Presuppositions 2

Isn't there proof (or at least evidence) for evolution?

What we have are facts (either first hand or retold). Some bones found in a certain place, in a certain rock formation. If retold, then all we really have is our faith (trust) in the truthfulness of the one reporting.

This is a real problem. Piltdown man was hailed as evidence of evolution for over forty years, until it was determined to have been a hoax.

The real issue is that evidence is often interpreted from the basis of our presuppositions. Let us return to a previous article:

"But recently biologists have suggested that females could benefit from mating with many men"

Evolutionary theory failed to produce a unified prediction. Some biologists thought women would favor casual sex, some thought the opposite. When the data arrived, some were found to be right, some wrong. But that is not solidifying your theory, that is a flexible story which adapts to facts.


From Biblical presuppositions, I don't think I could make a prediction. All humans are sinners, and comparing a propensity to sin is a hard problem. But there is an interesting insight from Romans 1:26, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature".

The Bible teaches that the male was created directly from the earth (Adam comes from the word for the color of mud). The female was one step removed from the earth (being created from the man's rib).

In some way, the corruption of women is a sign that society has completely turned from God (and God gives us over to the consequences of our rebellion).

So, we should worry, because women in our society are showing the signs that Paul speaks of. But, on the positive side, there is still some remnant of conscience (as this study shows).

Presuppositions

The term "apologetics" comes from the Greek word apologia. It is translated 'answer' in 1 Peter 3:15: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear".

This "answer" is a logical and reasoned response to justify our trust in God. We are reasonable and logical, because we are created in God's image, and God is reasonable and logical (Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD").

There are two main approaches to apologetics: "evidential" and "presuppositional".

Evidential apologetics focuses on archaeological and documented evidence that supports the Bible.

Presuppositional apologetics simply says, "What is your foundation?" The atheist (or humanist) stands on his own support - "I am the judge of truth". The theist says, "I am insufficient to determine truth, God is the giver of truth".

That's it.

Isn't this circular?

Yes it is, both are circular...

The humanist says:

• I am the sole judge of truth
• I do not need God
• Therefore, there is no God

The theist says:

• I need God to determine truth (special revelation: the Bible)
• The Bible describes God, and declares that it is God's truth
• God is as described in the Bible

You can have a circle centered on fallible, limited, lying self; or a circle centered on the all knowing, infallible God.

Falsifiable

I've been told that evolution is science because it is falsifiable. What would it take to falsify evolution?

The bulk of evolutionary theory is based on "morphology", the study of physical forms. For extinct species, it is the only basis.

DNA analysis tells us what is really going on inside a living organism (whether or not we assume common descent).

So what happens when DNA analysis overturns an entire branch of the "evolutionary tree"?

"With this study, we learned two major things. First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."

(Note that this analysis is based on comparison of just 8,000 bits of DNA)


Similar mistakes are made on the human scale. Some people attempt to justify casual sex through an appeal to biology. A recent article notes:

"Indeed, during the ovulatory phase (between days 10 to 18 of their cycle), women report increased sexual desire and arousal, with a preference for short-term partners."

When biology informs us what is right and wrong, we get "If it feels right, just do it" (Ironically, many who call themselves Christians believe the same thing, and blame it on the Holy Spirit).

"It seemed obvious that if our female ancestors really were adapted to short–term relationships they ought to enjoy them, just like men do."

Of course, when biology then makes us feel guilty...

"Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women."

It's evolution! The title of the article, "Women Have Not Adapted To Casual Sex". (Note, this is not a reference to recent "adaptation", but long term "evolutionary" adaptation).

The Bootstrap Problem

The first computers were hardwired, that is, the program was built into the computer. Turn it on, and the program just runs. Reprogramming required turning it off, and rearranging lots of cables and switches.

The development of fully programmable computers introduced a new problem - the "bootstrap" problem (from an old story about lifting yourself up by pulling on your shoelaces [boostraps]).

The problem:

• A fully programmable computer has no set program.
• When the computer turns on, it needs to find the program to run
• The computer needs a program to tell it what program to run

There is a similar problem in biology:

• DNA is the "program" for organisms (it directs their construction, including reproduction)
• DNA breaks down outside of the cell environment (primarily the cell wall)
  
• The cell wall is constructed by instructions in DNA (it will not form naturally)
  

When Darwin formulated his theory, there was no understanding of cell biology. He even lacked an understanding of heredity (the ground breaking research was occurring about the same time, but there was no communication).



During my time developing computers, I was part of a small team which uncovered a problem in the boot process of a new computer system.

• The boot code lived in a chip called the "BIOS"
• This chip was connected off another chip called the "Southbridge" (through a "bus")
  
• The Southbridge powered up in a state which required a certain bit to be set in order to enable that bus
• The code to set that bit was in the BIOS code
  

This one minor problem survived the inspection of dozens of smart people over scores of hours of review. And it would have stopped the system dead.

The simplest DNA code (a bacterium) is 150,000 bits long - human DNA is 7,500,000,000 bits. The most complex computer programs are about 1/10 of that (and DNA codes proteins which are far more powerful than the instructions in a computer).

Knowledge and Values

There was a recent article which I find informative on the current "debate" on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

They start with:

"But will that [more] knowledge necessarily help build support for the science?"

That's an interesting statement. It's reflective of an underlying attitude: that science, any science, is good; and that anyone who is intelligent will support more science. That only the ignorant (religious folk) would question science.

Then there is:

"It is not about providing religious audiences with more scientific information. In fact, many of them are already highly informed about stem cell research, so more information makes little difference in terms of influencing public support. And that's not good or bad. That's just what the data show."

Well, how kind to acknowledge that some ignorant, religious folk are actually highly informed. And then to follow it up with the non-statement that this is neither"good or bad".

If ESCR is ethical (i.e. killing human beings in their earliest stage of development will be permitted by society), then opposing it is contrary to society's value (which is the only definition of "bad" the atheist has).

If ESCR is unethical, then opposing it is good.

I'm just surprised that we needed a study to determine that more knowledge will not make one lose one's values...

It did provide a final thought:

"The attitudes of individuals who are deferential to science - who tend to trust scientists and their work - are influenced by their level of scientific understanding."

Those who reject trust in God (who trust in men) are supportive of their rebel gods! Again, shouldn't need a study for that.

Book Review

"Introduction to Christianity" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) - This book was written in 1968, in German. I think something was lost in translation of the title. A better title would be, "The Epistemological Foundations of Christianity". Because, I don't think an "Introduction" should use big words and arguments based on philosophical first principles :)

That said, this book was solid, if a bit heavy and a little slow. The first section is on presuppositionalism, and was fairly well done. It was while reading this that I came to a better appreciation of how understanding is a gift, to be received.

Some oddities, page 245:

"For the salvation of the mere individual there would be no need of either a Church or a history of salvation, an Incarnation or Passion of God in this world."

I think this point reveals a difference of opinion in soteriology and the meaning of "church"... As well as judgment, page 324:

"judgment of all men 'according to their works'... Perhaps in the last analysis it is impossible to escape a paradox whose logic is completely disclosed only to an experience of a life based on faith."

Protestant soteriology breaks this paradox. We are saved from judgment as a gift of grace, in faith - turning (repenting) from sin, and trusting in Jesus. This enables truly good works, which will be judged for the awarding of "crowns" (heavenly rewards). Of course, the ability to do these works are, in themselves, gifts from God, and we return these crowns to God (Rev 4:10) - to glorify Him.

Although there is a good presentation on the state of human (works) righteousness, page 258:

"all human righteousness is dismissed as inadequate."

As well as proper exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount as a provoking of the conscience.

I think the most striking aspect of this book was how it seemed to speak to the current mindset of people, despite having been written forty years ago! Truly, an accurate analysis of where thinking at that time would lead us.

Book Review

"Surprised by Hope" (N. T. Wright) - I found this book rather frustrating to read. Wright is targeting a group of Christians I am not too familiar with. These are dispensationalists who focus more on the intermediate heavenly state, than on the final united new heaven and earth.

I'm not certain how important this distinction is. The Bible makes it clear that the heavens and earth will be destroyed, and God will reside with us in the new earth (no separate heaven). Beyond this, the peculiars of timing are non-essential.

I had assumed Wright's eschatology was post-mil. He seems to be backing off of this (if he ever fully was). But, his motivation is still post-mil. That is, the Church must act to make the world a better place.

This leads to his oddest statement in the book. He is almost obsessed with third world debt. He says (page 216):

"As far as I can see, the major task that faces us in our generation, corresponding to the issue of slavery two centuries ago, is that of the massive economic imbalance of the world"

On the face of it, this is boldly absurd. The exploitation of the poor by the rich is a constant factor in history since the invention of money (and is not going away until the abolition of personal wealth). Pastor Wilson has an excellent in-depth analysis of Wright's "solution".

But, I'm curious how Wright can overlook abortion. I will be generous, and assume he means "the major task, after the abomination that is abortion and the assault on the right to life"...