Is Evolution A Big Deal? A Conversation with Two Leading Scientists.
Does evolution matter to the Christian faith? How should Christians interact with the scientific community? In this video, I interview two leading scientists (and thinkers) about the state of evolutionary science and what it means for the church today. Join us and ask live questions!
READ:
(1) Undeniable, by Doug Axe (https://amzn.to/37nzol3)
(2) The Genealogical Adam & Eve, by Josh Swamidass (https://amzn.to/37nzol3)
SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL (https://bit.ly/3fZ9mIw)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/
source
The concept of humans evolving from apes has always been the crux of the argument against the God of creation.
If there was a process of death that went on between the development of apes and the evolving of humans, then death couldn't have occurred as a result of humans eating a forbidden fruit. If that didn’t bring on death, God's message to Eve, that prophesied a Savior to deliver us from death, makes no sense. Nor would the gospels.
Fortunately for us, God designed the human genome to be over 3,000,000,000 units of code long. If we say that the human genome is only 2% different than that of apes (it is actually much greater than that) 60,000,000 items of code would have had to change by random processes in some imaginary long period of time. A period when harmful genes would also be produced that would have degraded the final product. Doesn’t all this make it clear that evolution is a flawed concept?
When we look at dogs, we see many varieties. But they are just variations on the dog plan. No evolution involved. Just the unfolding of planned varieties. But some would mistake this as evolution.
The exciting thing about doing real science, as opposed to science fiction, is that it results in our thinking God's thoughts after Him. When we come up with ideas that disagree with scripture, we need to reexamine them in the light clear teachings.
When one grasps the concept that the earth was a very different place before Noah's flood and that catastrophic plate tectonics resulted in waters surging and carrying sediments around the planet, imaginary millions of years disappear and biblical timeframes make sense.
Sean makes a great distinction between the putative "mechanism" for increasing levels of sophistication and biological function versus the larger view that a guiding or creating "intelligence" (an understatement!) is also necessary.
This paradigm, one Swamudass holds to, allows for common descent as a reading of the physical development of species, but is by no means an affirmation of a mere statiscal "mechanism" as adequate to explain everything being studied in the related sciences.
He's careful to describe the "tree" as a hypothesis under testing, pushing back against the idea of "secular scientists" merely "accepting the tree" per Axe's assertion.
This is a very important distinction. It is still an hypothesis under testing…
Swamidass considers common (physical) descent as nearly demonstrated, scientifically ("indisputable"). This is, perhaps, a premature final position… yet, as conceded by Axe, here is where the crux lies, that Behe and others HOLD BOTH VIEWS. Behe is an ID proponent who does not dispute common descent.
God acts BOTH beyond nature AND within nature. As the AUTHOR and SOVEREIGN of both "realms," it is no "violation of physical laws" when God does so. It is, however, a demonstrable EXCEEDING OF STATISTICAL PROBABILITY ALONE. CHANCE AND TIME ALONE ARE INSUFFICIENT CAUSES FOR ALL WE SEE.
That's another way of evaluating and demonstrating the claim of "miracles."
Romans 1:20 is still firmly in place.
"I'm distinguishing purely accidental natural processes alone from a guiding intelligence introducing nonrandom adaptive and gain of function innovation into the history of life's development" to paraphrase Axe. Miraculous involvement in natural processes.
The tentative pushback Swamidass assigns to this assertion is consistent with his current vocation as a research scientist in a secular university environment.
He is much more careful to nuance theories of design… like Behe and Dembski.
In short, the differences amount to "how much or how little" God is demonstrably ("provably") involved over time, not whether God is involved, for both of these scientists.
We can "like" one or the other of these guys more or less, but we're called to love them both.
What I appreciate about Swamidass is his further work on testing various hypotheses for interpreting and affirming scenarios for the Adam and Eve story in the early Genesis accounts.
I recommend his book highly for wading through the "human origins" questions.
Just remember that our native intelligence demands an adequate Cause.
Even Einstein said that the most surprising thing about the universe is that it is intelligible.
At its root, this may be the right place to remind us of both the immanence AND the transcendence of God, Whose omnipotence and ominpresence may prove too difficult to "tease out" scientifically… since there's actually no "out" to be found!
Praise God for all three of these servant leaders!
I understand where Doug is coming from – Josh's views seem fungible.
"We're trying to grow a challenge in which we speak in a respectful way to one another." This one came up a little short – frustratingly so.
Doug Axe is amazing on proteins, folding, and Design.
Great content. I think Dr Swamidass could have done better at not over talking Dr Axe so frequently.
Has Josh ever listened to Bart Erhman and is rational for being from a historians perspective, highly dismissive of the resurrection. I woud like Josh to consider some of the problems of being a believer in a Christian super savior.
Evolutionary theory is rubbish. No real evidence for it.
Josh seems to appeal to a “God of the gaps” position.
Would be useful if Swamidass actually said what was wrong with the math instead of just drive-by throwing it out there, but actually engaging with ID isn’t his style. He prefers condescension.
The verse where God calls you to be a "witness" for Christ and the gospel… the word "witness" means "MARTYR". Christ definitely calls you to be willing to give your life to defend truth… because Jesus actually calls Himself the Truth
As a system design engineer, Doug is correct – anytime you see a system operating in a repeatable process that hits a target, there is intelligence behind it. Natural selection, by definition, is unguided and denies any intelligence. And I disagree with Josh – I have never heard before that natural selection operates "top=down". It is, by definition, "bottom-up" (small, multiple changes over time lead to a new species. That is bottom up).
I have multiple debates with my atheist friends and they definitely do say what Doug just said (which Joshua claims atheists do not say): "given enough time, physical laws and processes would be capable of producing complex life"
I wish Joshua would just let Doug finish his thoughts… I saw Joshua doing the same thing with Michael Behe
Doug Axe is absolutely right – evolution as taught in schools is most definitely Darwinian
❤ I got Douglas axe book 🎉😊
Josh is constantly interrupting and seems to get lost in the argument. Not even understanding what Doug says.
I would like to ask an evolutionist how he theologically deals with having death, disease, and mutations before sin entered the world. I don't see how evolution can fit in a theological framework.
Paul did tell us to defend truth. I'm also sorry, but Josh's opinions do pose some serious issues theologically.
Great comment section! Thank you for helping me to determine not to waste my time listening to these guys.
I don’t know who your guests are but Josh is extremely rude. He never lets Doug finish his thought/statement. Josh never settles on what he truly believes in or what he stands on, he is all over the place deflecting, acting like his science is correct and right and no room for error.
Love is patient
Sean you should bring these two guys again to continue the talk if that’s possible
"evolutionary science"? No science to it…Dr. Sir Ernst Chain said it does not even come up to the level of hypothesis since the mechanism for it has never been found. Natural Selection is not evolution as it involves the loss of genetic information not its build up into other organisms.
Josh just does not want to explain what he believes is the mechanism of speciation and he oppositional to any descriptive 'label.' Very frustrating to watch when all you want to know is WHAT does he actually believe?
He's also incoherent