April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg KouklEvolution Is Philosophy.docx

April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg Koukl
Evolution Is Philosophy, Not Science
Greg shows that Darwinism is driven by philosophy more than
science.
I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's
Union Tribune (October 25, 1996).
It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution,
Pope John Paul II insisted that
faith and science can co-exist."
So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this
first point. If you heard my opening
address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why
I think they can co-exist if they
are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an
important part of answering the
question.)
I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that
"Charles Darwin's theories are
sound as long as they take into account that creation was the
work of God."
That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect
here at all to Pope John Paul II.
But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles
Darwin's theories--scientific
theories, theories about the origins and development of things--
are either sound or not sound. If
they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into
the picture and miraculously

make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you
don't need to add God to make
them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is
the point of evolution: mother
nature without father God.
I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles
Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not
in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of
theistic evolution.
By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things
got to be the way they are without
God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of
evolution"). This is why it made
such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into
the evolutionary picture, then
evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.
Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of
the world's preeminent
evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the
world safe for atheism. But if
Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be
that Darwin made the world safe
for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain
things that used to require the
existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so
popular and accepted within ten to
fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's
precisely because God is out of
the picture that evolution is so appealing.
When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist
Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing
to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No

problem. But that doesn't mean
Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty
of his friends believe in God, but
their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets,
inside their homes and behind the
closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and
science, God and evolution, fantasy
with fact.
Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists.
Believe in God if you want. Practice
your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you
must. Just don't pretend that it
has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the
real world, the fact of the matter is
that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through
non-directed, materialistic
processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on
this issue makes that very clear.
When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's
when evolutionists like Gould
stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand
evolution if that's what you think actually
took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't
have design by chance."
Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square
circles, ladies and gentlemen.
There is no such thing.
The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or
not, not whether we can baptize

evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.
To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter,
evolution must be dealt with
scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of
the origin of things?
I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the
more knowledge we get, the
more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary
means--the more problems we see
with the change from one kind of life into another by
evolutionary means.
The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't
helped evolution; they've hurt it.
Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so
little information about the
process. Now we know much more about the details of
biochemistry and genetics, and
information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the
simplest living thing. It's become
evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.
You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my
handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the
simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem,
proving that evolution is not based on
fact, but on philosophy.
For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally.
First, you've got to have life
coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have
a change in that life from simple
forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off,
and you must have the rest of the
game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life?
How did the game get started by
evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody
knows. Oh, there are some ideas
and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has
sketched out any way that really
answers the question. There are so many problems and
complications. There are competing
models that have been suggested, but they're just starting
places. They're just ways of saying,
"Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are
possibilities, but no one knows how it
happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail
to be compelling."
Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by
naturalistic, evolutionary
processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic,
evolutionary processes? Evolution
is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution
unless you have the fact of
abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever
take place. And if life can't be
shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get
started.
Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even
get off the ground, based on the
information we have right now. The answer you get is always
the same: Because we're here. It
must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends,
based on a prior commitment to
naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about
philosophy.
Course Syllabus Fall 2022
Directed reading in Industrial Organization
Instructor: Xiaoyong Cao ([email protected])
Class time: Tuesdays evening
Introduction: Due to the special situation we face now, we have
to organized our class in this way, you are required to watching
one video in each week and find the corresponding papers to
read and finally finish the summary job.
1) Regulation and Natural Monopoly (Dynamic analysis)
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1t7411L7uJ?p=1
2) Regulation and Natural Monopoly (Static analysis)
3) Collusion and Mergers
4) Empirical Research on Collusion 1
5) Empirical Research on Collusion 2
6) Dynamic Oligopoly and Markov Perfect Equilibrium
7) Vertical Contact Formation (Theory 1)
8) Vertical Contact Formation (Theory 2)
9) Vertical Contact Formation (Theory and Empirics)
10) the Effects of Vertical Integration

11) Market Design Meets Research Design
12) The Organization of Organ Markets
To finish this course, please focus on one topic in IO (from
the videos) and choose three or more papers to write a proposal
based on these papers, raise some interesting questions based on
those papers that you think it is possible to address in your
future research. In the research proposal, it should include
Introduction, Literature Review, and your Objections as well as
how you plan to realize your research goal.
Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian
Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures
As found on the IDEA Center website at
http://www.ideacenter.org
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by
which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was
simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight
modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot
produce
complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step
process which may gradually build up and modify complex

structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.
Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and
professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale
Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed
would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept
he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this
idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which
the removal of any one part destroys the function of the
entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then,
requires each and every component to be in place before
it will function.
As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe
presents the humble mousetrap (left). It contains 5
interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the
wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which
crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar,
and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential
for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove
the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice,
no matter how long they may dance over the contraption.
Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and
forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of
course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap
never

catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the
system.
Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system
cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with
a
wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring,
catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the
components
must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step
approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless
system
until all the components have been added. The system requires
all the components to be added at the same time, in the right
configuration, before it works at all.
How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes
that early this century, before biologists really understood the
cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings.
Without the electron microscopes and other advanced
techniques
that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the
cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of
protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that
could be observed to perform various functions while its inner
workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy,
and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection
of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have
provided detailed information about the inner workings of the
cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,
states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small,

weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable
microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely
designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up
altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more
complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely
without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is
complicated. Very complicated.
In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological
structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible
complexity
that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are
all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or
something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before,
such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it
simply won't work until all the components are present, and
Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at
once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual
mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-
complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it
certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a
half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually
hinder survival and would be selected against. But Behe is not
the
Shown above is a modified sketch of Behe's mousetrap as
taken from http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/mousetrap.htm.

The bacterial flagellum
is a cellular outboard
motor that bears the
marks of intelligent
design.
only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In
1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of
complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986) writes:
"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems
for which there is no simple explanation. There are
useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the
final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous
that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less
intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these
patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..."
Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology:
"Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria.
They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in
heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble.
One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an
organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to
create a cell or an organism one needs a preexisting
cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex

templates. A fundamental characteristic of the biological
realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its
creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal,
templates."
Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems
to prove this point, but I'll just
focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which
are used by animals and plants to
move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your
respiratory tree sweep mucous
towards the throat and thus promote elimination of
contaminants) and by single-celled organisms
to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their
own mechanism for bending. That
mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules
that are arranged in a ring.
Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types
of "bridges"-a flexible linker
bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring
microtubule. The cilia bends by activating
the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to
generate is converted to a bending
motion by the flexible linker bridges.
Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff
microtubules, linker bridges, and the
"motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is
greatly simplified (Behe notes that

over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular
system), these 3 components form the basic system, and
show what is required for functionality. For without one of
these components, the system simply will not function. We can't
evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the
microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving
around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not
do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will
not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the
motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep
on
sliding past each other till they float away from each other and
are lost.
This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe
discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of
irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in
animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial
flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very
complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified
while maintaining functionality.
Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined
the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that
“any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing
a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b.
Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech
given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference,
August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm). By

defining irreducible complexity
in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the
fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot
produce
something where there would be a non-functional intermediate.
Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures
which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be
naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible
complexity is as follows:
“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that
contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more
necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible
complexity is the number of unselected steps in the
pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by
Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March,
2002; iscid.org/)
Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single
generation as would be required for the formation of
irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of
mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for
cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination
beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a
few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion,
would convey no survival advantage because those
few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would
constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce.
Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of

evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea.
So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of
evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael
Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."
Copyright © 2004, IDEA Center. All Rights Reserved.
Permission Granted to Reproduce for Non-Profit Educational
Purposes.
www.ideacenter.org
Seanmcdowell.org accessed May 09, 2015
Understanding Intelligent Design
Where did we come from? Why are we here? How did life as we
know it come about? Are we
accidental by-products of a purposeless, dark, and cold universe
(as Darwinian evolution
teaches)? Or are we the pinnacle of creation by a loving God?
In other words: Is the world a
cosmic fluke? Or is the universe the handiwork of personal
God? Few questions, it would seem,
are more important than these.
If you’ve taken Biology 101, visited a museum lately, or
watched a recent Discovery Channel
documentary you’ve probably heard that the evidence for
evolution is overwhelming. University
Professor Francis Ayala recently said, “Scientists agree that the
evolutionary origin of animals
and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.”1

This idea shows up frequently in popular television shows, too.
For example, in a Friends
episode Phoebe and Ross discuss the merits of Darwinian
evolution. Shocked to find that
Phoebe rejects it, Ross says, “Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not
for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution
is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like
gravity.” If you look closely, you’ll also find
Darwinism being taught in the children’s movie Lilo and Stitch
and in a recent episode of The
Family Guy. The take-home lesson is simple: smart people are
supposed to believe in evolution,
and only fools believe the world was designed by God.
The Underwhelming Evidence for Evolution
Despite the common claim that evolution is duly supported by
the evidence, the facts show
otherwise. A growing number of leading scholars (with Ph.D.s
from top secular universities) are
questioning the merits of Darwin’s theory. For starters, while
there is plenty of evidence for
microevolution (small changes within a species) there is no
compelling evidence for
macroevolution (the theory that all of life descended from one
common ancestor through
random mutation and natural selection).
In science class today, the word “evolution” refers to Darwinian
macroevolution, not
microevolution. Nevertheless, it is amazing how many people
confuse the evidence for
microevolution with evidence for macroevolution. After a
Newsweek article on evolution, one
respondent wrote in to the editor in defense of Darwinism:

“They say there’s no evidence for
evolution. Yet there it is within my own lifetime. My older
sister was one of the patients saved by
the new wonder drug penicillin, which probably couldn’t save
her now because microbes have
evolved to the point that penicillin can’t kill them anymore.
That’s fact, not theory—evidence that
life forms can change over time.”2
Can you spot the confusion? While she offers evidence for
microevolution, her example is
irrelevant to the grand claims of Darwinism. If, in order to beat
the antibiotic, the bacteria had
evolved into jellyfish, that would be evidence for Darwin’s
theory. But no such transition has ever
been observed in either the lab or in the fossil record. Much of
the evidence that supposedly
supports Darwinian evolution—the Peppered Moths, Darwin’s
finches, HIV mutations, and more
—only support microevolution. The move from these examples
to Darwinism is a blind leap of
faith.
To be fair, there are other “evidences” offered by Darwinists to
support their theory. Just check
out your school textbook. But these have problems, too. For a
more in-depth treatment of the
myths of evolution, see my recent book Understanding
Intelligent Design (co-written with
William Dembski). You will love our analysis of the fossil
record!
The Case for Design

Not only are there insurmountable problems for Darwinism,
there is also powerful case to be
made that the world bears the marks of a Designer. Scientists
are just recently finding evidence
to support the claim King David made roughly 3,000 years
ago—that the world reveals
knowledge about God (Psalm 19:1-2). Consider two examples:
1. The Design of DNA. If you came across a message in the
sand that read, “John Loves Mary,”
what would you conclude caused it? Was it the result of wind,
erosion, and waves? Or is it best
explained as the work of an intelligent agent? The answer is
obvious—a mind did it. The laws of
nature simply can’t account for a message of this sort.
Since its discovery in 1953, scientists have realized that the
DNA inside a cell carries
information for the production of proteins. In fact, it’s been
estimated that one cell in the human
body has the equivalent of 8,000 books of information!
Ordinary experience tells us that
information, such as a book or computer program, comes from
an intelligent source, such as
that of an author or computer programmer. Information points
beyond itself to an information-
giver. Just as the message “John Loves Mary” points beyond
itself to an author, the information
in the human body points beyond itself to a Designer.
This evidence is so compelling that it even persuaded the most
influential atheist of the past fifty
years! Antony Flew spent most of his life arguing that God did
not exist. But when he was
confronted with the evidence of DNA, he changed his mind.

Flew said, “It now seems to me that
the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have
provided materials for a new and
enormously powerful argument to design.”3
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe. Imagine you came across
an abandoned cabin in the
woods. The temperature was set just as you like it, your favorite
music was playing, books by
your most beloved author were sitting on the table, new boots
just your size were sitting by the
door, and the fridge is filled with the snacks, drinks, and
desserts you most enjoy. What would
you conclude? Most likely, with each new discovery, you would
conclude that this home was
prepared with you in mind. The cabin, it would seem, was
crafted uniquely for you ahead of
time.
In the past few decades, scientists have realized that our
universe is just like this cabin—it is
crafted perfectly for human existence. In other words, the
universe is “fine-tuned” for human life.
The conditions that need to be satisfied for the universe to
permit human life are so remarkably
exact that even very slight variations in these conditions would
result in an inhospitable world.
Like Little Bear’s porridge, the laws of physics that govern the
universe must be “just right.” For
example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger or
weaker, life would be impossible.
To be exact, gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 1040
(that’s one part in

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).4
This is only one example of the fine-tuning necessary for human
life. Oxford physicist Roger
Penrose concluded that if we jointly considered all the laws of
nature that must be fine-tuned,
we would be unable to write down such an enormous number,
since the necessary digits would
be greater than the number of elementary particles in the
universe!5 Just as we “fine-tune” a
shower in the morning to make it tolerable, the entire universe
is fine-tuned to support human
life.
There are many more examples of design that could be
mentioned. To put it simply: the
evidence for design in the natural world is compelling. Learning
to see God’s fingerprint in
nature will not only help you ward of skeptics who challenge
why you believe in God, it will also
encourage you profoundly in your personal faith. To help make
the scientific case for design
understandable, I recently partnered with mathematician and
philosopher William Dembski to
write, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need
to Know in Plain Language.
~ Sean McDowell

April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg KouklEvolution Is Philosophy.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg KouklEvolution Is Philosophy.docx

Similar to April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg KouklEvolution Is Philosophy.docx (11)

More from jesuslightbody

More from jesuslightbody (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

April 22, 2013 STR.org Greg KouklEvolution Is Philosophy.docx