Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Theistic evolution

Some people believe in what they call "theistic evolution." I used to be such a person. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason gave what I thought was a pretty good refutation of theistic evolution. He argued that it's self-contradictory. There is a big difference bewteen natural selection and intentional selection. If something is selected intentionally, then it was not selected naturally. "Theistic" implies intentional selection, and "evolution" implies natural selection. Since they are mutually exclusive, "theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms.

I got to thinking, though, that a theistic evolutionist can go ahead and accept natural selection. Remember that evolution consists of two parts--mutation and natural selection. Couldn't it be that God causes some mutations he knows will be advantageous, and therefore naturally selected? Koukl argues that "natural selection" is part of the meaning of "evolution." But what about "mutation"? Does the mutation have to be random, or determined by natural law, or something along those lines before it counts as "evolution"? That, I don't know. If God caused some of the mutations that were then naturally selected, would that still be "evolution"? If so, then maybe "theistic evolution" is not a contradiction in terms after all.

Maybe I'll call Greg Koukl on Sunday and ask him what he thinks. In the meantime, what do y'all think?

Even if sound, Koukl hasn't really given us an argument against what theistic evolutionists mean by "theistic evolution." They just mean changes in species happen over time and generations because God causes the changes. All Koukl's argument accomplishes, if it is sound, is showing that theistic evolutionists should just call it something different besides "evolution." Koukl has really only refuted a term; not a concept.

Now of course I realize there are other problems with theistic evolution, or any kind of evolution, but those are beyond the scope of this post. Before any of you get all bent out of shape, I'm not taking sides on the evolution debate at this point. I'm still suspending judgment because I just don't know enough. If you want to get bent out of shape about my suspension of judgment, I can live with that.

Monday, January 29, 2007

The evolution of intelligence

I never write about evolution or debate about it because I don't know enough about it. I don't know enough to defend evolution or refute it. Scott Pruett, who does the Pensees blog, recently wrote one on Eugenics that got me to thinking about something, though. This isn't a polished thought I had, but since I did say in the beginning that "the things I write down are not meant to be things I've completely thought through and refined," but that they "are my initial ideas about things--things that just pop into my head--that may some day be developed further and refined or abandoned," I decided to go ahead and share my thoughts with you.

There's no doubt that our scientific and mathematical knowledge has greatly increased over the last few thousand years. It's incredible what we've accomplished--calculus, nuclear physics, molecular biology, space travel, etc. It would be impossible to go through all the amazing stuff we've been able to do. I think there's also no doubt that doing these things requires quite a bit of intelligence.

Now here's the interesting thing for me. It doesn't seem like our intelligence has increased at all over the last few thousand years. In fact, I'm quite certain it hasn't increased at all in the last 10,000 years, at least. There are a couple of reasons why I say that.

First, because North and South America were pretty much isolated from the rest of the world about 10,000 or 12,000 years ago. When Europeans arrived about 500 years ago, they found the natives basically living in the stone ages (maybe with the exception of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans). Yet it turns out there is no difference in intelligence between native Americans and Europeans or Asians. Or at least if there is a difference, it's not significant enough to tell. That means that in spite of living in the stone ages, these people were just as intelligent as the people who developed radio, space travel, and nuclear bombs.

It would seem to me to be an incredible coincidence if two people who lived in isolation from each other for 10,000 years or more, under very different conditions, nevertheless evolved exactly the same. There's really no difference between Asians, Europeans, and native Americans. That leads me to believe Asians and Europeans were just as intelligent back when they were living in the stone ages, too. In fact, all mankind must've been just as intelligent when living in the stone ages as they are today.

Second, ancient civilizations like China that go back 10,000 years or so have left records that seem to indicate an intelligence no different than our own. All we have done since then is build on previous knowledge. That's the only reason we are advanced now. It isn't because we're smarter. It's because we have a long history of built-up knowledge behind us.

These two observations make me pretty certain that humans across the globe have not evolved intellectually in the last 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago, all of us, with the exception of the Chinese, were living pretty primitively. Up until then, we likely always had. I doubt we'd find more advanced civilizations by moving back farther in time from then. That means humans were far more intelligent than necessary back then.

As I said above, I don't know that much about evolution. But from what I understand, there are basically two mechanisms that cause things to evolve--mutation and natural selection. Mutations occur during reproduction. The offspring gains something in its DNA that wasn't there in its parents' DNA. There are three kinds of mutations--those that result in a disadvantage, those that result in an advantage, and those that make no difference. Rarely do you ever hear of a creature being born with a deformity that it advantageous to its survival, but you always hear about deformity resulting in a disadvantage. Who knows how many mutations make no difference at all! Nature tends to weed out disadvantages, and it selects advantages because advantages make it easier to survive and reproduce whereas disadvantages make it more difficult.

You would think, then, that a mutation wouldn't propogate unless it gave the species an advantage. Since mutation is necessary before natural selection can operate to cause a species to evolve, several generations of mutation and natural selection have to occur before a species as a whole can change significantly. Each generation would have to mutate in a beneficial way that built on the previous beneficial mutation.

In this case, I've been talking about intelligence. I can see how evolution could produce intelligent creatures, but that intelligence would have to be suited to the world those creatures lived in. Unless some added intelligence gave a creature an advantage, it would be a superfulous mutation. But humans were far more intelligent than necessary 10,000 years ago. That means that for several generations, superfulous mutations kept adding to each other. We kept getting smarter even though natural selection wasn't causing it.

I find it incredible that there is such a diversity of races in the world, yet no noticeable different in intelligence between them. There are different races, I presume, because they all evolved in such a way that they would be adapted to their divers environments. That means that to an extent, they have been evolving independently from each other for a long time. Yet intellectually they're all the same. If they evolved pretty much independently, yet they have all reached the same degree of intelligence, then I would find it hard to believe their intelligence evolved independently.

This last observation leads me to believe our intelligence hasn't changed at all since migrating people first began to develope noticeable differences in their races. Surely that goes back much farther than 10,000 years ago. Imagine how primitive our ancestors must've been then, yet just as intelligent as we are today.

There really are a lot of things that evolution doesn't explain to me. I say "to me" because I'm sure somewhere somebody has managed to account for these things under evolutionary theory. This intelligence thing is just one example. Another example I've found striking for longer than intelligence is our appreciation of art, music, natural beauty, humour, and things like that. What advantages do these things have? And why is it that they are universal? Why do so many people find sunsets to be "beautiful," and why do so many people have a sense of humour? Why does anybody have a sense of humour?

I know that my reasoning above could be all faulty. I know my knowledge of the subject is primitive. But these things don't cause me to want to reject evolution altogether. They do make me highly suspicious, though, that there aren't exceptions to evolution. Even if I grant that species have changed significantly over time, I doubt that mutation and natural selection are the only means by which they have changed. I'll say something more about that in the next blog.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Prophetic accuracy

There are a lot of Christians out there who say that 100% acccuracy isn't necessary for a true prophet. They'll say that even a true prophet will sometimes get things wrong. They'll be mistaken at least part of the time. Giving false prophecies does not, necessarily, make somebody a false prophet. I want to mention a few reasons for why I have a hard time accepting that.

First, what is a false prophet if not somebody who gives false prophecies? I wonder if there's a scale or something. Maybe if you get 50% or more right, and the rest wrong, you're a true prophet, and if you get 50% or more wrong, and the rest right, then you're a false prophet. Or maybe you have to be 100% wrong all the time in order to be a false prophet. Or maybe you have to be wrong more than 70% of the time to be a false prophet. I would like to ask some of these people how much you can get wrong and still not be a false prophet. I suppose they could argue that you could get 99% wrong, and as long as you still got one genuine prophecy from God, you are a true prophet. They might respond to the above question by saying, "What is a true prophet if not somebody who gives true prophecies?"

Second, it's hard enough discovering that somebody is a true prophet and really hears from God. In all my life, I've never met such a person. But imagine if, on top of that difficulty, is the added difficulty of discovering whether any particular prophecy uttered by a true prophet is really from God! No matter how many times a prophet proved himself, you could never confidently listen to them.

Third, if a true prophet is sometimes mistaken, then they obviously can't distinguish between the voice of God and their own imagination. Why should they even trust their own prophecies if they know they can't make this distinction? If they are in no position to tell, think how much less the rest of us are in a position to tell!

Fourth, and finally, I've just never seen any Biblical justification for this position, while I have seen plenty of Biblical justification for calling somebody a "false prophet" who speaks presumptuously in the name of God.