Evolution

Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe

Jon Dykstra

When Darwin first published On the Origin of the Species, the science of his time saw the cell as an uncomplicated organism. That’s quite the contrast with what we’ve learned in the 150 years since: the deeper we delve into life on the smallest scale, the more we find there is yet to discover. Even the simplest cells are more intricate than the most complex automated factories.

In the five short videos that follow, Dr. Michael Behe shares “secrets of the cell” to show us how evolution’s random mutation and time simply can’t account for the magnificent design we find even on the cellular level. And in each episode, he uses helpful analogies and computer animations to introduce key Intelligent Design concepts.

Behe is one of the principal figures behind the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement, which argues that Nature gives evidence of being intelligently designed. Creationists would agree, but the two groups part ways on who gets the credit. ID proponents refuse to name their Intelligent Designer, leaving room in their tent for Muslims, Moonies, Christians, and even agnostics (some of whom might believe in thousands of years, and others who hold to millions of years). Meanwhile, creationists give glory specifically to God for how fearfully and wonderfully we have been made.

Thus these ID videos, on their own, don’t bring us to the Truth. However, they do a fantastic job of exposing the evolutionary lie.

Episode 1: Someone Must Have the Answer! (4 minutes)

In the opening episode, Dr. Michael Behe introduces us to “the unseen world of organic micro-machines” contained inside the “most fundamental unit of life,” the cell. He also shares how he first came to question the explanatory power of Darwin’s Theory:

“My own view of the cell took a turn years ago. I was in a lab at the National Institutes of Health doing postdoctoral research; I was discussing the origin of life with a fellow postdoc. As she and I thought about the cell, we wondered, how could its complex membrane, proteins, metabolism, genetic code, how could all that have formed by the accumulation of undirected changes? So we were both sort of stunned by the notion. But then we just laughed it off. We figured that even if we didn’t know the answer, somebody must know…”

But that isn’t what he found.

Episode 2: The Complexity of Life (5 minutes)

One of the key evidences of Intelligent Design is how some biological “machines” could not have evolved via any sort of step-by-step process – they need all the steps already in place to function. This is what Behe calls “irreducible complexity” and he gives as one example, the flagellum – a type of “outboard motor” that some single-cell bacterium use to move about.

“[It] has a number of parts a driveshaft, a universal joint, a rotor, bushings, stator, even a clutch and braking system. The motor of the flagellum has been clocked at a hundred thousand revolutions per minute and…removing even one component of this elegant machine destroys its function…”

So how could such an irreducibly complex machine have been “developed blindly, in stages”?

Episode 3: The Power of Evolution (6 minutes)

Behe begins with how bugs are amazing, and far more intricate than anything Man can engineer. In fact, there is a whole field of science called biomimetics, or biomimicry devoted to improving human designs by studying bug and animal mechanisms that are “both precise and purposeful.” Did you know that one bug even comes complete with gears?!? 

Behe talks about mutation and natural selection, and because these are key elements of Darwin’s Theory, Christians sometimes make the mistake of thinking we must oppose and deny their impact. But the way to figure out the truth isn’t simply to hold to a position 180-degrees from that of mainstream science – evolutionists can’t be trusted to be that reliably wrong.

The key difference between evolution and creation is not in whether mutation and natural selection happen, but rather in what they can accomplish. Evolutionists say mutation and natural selection can, together, create wholly new species, accidentally. We argue that the changes possible are of a more minor sort, and the potential for them is largely built-in, or the changes come about as a result of mutations causing information loss, which would be better called devolution.

Episode 4: Effects of Mutation (7 minutes) 

Richard Lenski’s 30-year long E coli bacteria experiment is one of the most popular, and seemingly best examples of evolution observably happening. Mutations had helped the offspring grow faster, and grow bigger than their ancestors.

But what sort of mutations were these? It turned out that they involved broken genes. Thus this was, once again, devolution and did nothing to explain the growth in complexity that would be needed to take us from the simple first molecules to the awesome creature that is Man.

But how does breaking genes help a cell grow faster? Behe notes that just as jettisoning key car parts – maybe the doors, most of the seats, the hood, and cigarette lighter – might allow it to run further on a tank of gas, so, too, some broken genes can increase a cell’s ability to reproduce in a given environment…but only at the expense of the complexity it might need to deal with other circumstances. As Behe puts it, such

“…helpful mutations are not a DNA upgrade.”

Episode 5: The X Factor in Life (8 minutes)

In this conclusion, Behe invites us to follow where the evidence takes us.

Conclusion

For more Michael Behe, be sure to check out his full-length free documentary Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of the Molecular Machines, which is both an account of the man, and also a history of the Intelligent Design Movement. The film, and my review, can be found here.

Jon Dykstra is the editor of Reformed Perspective.

Why I am a six-day evolutionist

Jon Dykstra

blind-fish

We all know that fish is a good source of protein, but did you know that some are a good source of information? It’s true – I know that evolution is true and it’s all because a little fish told me.

The Astyanax mexicanus is a cave-dwelling fish. The river-dwelling version of this species can see with the best of them, but this, the cave-dwelling cousin, has adapted to its lightless surroundings by losing its eyes. As a result, the two versions of this fish look quite distinct. However, they can still be interbred which shows that they are the same species.

The evolution of the blind fish

The history of this fish is easy to imagine. At one point some sighted fish made their way into dark caves where they were subsequently trapped. These caves had no light so their eyes served no useful purpose to them. Not only were their eyes useless, having eyes in this environment might actually have been harmful in one critical way: eyes are softer than the rest of a fish, so as these fish bumped around in the dark their eyes were susceptible to gouging and cuts from the rocky protrusions on the cavern walls.

So imagine that a fish without eyes is born into this environment. In the outside world, this would be a disadvantage. But here, in the darkness, no eyes simply means it has no soft flesh to get gouged. This eyeless fish is, therefore, hardier and fitter than its sighted siblings. That makes it more likely that this blind fish will reproduce and pass on its blindness to the next generation.

Over a number of generations this blind fish and its offspring must have competed with the sighted fish until only the blind fish – the fitter fish – remained.

This is a clear example of survival of the fittest, of evolution in action, and it is quite convincing. It is why I am an evolutionist.

Evolution’s two meanings

But while I may be an evolutionist, I don’t deny that God created the world in six literal days, because, after all, that’s what the Bible tells us. I’m an evolutionist, but I’m also a creationist. I was rather shocked when I first came to this realization. I had been raised a creationist and for a very long time I thought that meant I had to reject evolution in any and all forms.

But it turns out that the word “evolution” can mean a number of different things, and some of those meanings do not conflict with the biblical account. There are two very common meanings to the word:

  • Evolution is often used to describe the small changes that animal species may undergo over time. Perhaps a species of bird might, on average, start having larger beaks – scientists would readily call this evolution. This particular use of the word is sometimes referred to as microevolution. Animal species are adaptable (just think of how dogs have adapted in a variety of ways to meet different needs) so this use of the word isn’t particularly controversial.
  • A second use of the word is where the battle actually commences. “Evolution” can be used as a descriptor for the theory that says man evolved from a single cell, which in turn emerged from the primordial soup eons ago. This molecule-to-man hypothesis is sometimes called macroevolution and it directly conflicts with the six-day creation account given in Genesis 1 and 2.

Equivocation

The reason this all matters is because evolutionists often use examples of microevolution to try to prove macroevolution, their molecules-to-man hypothesis. And similarly sometimes amateur creationists waste their time (and their credibility) arguing against microevolution because they think they have to be against all things evolutionary.

The Astyanax mexicanus fish is a good example in both cases. Since this fish seems to have adapted to its dark cave environments by losing its eyes, evolutionists think it is compelling proof of their molecules-to-man theory. It is so compelling that this blind fish might bother some creationists.

But creationists need not worry – the blind fish’s beneficial mutation doesn’t contradict creationism. We live in a fallen world, and that means children and offspring are sometimes born with handicaps via mutations. An eyeless fish is just another normal outcome of this fallen state. Most often these mutations will be harmful but in some rare circumstances, like the Astyanax mexicanus fish, the mutation may actually be beneficial. But it is important to note here that the loss of eyes is an example of devolution, rather than evolution. This fish has lost an ability it once had – the part of its genetic code responsible for making eyes has been short-circuited. The molecules-to-man theory of evolution says that complex life arose from simpler life, but this blind fish is an example of a complex animal becoming simpler and less developed.

If this fish is evidence of anything, it is that we live in a broken world (Rom. 8:22).

Conclusion

In any debate it is vital to first define the terms. This is particularly important in the creation/evolution debate since it is by confusing the terms that evolutionists make their most compelling case. They can’t point to macroevolution in action so instead they use examples of microevolution. Then they act as if there is no difference between the two, calling both the same thing – evolution.

Therefore creationists have to be careful that when they argue against evolution they haven’t made the mistake of arguing against microevolution. Arguing against microevolution is a losing proposition since we see animals undergoing small changes all around us. Evolution in this sense is an indisputable fact.

But evolution on a larger scale – the whole molecules-to-man hypothesis – flies in the face of what God tells us in the Bible, and also what He shows us via the degeneration and decay we see going on in the world around us. So I am, and will remain, a six-day evolutionist.

Why haven’t we heard from ET?

Jon Dykstra

cowalienSome 70 years ago physicist Enrico Fermi looked up at the stars and wondered where everyone was at. With billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, it seemed inconceivable to him that ours would be the only planet to evolve life. So where was everyone?

His query is now called Fermi’s Paradox, and on March 18 a group of about 60 scientists met in Paris to share their latest theories as to why we haven’t heard from any of our galactic neighbors. Live Science’s Mindy Weisberger shared some of their creative ideas:

  • The “zoo hypothesis” – Earth is like a galactic animal reserve where aliens are leaving us alone to be observed in our natural habitat.
  • We’ve been quarantined – aliens know about us, but don’t like us.
  • Aliens are trapped by their superplanets’ intense gravity and they can’t come out to meet us.
  • Aliens have come and gone, dying off before we had a chance to connect with them.

Three days after the Paris conference Cosmos dug deeper into Fermi’s Paradox with an even more vexing question: where are all the “von Newmann probes”?

What’s a von Newmann probe, you ask? Well, back in the 1960s, mathematician John von Newmann argued that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to build a space probe that could mine raw materials on other planets and use those to make replicas of itself. These replicas would, in turn, build other copies. And as the process repeated, the number and spread of these self-replicating “von Newmann probes” would expand exponentially until, as Cosmos’ Lauren Fuge put it, “in a relatively short space of time – perhaps as little as 10 million years – the galaxy would be teeming with these exploratory machines.”

But there are no hordes, teeming or otherwise. So, again, where is everyone?

The Cosmos article offered, as a possible explanation, astrophysicist Duncan Forgan’s “predator-prey hypothesis,” soon to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Journal of Astrobiology. Forgan argues that “self-replication could result in encoding errors” and that maybe some of these coding errors could lead to some of these probes taking a predatory turn. If they did, then perhaps the reason we don’t see these teeming hordes is because the predatory probes are hunting down and destroying the other probes.

Hmmm….

While these various hypotheses make for incredibly creative speculation, they all share one thing in common: there are no facts to back them up. In fact, the only “evidence” for any of these theories is that aliens haven’t contacted us.

So why did scientists bother meeting to swap what amounts to untestable, unverifiable, just-so stories? Why did Live Science and other media outlets bother covering the Paris event? And why did Cosmos think Forgan’s theory worth sharing? 

They covered them because these stories – to the undiscerning – seem to offer an explanation to Fermi’s Paradox and the problem it presents to evolutionary theory. But they’re just stories. And what does it say about the theory if its defenders are willing to hype stories that the public will mistake for scientific, factual, or evidence-based?

Here’s a different sort of hypothesis to consider: what if ET just isn’t out there? What if life, instead of being easy to come by, only happens via miraculous means? And God only did so here on Earth?

It’s worth noting that there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against the possibility of life being on other planets. But while the Bible allows for life on other planets, evolution would seem to demand it – if life can just happen, then someone else should be out there. It’s only when life is miraculous that it becomes understandable that it might be rare.

Now here’s a question for our evolutionary friends: if we suppose that dumb, unplanned, undirected luck can create life, why can’t the world’s most brilliant minds, using available blueprints (from living creatures), and working with quadrillions-of-calculations-per-second supercomputers, in laboratories staffed with every device and chemical they could possibly want, manage to make even a single living cell? If living things can come about by chance, why hasn’t anyone created them on purpose?

Looking at evolutionists’ still-lifeless labs we can’t help but ask again: where is everyone?

*****

In 2013 cartoonist Zach Weinersmith crafted a cartoon and gave the talk below on his “Infantapaulting Hypothesis” in which he theorized that the reasons babies are so aerodynamic is because they used to be catapulted into neighboring villages, to increase their chances of finding a mate among a more genetically diverse population. He was satirizing the tendency among evolutionists to indulge in “just-so stories” – to indulge in creative hypotheses that might fit the available evidence but which are not testable. If a fellow who still believes in Darwin’s theory can be this brilliant, insightful, and hilarious in exposing evolutionary flaws, can creationists take this further and be even funnier?   

Creation/Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

Wes Bredenhof

Dr. Geoff Downes is the director of Forest Quality Pty. Ltd., a private research company in Tasmania seeking to develop and apply technology for non-destructive evaluation of wood properties in trees.  His Ph.D. is from the University of Melbourne in Wood Science and Forest Nutrition.  He works on a voluntary basis for Creation Ministries International.  The Free Reformed Church of Launceston recently welcomed Dr. Downes to speak on the topic of “Creation/Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences.”

Theistic Evolution and the Creation of “Human Beings”

Wes Bredenhof

Back in late 2009, some ministerial colleagues and I were discussing with concern the apparently growing influence of evolutionary thinking in the Canadian Reformed Churches.  What could we do about it?  Five of us decided to collaborate on an article, “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil.”  Authored by Walter Geurts, George van Popta, John van Popta, Jim Witteveen and yours truly, this was published in the January 1, 2010 issue of Clarion.  You can find it online here.

At the beginning of March 2010, an 11-part series of responses began to be published on the Reformed Academic blog.  It’s not my intent to interact with those responses as such.  Rather, I want to point out one particular point of response.  It relates to something I’ve read more recently.

One of the “ten reasons” was that “Evolution must regard Genesis 2:8 as mythical.”  Rev. John van Popta argued that the creation of Adam was a special act of God.  Adam was created from literal dust as the first human being.  Genesis 2:8 gives us history, not myth or allegory.

In their response, Reformed Academic (RA) insisted they agree:  “We fully affirm the main point of this paragraph, namely that man is a special creation.”  They pointed that there are those who “lend credence” to the theory of common ancestry who also affirm “the clear Biblical teaching of the soul, and that the human person is made uniquely and specially in the image of God.”  RA maintained that they do not join with those who regard Adam as a-historical.  At first glace, all of this may seem quite palatable and encouraging.

What was sometimes not recognized in the early stages of this debate was that some words were being used equivocally.  What we meant by “Adam as the first human being created specially by God from the dust in history,” did not necessarily mean the same thing as what they meant by that.  People can say that and yet lend credence to the theory of common ancestry.  One way is by positing the existence of pre-Adamite hominids.  These are human-like creatures supposed to have existed before and with Adam.  There could have been hundreds of generations of these hominids which had evolved over millions of years.  But no human beings!  No, Adam is still the first human being.  God selects a pair of hominids, pulls them out of their lowly origins (“dust”), and bestows on them his image.  At that point, they become human beings with souls.  It’s important to realize:  in this view, this really happens at some point in history.  So everything is preserved intact:  the possibility of biological macro-evolution (common ancestry), Adam as the first human being specially created by God in his image, and Genesis as an actual historical record.

In the thick tome Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique, Wayne Grudem has a 54-page essay entitled, “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines.”  Grudem makes many valid points.  However, I can imagine some theistic evolutionists reading it and offering a similar critique to what RA offered on some of our ten reasons.  Let me mention a few examples.

Grudem states that, according to theistic evolution, “Adam and Eve were not the first human beings (and perhaps they never even existed).”  But a theistic evolutionist could put his hand up and say, “Wait a moment, Dr. Grudem.  With you, I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.  There were no human beings before this historical couple.  Your critique doesn’t apply to me, even though it’s true that I lend credence to the theory of common ancestry.”

For another example, Grudem writes that proponents of theistic evolution state that “Adam and Eve were born from human parents.”  Again, we could imagine an evolutionist protesting:  “No, I don’t believe Adam and Eve came from human parents.”  Hominid parents, perhaps, but definitely not humans.  After all, Adam and Eve are the first human beings.  We all agree on that!

One more example:  “Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin, for human beings existed long before Adam and Eve and they were always subject to death.”  “No, Dr. Grudem, with you I believe that human death came from the fall into sin in Genesis 3.  There was no human death before Adam and Eve, because there were no human beings before them.”  If we talk about hominid death, that’s a different topic, but not relevant in the theistic evolutionist’s mind.  With us they can insist there was no human death before Adam and Eve.

This is a significant weak spot in Grudem’s essay.  Perhaps he hasn’t encountered these kinds of counter-arguments.  It’s but one more demonstration that we need to be carefully dissecting these matters and not always taking everything at face value.  Just because someone says they believe Adam and Eve to be real historical figures doesn’t mean they mean what you mean.  You have to ask; you have to dig deeper.  Just because someone says they believe Adam and Eve to be the first human beings doesn’t mean common ancestry/evolution is out of the question.  You have to ask probing questions like:  as a biological creature, was the individual later called Adam brought into physical existence by the meeting of a sperm with an egg?  Or:  as a biological creature, was the individual later called Eve ever nourished at the breasts of a creature which had given birth to her?  Then you might find out what you’re really up against and be able to formulate arguments which will better get to the heart of the matter.