treatment of evolution. I'd like to get gringer's opinion on this, because I'm no biologist and know very little about evolution. However, as I understand it, the theory of evolution - that species evolve to other forms over time, and in this way apes turned into humans - rests on two things:
- random genetic mutations
- natural selection
To my surprise, the creationists believe in both of these. They believe that natural selection may have been responsible for animals developing claws, for example, after death entered the world. They believe that genetic mutations are evidence that we live in a fallen world. They even suggest that our modern zebras, horses and donkeys all evolved from the originally created horse kind.
The only thing they don't believe is that humans evolved from anything else.
The reason they can't believe that is quite clear: the Bible says God created humans as we are now. It doesn't say he created apes and caused them to become human. From a creationist point of view, apes and humans are separate created kinds. They explain the impossibility of "monkeys-to-man evolution" in terms of this weird argument about information. Apparently they believe that this type of evolution requires "an increase in [genetic] information", and that mutations can only cause "a decrease in information". This makes no sense to me at all. Humans aren't "more complex" than apes, are they? Don't we have the same number of chromosomes? And even if we don't, where does this increase-in-information thing come into it? And mutations can be beneficial or neutral, as well as harmful, can't they?
This is the bit I need gringer to comment on.
Other than that, the book is just great. It all makes a lot of sense. It's even inspired me to read Genesis in its entirety. I might not do that just yet, but I'll get to it before the end of the year. This kind of questioning can't be rushed. In the meantime, thanks, Hei Mun, for lending me the book. I've enjoyed very much having my ideas stretched. We must get together and talk about it sometime.
a survivor of Catholic education
ReplyDeleteOh come on, it wasn't really that bad, was it?
And am I the only atheist left at VUW? Seriously?
Quite possibly!
ReplyDelete*is depressed*
ReplyDeleteOh come on, it wasn't really that bad, was it?
ReplyDeleteI mean, a spiritual survivor - or non-survivor, depending on your point of view. High school exposure to Catholicism gave me my atheism.
Makes sense.
ReplyDeletemutations can only cause "a decrease in information"
ReplyDeletePerhaps, perhaps not. There's many different types of mutations, and it can be hard to say whether or not a specific mutation will cause information loss -- it may be that an apparent loss of information ends up being a gain of information...
assuming you start from a perfect genome, you could probably argue that all mutations will remove (or at best not increase) information. Deletions remove DNA, so that's obvious. Insertions add DNA, but the added DNA has to come from somewhere -- if it's random DNA, then you're just adding noise, otherwise you're adding a segment of DNA that is already contained in the genome*. Transpositions turn "useful" information into noise, and inversions may break up DNA that once had a useful function. I might have missed out something, but hopefully you get the point. Eventually, the whole genome will turn into a mess of white noise.
But this assumes neutral selection (i.e. no environmental pressures towards any specific mutation), and particularly that the original DNA is at the upper limit of what is considered good. If selection exists, then the process of selection itself can be considered a gain of information -- a species' genome will learn things about the environment around them. Not individually, but on a population level.
I don't really know what they're getting at with this, having not read the book.
* Except if it's a virus, or something similar. <sarcasm>But of course we all know that all viruses are bad, so they can't be adding any useful information. And anyway, viruses adding DNA to a genome isn't really mutation, is it?</sarcasm>
Thank you. As it happened, the authors were starting out their argument with a perfect genome - that of Adam, whom God created before the Fall, and who thus must have been perfect in every respect.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm hearing from you is that the 'natural-selection effect' outweighs the 'mutation effect' in terms of its importance in the process of evolution. Is that correct? As I mentioned, the authors have no problem at all with natural selection - their entire beef with evolution lies in the mutation side.
Interesting.
What I'm hearing from you is that the 'natural-selection effect' outweighs the 'mutation effect' in terms of its importance in the process of evolution.
ReplyDeleteThe two go together... usually. There can be no selection without variation. Selection decides which organisms will survive, but if there is no variation, then survival becomes much more difficult from the species' point of view. Just imagine everyone having red-green colour blindness, and think of what could happen when people got hungry.
The variation is introduced in (mostly) two ways: by mutation, and by crossover of chromosomes at meiosis. The second of these results in the greatest change in the DNA of the offspring, but that can only happen if the two parents vary significantly in the first place. So, if you started out with a huge amount of variation between Adam and Eve to start with, then mutation would not be necessary to generate the variation required for selection.
It all comes back to the same thing really: people will believe what they believe, regardless of any argument of any variety that aims to convince them otherwise, and they will justify their beliefs by whatever means work for them in blatant disregard for any such arguments.
ReplyDeleteKete Were has an interesting article about the evolution of Snakes and Lizards which might be of interest to Gringer and/or Gael.
ReplyDeletehttp://ketewere.blogspot.com/2006/02/snakes-and-lizards-venom.html