This is a long post. You have been warned.
Section 1: The Burden of Proof
The first step in our discussion is to define our terms. What do
we mean by evolution? Given the flexibility of the mechanisms
currently employed by evolutionary theorists, the theory of evolution
is best defined as the theory that naturalistic mechanisms are
responsible for life on earth. Having thus defined evolution, we must
now discuss the burden of proof. Does the creationist have to prove
that life was created? Or does the evolutionist have to prove that life
evolved?
That the answer to these questions should favor the
materialistic world view is, unfortunately, obvious to many people.
Why is this the case? Why are so many people willing to accept
materialistic propositions? The answer has to do with the success of
science in explaining natural phenomena.
As science has advanced over the last few centuries, many
primitive ideas concerning the causation of natural events have been
overturned. Because this "God of the Gaps" mentality has been
repeatedly discredited, a "Naturalism of the Gaps" mentality has
replaced it in the cultural mindset. It is one of the ironies of modern
society that this mentality (which assumes that modern science has
eliminated the possibility of supernatural causation) is almost as
ignorant as the superstitious beliefs it replaced. Consider the following
examples:
Thermodynamics:
It is one of the foundations of modern science that the ability
of a closed system to do useful work decreases over time and will
eventually go to zero. No known "natural" process can reverse this
tendency and this fact suggests that the material universe is not closed
or that some unknown phenomena is capable of reversing the laws of
thermodynamics. Either way, the "natural" laws we are familiar and
comfortable with are superseded by something that may be called
"supernatural".
Quantum Mechanics:
The "collapse of the wave function" occurs when the probability
distributions given by the wave functions of various elementary
particles translate into an actual position and momentum during an
experimental measurement. While scientists can predict the behavior
of large numbers of particles using statistical methods, the behavior of
individual particles is unpredictable. The metaphysical nature of some
of the interpretations of this idea clearly demonstrate the supernatural
implications. The Copenhagen interpretation, for example, suggests
that the observer determines the outcome of a quantum experiment.
Particle Physics:
Recent advances in string theory add credibility to the idea that
the universe started with 10 dimensions of space and time that
"compactified" into the present four. Though there is debate as to the
significance of these other dimensions, current theory regards them as
being as real as those of our everyday experience during the early
phases of the existence of our universe. Though these extra
dimensions are "natural" in the sense that they act in accordance with
known principles, the existence of dimensions beyond height, width,
depth and time wreaks havoc on our ability to claim an understanding
of nature comprehensive enough to rule out the existence of the
supernatural.
Mathematics:
Kurt Godel ended the quest for a complete and consistent
formal system in mathematics when he proved that no formal system
powerful enough to incorporate certain simple mathematical
propositions can be both consistent and complete. In other words, any
consistent mathematical system must utilize truths that are unprovable
from within the system. (i.e. Any consistent system must import truths
from some set of absolute truths outside the system.) This fact
suggests the existence of a Platonic mathematical reality undergirding
our everyday reality and unknowable by it.
General Relativity:
The equations of General Relativity predict that the universe
has expanded from a point of zero volume (a singularity). The laws
of nature at or before this point are unknown and unknowable.
None of these examples prove the existence of the supernatural,
let alone the existence of supernatural intelligence. These examples
do, however, thoroughly discredit the idea that modern science has
shown supernatural causation to be impossible.
So how do we determine the plausibility of supernatural
intelligence? What we need is a model capable of predicting the
actions of such an intelligence. Clearly, such a model is not possible.
The best that can be done is to make generalizations about the
supernatural from the standpoint of a supernatural world view that is
assumed to be true and compare these generalizations to observable
reality. (i.e. If Buddhism is true, what could we say about the
supernatural and how does this compare to what we see in our world?)
Because I am a Christian, there is only one supernatural world view
that I am interested in or capable of discussing; the Biblical world
view. So what does the Bible have to say about the supernatural?
The most important generalization about the supernatural that
can be derived from the Bible is that events which are explicitly
supernatural are rare. Consider the following:
1) John the Baptist and many other prophets in the Bible are not
recorded as having performed a single supernatural act.
2) In the 400 years from Joseph to Moses, no miracles are recorded
in Scripture. Likewise, in the 400 years from Malachi to Jesus,
no miracles are recorded in Scripture.
3) During the Incarnation, the period where a good fraction of the
supernatural activity recorded in the Bible occurs, people were
STILL asking Jesus for a sign. Even John the Baptist asked
Jesus, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for
another?" (Luke 11:3).
The second most important generalization about the
supernatural that can be derived from the Bible is that the
supernatural is often distinguished from the natural only by the vast
improbability of the timing concerned. Consider the following:
1.) Acts 16:25 tells of a violent earthquake that frees Paul and Silas
from prison.
2.) Exodus 14 records that a strong east wind parted the Red Sea for
the Israelites.
3.) 1 Kings 17 tells of a supernaturally inspired drought that covered
the land.
So the Bible tells us that we should expect the supernatural to
be rare and to appear as the natural in most cases. How convenient
for Christians. Is there some other way to test Biblical statements
about the supernatural?
There may be. The Bible says, ". . . but they became futile in
their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened." (Romans
1:21) So we might expect evolutionists to be confused about the
probability associated with events claimed by the Bible to be
supernatural in origin. Is there any evidence of this? Consider the
following two cases:
In his book **The Blind Watchmaker**, Richard Dawkins tries
to explain that the improbable origin of life scenarios he has discussed
are actually perfectly reasonable:
If on some planet there are beings with a lifetime of a million
centuries, their spotlight of comprehensible risk will extend
that much farther towards the right-hand end of the continuum.
They will expect to be dealt a perfect bridge hand from time to
time, and will scarcely trouble to write home about it when it
happens. (p. 162)
Earlier, Dawkins gave the probability associated with a perfect deal at
bridge:
Moving towards the right-hand end of the spectrum, another
landmark point is the probability of a perfect deal in bridge,
where each of the four players receives a complete suite of
cards. The odds against this happening are
2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1. (p.161)
Now if Dawkins 100 million year-old alien (10**8 years) was
playing bridge with three of his long-lived buddies such that the
average distance from deck to player was 1 meter, and if he/she/it was
dealing cards at the speed of light (3 x 10**8 m/sec or 3 x 10**8
cards/sec or 9.4608 x 10**15 cards/year), then he/she/it would succeed
in dealing a total of 9.4608 x 10**23 cards total or 1.8 x 10**22 hands.
Comparing this to the 1 in 2 x 10**27 probability calculated by
Dawkins, we see that a 100 million year old alien who had spent his
whole life dealing cards at the speed of light would STILL not expect
to have seen a single perfect deal. This from a man who has written
a Darwinian treatise on probability.
Similarly, Gould, Luria and Singer in their introductory biology
text say:
...give us enough time, and we will eventually flip 100 heads in
a row with an honest coin. (p.592)
They emphasize this claim by repeating it twice more (p.689, p. 693)
Now the chance of flipping 100 heads in a row with an honest
coin is approximately 1 in 10**30. If I gave Gould, Luria and Singer
the entire age of the universe (10**10 years or 3 x 10**17 seconds),
each flipping coins at the speed of light (each coin travelling exactly
one meter or 3 x 10**8 coins per second per scientist) then they would
flip a total of 3 x 10**26 coins. Now this is obviously a conservative
estimate, but Gould, Luria and Singer would STILL not have flipped
100 heads in a row.
When trained professionals make inherently metaphysical claims
while analyzing the probability of simple events, there is obviously
SOME kind of bias that is responsible. This bias certainly sounds like
the Biblical description, "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, . . ."
(Romans 1:22) and therefore counts as confirmation of Biblical
reliability.
So if modern science has not ruled out the possibility of
supernatural causation and if the generalizations about the
supernatural derived from the Bible are not contradicted by everyday
observations, who has the burden of proof in the origins debate? I
posit that the burden of proof rests with the evolutionist for the
following reasons:
Experience
All of us are familiar with the powers of intelligent design.
Cars, telephones and computers are all everyday examples of the
ability of intelligence to generate sophisticated mechanisms. If we do
not assume that life has evolved, on the other hand, there are no
known examples of sophisticated mechanisms coming about through
natural processes. Our everyday experience, therefore, tells us that
intelligence is required for the existence of complex mechanisms.
Consistency with World View
Those who favor intelligent design take the view that man has
a finite capacity for understanding the world around him. They believe
that there are certain things that simply cannot be understood from
the vantage point of our present perspective. Accepting that we
cannot know everything there is to know about our origins is perfectly
reasonable according to this world view.
Those who favor emergent evolution, on the other hand, take
the view that man can understand the world around him. They believe
that we have gradually evolved to the point where now we are capable
of understanding our own evolution. Their position is one that says,
"We understand, we know." whereas the creationist says, "We don't
understand, we can't be sure." Simple common sense tells us that
those who claim an understanding have the burden of proof over those
who do not claim to have an understanding.
Consequences
If Biblical Christianity is true, then the negative consequences
of rejecting God and accepting a secular world view are great at both
the national and personal level. If, on the other hand, there is no God
and man is just the product of random processes, then it doesn't make
any difference because history shows us that there are no severe
consequences for erring on the side of Christianity. If there were, then
we should have seen a marked improvement in the human condition
under the three major states that have been based on atheistic
principles: "enlightened" France, Nazi Germany and communist Russia.
Since these states have nothing to offer in comparison with the mostly
Protestant states of the United States and Britain, it is obvious that it
is preferable to err on the side of Christianity.
History of Circular Reasoning
In addition to the above reasons for giving the burden of proof
to evolutionists, I believe there is another important reason. This has
to do with the history of antisupernaturalist (i.e. materialist) thinking.
To be blunt, antisupernaturalists have a long and distinguished history
of circular reasoning and this, I believe, imposes an additional burden
of proof on modern evolutionists.
Naturalist philosopher David Hume, for example, wrote:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof
against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire
as any argument from experience that can possibly be imagined
. . . . Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the
common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man,
seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden;. . . But it is
a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has
never been observed in any age or country. There must,
therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous
event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.
(Hume, **An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding**)
Concerning this statement, C.S. Lewis wrote:
Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is
absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other
words they have never happened, why then they never have.
Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be
uniform only if we know all reports of them are false. And
we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we
know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we
arguing in a circle. (Lewis, **Miracles**)
Similarly, Immanuel Kant argued that because knowledge can
be obtained only from the five senses, it was impossible to know of any
divine agency in the universe. That this implies that any supposed
supernatural agency must be incapable of manifesting itself directly to
a human being seems to have escaped his attention.
For all of these reasons, then, the burden of proof is on the
evolutionists. The next question is what standard of proof to apply to
the theory of evolution? Should evolutionists have to prove their
theory beyond a reasonable doubt? Or is a simple preponderance of
the evidence sufficient for our purposes? Before discussing these
questions, let us look at the evidence. It may be that evolutionists
have failed to meet either standard of proof.