One of the things we should have realized by now is that the world around us is far crazier than we could ever have dreamed. Just when we have finally accommodated ourselves to taking yesterday’s staggering discoveries for granted, along comes another one. Our sinful hearts have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted, and even we are having trouble keeping up.
Word now comes that the language of DNA is not limited to one language. This is more than just a genetic palimpsest. This means that we have, at least in some places, a line of code that is coded in two different ways in order to perform two different functions. It is as though the boss at the factory said something like “turn on the fitzoblaster” and two different employees understood him perfectly, and went and turned on two different machines, and both employees did exactly what the boss wanted — obeying his command in two different but homophonic languages. But the boss, under evolutionary assumptions, along with the factory, both came into being as the result of a huge explosion in a nearby junkyard. As in, ka-blooie.
Malcolm Muggeridge once said that evolution in retrospect will be seen as one of the great jokes of history. If it keeps up much longer, it will be the premier howler of history.
Now my point here is to note that the God who does this kind of staggering thing is the same God who gave us Scripture. Why should we assume that His revelation is merely “inerrant”? Why should we stop there?
Whenever I write on this, I want to be extremely cautious. I do have problems with the standard understanding of inerrancy, but not because it claims too much for Scripture. My problem is that it claims far too little. Because it tends to claim too little, in the same kind of way that Muslims claim aboriginal authority for the Arabic Koran only, descended from Heaven, we tend to get stuck on petty discrepancies that are actually not discrepancies at all.
I am a biblical absolutist. But I also believe that we are only on the cusp of understanding the ramifications of this.
Commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture has to extend both into the past and the future. As far as the past is concerned, we are children of the Reformation, and so we answer to the ad fontes summons. We want to give ourselves to exegetical study of Scripture in the canonical languages, and we want to increase biblical literacy with the canonical texts as the foundation stones.
But there is a future-oriented aspect to this as well. Scripture is spring-loaded beforehand for translation. Translation into every human language is not a bug, it is a feature. Bible translation is not like the telephone game, where we are gradually moved farther and farther away from what God originally said. It works the other way around. The more we labor in the Word, taking it to the nations, the better we understand it.
Think of it this way. The Lord Jesus taught in Aramaic, a dialect descended from Hebrew. But the canonical text that we have in the gospels is all in Greek. When we get back to the autographs of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we are already one generation removed from the words that Jesus actually spoke. This, incidentally, is a help to us in resolving certain synoptic discrepancies, but I have a larger point at present.
The process of translation adds to our understanding of God’s Word. It does not subtract from it. I am, of course, assuming genuine efforts at translation, and not incompetent efforts or heretical ones. The more good and godly translations we have, the better it gets. The more we have scholars laboring in Hebrew and Greek, the better it is, and the more their work results in a vast array of Bible translations downstream, the better it is.
The Westminster Confession says that God not only gave us His Word in the original, but that He providentially preserved that Word down through history (WCF 1.8). He did not do this by means of one solitary manuscript kept in a safe box, but rather through the glorious mess that we otherwise call by the name of church history. But it just looks like a mess. God is up to something big.
I’m having trouble understanding why multiple DNA languages is incompatible with evolution (and I actually do have a biology degree). So, without using too many big words, please start at the top and explain why you think this discovery tends to show that evolution didn’t happen.
Eric, you might try Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box as a starting point. He explains how, statistically, the interrelatedness of multiple detailed activities at the cellular level could not have all changed at the same moment.
Eric, In good nature (no scowling), and not being the esteemed site owner, I think that your question is asking for something separate from what is seems to be asking. To depersonalize it just a bit (not “your question” but “the question”) is insisting upon an answer from a supposed position: a scientific answer proving the existence (or not) of “evolution”. Nonetheless, as a Christian, I must, as a created being, bow in submission to Words such as “In the beginning, God…” God says that faith comes before understanding, and not the reverse. He also says that one reason… Read more »
RFB, I am perfectly fine with Christians saying they disbelieve evolution because it goes against the Bible. I don’t agree with that position, but it’s a defensible position to take. If you accept the Bible as the ultimate authority, then that resolves the issue. However, that’s not what I understand Doug to be doing here. As I understand it, he’s making what he thinks is a scientific argument — somehow, the existence of multiple DNA languages conflicts with evolution — and if he’s going to do that, then he does need to be prepared to defend his position based on… Read more »
Indeed, we must trust the processes God uses as well as the Word itself.
Eric, the way I understood the post is that he’s referring to the probability of evolution producing such a system, but I could be misunderstanding his point.
This is what makes me think that. I think the biological implications would also be an interesting conversation to have, too — not that I know what those biological implications are beyond their probability, though.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} – – Eric the Red The point being made is one of principle: The more complex something is, the less likely it is a product of random chance. If you walk into the woods after a storm and find four fallen trees in a square, it may be the result of the storm or may be the result of a person. If you walk… Read more »
Eric – information never comes from non-information. DNA is information. Having more information packed in it than we thought makes it that much less possible for it to have come from non-information.
One of the main arguments evolutionists make is that randomly mutated features are put to several uses so as to be beneficial to the species and retained. They’ll no doubt use this highly improbable feature as an argument FOR their position.
Doug,
The times that I have heard you preach you use the King James version, which was the first version that I grew up reading and many of the verses that I have memorized are from this version. Yet, what you say here could make it appear to some that each translation that comes next would be a superior one since it builds off what came before it. Also, have you ever read the “Voice” translation, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it if you have read it.
I read Darwin’s Black Box when it first came out quite a number of years ago. Whatever legitimacy its arguments may have had back in the 1970s (which is when I think it was first published) has been completely undercut by subsequent scientific observation. The idea, for example, that the multiple cellular modifications couldn’t have happened at once has been shown to be false, both in premise and conclusion. In premise because there’s no requirement that they all happened at once; in conclusion because it’s been demonstrated that all of those modifications can and do happen simultaneously. Google “how the… Read more »
But whatever unanswered evolutionary questions still remain – and there are some, I will acknowledge – is more than made up for by the fact that there are about a dozen scientific disciplines and subdisciplines that are founded on evolutionary assumptions, meaning that if evolution is wrong, so are the premises of all those disciplines. They include genetics, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, and oncology. The fact that you can get a vaccine that will keep you from getting a disease that used to kill people is applied evolution. And, when evolutionary assumptions are applied in the laboratory, valid and testable… Read more »
Which takes us back to where we started in my original comment. If you want to disbelieve evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, that’s fine, but don’t then bring science into it. Because if I understand your position, ultimately it doesn’t matter what the science says anyway.
Hey Eric, if you’re going to make the analogy of vaccines progressing, you have to include everything. For example, in your example, there is an intelligent being guiding the process. Not an impersonal force of nature, but an intelligence. To complete your analogy of vaccines properly, that would be God.
Eric, those who are even moderately familiar with the state of the debate concerning evolution and ID will know that you are bluffing (or just ignorant?) in what you claim. I think it is probably a combination of both, with a higher proportion of the latter as evidenced by this howler of yours: I read Darwin’s Black Box when it first came out quite a number of years ago. Whatever legitimacy its arguments may have had back in the 1970s (which is when I think it was first published) has been completely undercut by subsequent scientific observation. Darwin’s Black box… Read more »
Eric, Darwin’s Black Box came out in 1996 – not even close to the 70’s. Since then, a far more powerfully persuasive book has come out called “The Edge of Evolution” which utterly dissolves the modern neo-Darwinian paradigm. I strongly encourage you to read the book itself and not just the hyperventilating critics that have a helluva lot to lose if Behe is right. There are valid criticisms to be sure – just as there are for any serious scientific treatise – but the gist of his position is very solid indeed. Behe is, as you know, a… Read more »
OK, so my memory is not what it used to be and I forget when Darwin’s Black Box was published. That doesn’t change the substance of any of my arguments, and the idea that evidence against evolution has been building in the last 20 years is not the consensus of people who do biology for a living. If all of this evidence against evolution is building, why is it not appearing in print anywhere except creationist apologetics? Are all biologists dupes or liars or stupid or some combination thereof?
The point of a vaccine is not that intelligent humans discovered it, but the fact that conceptually it works at all, and also the fact that vaccines have a limited amount of time before they stop working. However, if you’re going to claim design as an argument, then you have the whole problem of just how badly the human body is designed. Women are prone to urinary tract infections, and men to hernias, and neither of these would be a problem with only minor adjustments to human anatomy. Vestigal organs, like the appendix, do no good and potentially great harm. … Read more »
Jay, google “how the eye evolved.” You’ll find plenty about how complexity doesn’t require intelligence.
Eric, the idea of vestigial organs is not being taught in most secular medical schools. My medical doctor brother was explicitly taught in a secular med school that idea was outdated. There may be problems with them after their use is over, but they all serve a function.
Eric, as per a couple of comments above, if the fact of one code in DNA is evidence against evolution by reason of information implying design, then more than one code is further evidence. // “there are about a dozen scientific disciplines and subdisciplines that are founded on evolutionary assumptions, meaning that if evolution is wrong, so are the premises of all those disciplines. They include genetics, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, and oncology.” You are probably equivocating on the word “evolution” here. Has the HIV virus changed since the 1950s, yes. Is this really what people mean by evolution from… Read more »
This new discovery reminds me of the movie Contact. In that movie, scientists with atheistic assumptions are convinced that intelligent life exists in outer space when a pattern is detected that keeps repeating the prime numbers from 2 through 97. They know that intelligence is behind the signal. But there are still skeptics. When information is found embedded in the beats of the signal that when filtered correctly turns out to be one of the first television broadcasts, it becomes impossible to deny. Finally, the television broadcast is discovered to have an even more complex message within the message that… Read more »
Great stuff.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if the text of the Bible looked like DNA? Oh, wait!
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Matrix-Michael-Bull/dp/1449702635
and
http://bit.ly/1ehV0Ri
Mr. Wilson: Since you’ve read Rushdoony, I’m sure you’re aware of his “apographs” argument. He said even though the original texts were inspired (“autographs”) that in one sense it the process of translation and preservation itself was inspired (“apographs”). Do you agree?
Doug, Whenever I read this “Commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture has to extend both into the past and the future. ” and this “But there is a future-oriented aspect to this as well” I had a memory of you saying something about talk like this raising a red flag in our minds. Now with all the disclaimers you put in there its not flying full mast but I would be very grateful if you could elaborate on what you mean by “and the future”. I have been around the world and back with the doctrine of inerrancy (no thanks to the Bible Belt)… Read more »
“Whenever I write on this, I want to be extremely cautious. I do have problems with the standard understanding of inerrancy, but not because it claims too much for Scripture. My problem is that it claims far too little.” It is a really interesting idea to compare our understanding of biology with Scripture interpretation. Meaning does not change but words change and as a result we need new ways to say the same thing. But you mean more than that correct? The revelation of scripture increases as time goes by? I have never considered interpretations as moving closer… Read more »
I’ve never had a problem with the idea of evolution per se. I suppose it could be amechanism at work in nature, but we would have to apply a more ‘mythic’ reading to the beginning of Genesis, something I think C. S. Lewis was willing to do. Most Protestant Evangelicals are not willing to ascribe that sort of style or genre to it. I know it was not scientific or even historical in the sense we think of today. But I don’t know how ‘mythic’ it is either. Lewis was under the impression that the O. T. grows more historical–at… Read more »
Eric, in my oh-so-easily-evolved light sensitive apparatus, it appears that, due to your faith in the scientific community’s popular vote, any actual reading of the latest from Dr. Behe – and his attendant sources and references – is out of the question. But Antony Flew’s entire life’s work rested on the sort of opinions you find so persuasive. However, as an honest and right thinking person, mere apparent consensus was not good enough. He looked into the actual evidence itself – and came away astonied at the stunning and ridiculous fishy-ness of the universe at large. Dangitall if this place… Read more »
The genuine efforts of good and godly modern translations have certainly made the word of God more pleasant and palatable. Especially when the Word is dipped in an imitation of spiritual sauce.
Genesis 1 is pretty obviously myth. No one was around to witness it, so how could it be otherwise?
Thanks, Matt. You raise a point that should have been obvious.
I’ve yet to read a critique of Behe’s work that accurately represents his work. As a non-biologist who cannot always follow the fine details of the argument, I find that telling.
[quote]But whatever unanswered evolutionary questions still remain – and there are some, I will acknowledge – is more than made up for by the fact that there are about a dozen scientific disciplines and subdisciplines that are founded on evolutionary assumptions, meaning that if evolution is wrong, so are the premises of all those disciplines. They include genetics, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, and oncology. The fact that you can get a vaccine that will keep you from getting a disease that used to kill people is applied evolution. And, when evolutionary assumptions are applied in the laboratory, valid and testable… Read more »
grr horrible formatting sorry about that
E the R: I think DW is basically arguing irreducible complexity. You have to admit that if operator overloading is going on at the genetic level it vastly increases the complexity.
Mr Casey, nobody in their right minds has a problem with the facts of evolution. Things in biology change… sometimes even for the “better“. Darwinian processes do result in morphological differences between ancestors. It is a bare fact. The problem here is the quasi-religious view of Omni–Darwinism – I.e. The belief that random genetic mutations that are naturally selected for increased suitability for survival or reproduction explain all complex biological design. “Omni-Darwi” is not grounded in real empirical evidence or demonstrable calculation. It is merely an extrapolation from the evolution we do observe – combined with the dogmatic insistence that any apparent design… Read more »
“Genesis 1 is pretty obviously myth. No one was around to witness it, so how could it be otherwise?” // This seems to be unnecessarily granting naturalist presuppositions. God was there. I assume he told Adam about it.
<p>Another interesting break in the dam that is Darwinism is the recent news that 400,000 year old human DNA has been discovered.</p><p>
Has anybody else detected the outline of the pattern of the ‘collapsing settled science’ ? We are watching it in real-time with the global warming argument. To my eyes Darwinianism is going the same route</p>
This is the first time I have not appreciated what Eric the Red has brought to the table (as wrong as it may be). Usually his comments result in a good back and forth but this time it has taken the entire discussion and made it about evolution when we should be talking about the argument being made for what seems like progressive revelation from an ardent cessationist. Maybe I’m off base here but if we could use all those truly wonderful brains to talk about what Doug is really saying it would be more productive. At least it would… Read more »
Question: Why is it that scientists believe in so-called “Dark Matter”, even though it is not detectable through the means of any known sense or instrument? Answer: Because we can observe certain effects in the universe that demand the existence of another causal factor besides the known laws and forces of physics such as gravity, electromagnetic force, etc. Question 2: If certain effects in the universe are best explained by the existence of intelligent agency – even if said being is not detectable through sense or instrument – why not accept the existence of a sort of “Dark Mind”? (“Dark” here having… Read more »
Jay, “Dark Matter” is some scientists version of what they often refer to as “the god of the gaps” explanation. What bothers a lot of scientists is when people say “well, God did it.” when they are at a point of not understanding. To them it seems like turning your brain off. However, the Dark Matter answer is essentially doing the same thing they always get frustrated with. Yet, what few seem to understand about the God of the gaps is that God is not just God of the things we can not yet explain, but of the things we… Read more »
As Darwin’s theory is found to be a myth it seems there will be many in the scientific community who desperately hold to their dogmatic naturalistic presuppositions will ride the theory to oblivion like Major Kong.
Ben, exactly. ;)
Chesterton would smile at this.
</br>
Over at <a href=”http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/”>uncommondescent</a> in a discussion about Dawkin’s selfish gene is this <a href=”http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/epigenetics-dawkins-selfish-gene-discredited-by-still-more-scientists-you-should-have-heard-of/#comment-482662″>gem</a>
</br>
“Our mistake. Turns out it’s actually a generous gene!”
To Mr. Wilson: Amen, Amen, Amen! I have walked a knife edge trying to say this in my church before, but now I will be able to read this article out loud instead of gulping air like a fish between questionably orthodox attempts to explain, for example, why it should be totally acceptable for the Rhyming psalter versifications of the Psalms to be included in the English Bible instead of the traditional straight-verbal translations. Word to word and form to form, I say! And I’m not a heretic, I think! If there is one God, outside of time and eternally… Read more »
Rueben K, You certainly weren’t gulping air like a fish with your excellent post; particularly with the second half!
As per your point that certain dogmatic paradigms will have to be jettisoned, I believe you’ll find this lecture very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJhotrNeYGE&list=LLOiuDEkvkLntbq8i76BJa3w
I am amazed at all the “Confession, Confession, Sola Inerrant Confession” people that do not take exception to 1.8. Not that I think that they are heretics, although Turretin and Owen would for sure. And then comes the ignorant Critical Text label, “King James Only”, except that I love the NASB for its rendering of the Greek, but I am disturbed by the Greek Critical Text they use, and I love the Geneva and others for various different reasons, although I tend to prefer either the NKJV or KJV for ecclesiastical purposes. Neither does 1.8 mean Textus Receptus only, even… Read more »
Eric the Red wrote: “the fact that there are about a dozen scientific disciplines and subdisciplines that are founded on evolutionary assumptions, meaning that if evolution is wrong, so are the premises of all those disciplines. They include genetics, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, and oncology. The fact that you can get a vaccine that will keep you from getting a disease that used to kill people is applied evolution.” I’ve heard this kind of claim many times in my experience with evolutionism, but it has always evaporated into equivocation when faced with a requirement to produce a specific meaningful example. … Read more »
I would like to point out here that as with many words in the modern vocabulary, including the modern scientific vocabulary, the word “evolution” means a lot of different things depending on when, where, and how you say it, and what you need it to mean. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CURRENTLY, the foundational biological definition of evolution is, “a change in the distribution frequency of alleles in a population from generation to generation”. What this means is that evolution is considered to have occurred when an unusually large number of blue-eyed children are born to a population of brown-eyed adults. As a foundational metric… Read more »