Making Life’s Big Decisions: Part 4

Evolutionary Civil War

This discovery (among others) has caused a huge rift in the evolutionary community, as many committed modern evolutionists are now calling for the abolishment of neo-Darwinian theory and the gene-centric view it promotes. In an interview titled “Denis Noble: ‘Neo-Darwinism Is Dead,’” the interviewer of Dr. Denis Noble (a leader in the anti-modern-synthesis movement) said this:

Noble is known for his cheerful yet fierce attack on the central dogma in biology: the idea that organisms are fully covered by genes, which got popularized by Richard Dawkins.1

Indeed, creationists have long called materialistic musings the “story of evolution” for very good reason. But for all the haters out there, just look at what Noble himself has said regarding what has been pushed as fact and science in textbooks and institutions for years and in the very book Richard Dawkins used to popularize evolution during his career, “Extraordinary book, The Selfish Gene. It’s a fabulous story. It’s just completely different from what actually happens in biology.”2

Noble and many other scientists are honest enough to admit neo-Darwinism’s glaring shortfalls based directly on what we can observe in science, yet they still cling to the big picture of us having evolved from a common ancestor with bacteria. Unfortunately for them, they haven’t proposed an actual mechanism that could explain what they are observing.

And so, the question comes down to this: How could a cause-and-effect type of system, like the former gene-centric view of evolution, produce the if-then type programming we see in living things (as discussed in Parts 1–3)? For those of you who are just tuning in, let me explain what is meant by that.

Cause and Effect vs. If-Then Programming

Unlike cause-and-effect programming where the outcome is limited and automatic, if-then systems always introduce conditional actions and decision-making such as the use of internal clauses like “only if.”

Let’s imagine a simple trap that occurred by chance, such as a large wooden box that has a stick balanced underneath it at one end. If a cause—such as creature, object, or even a strong wind—exerts enough pressure on the system, the stick collapses, and the effect is that the raised end of the box drops, trapping whatever is inside. The system has no choice as to the outcome, and there is no purpose or forethought exhibited within the process.

But now imagine the sensors were set up to identify specific objects or creatures (like a soccer ball, squirrel, or a bunny) that would be deemed exempt from having the box fall on them. Or imagine the stick was somehow reinforced and automated so that it would only collapse if a raccoon- or coyote-sized creature would set it off. These two scenarios are examples of if-then programming.

Plants That Can Count?

Fascinatingly, even plants like the Venus flytrap use if-then programming when they catch their prey. Because the traps have a limited number of uses, require energy to operate (with a net loss should no prey be captured), and have a reset cycle (which consumes significant time), they have a series of “only if” conditions programmed into them.3

For example, once something makes contact with the small hairs within the trap, a countdown ensues inside the plant. Only if a second contact is made within 30 seconds of the first will the trap close. However, even after it closes, the plant has a monitoring system set up within it to prevent the unwarranted use of resources. Incredibly, it will only begin its digestion stage after an additional three trigger hair nudges occur. Three or four total nudges are not sufficient to activate digestion, only five will do.

Plants track how many times an insect trips tiny hairs before turning on their digestive juices. . . .

A specific number of triggers causes plants to switch on genes (pieces of DNA). . . .

Two nudges caused the trap to close. Nothing else seemed to happen after the third and fourth nudges. But after the fifth, glands lining the inside of the trap started making digestive enzymes. . . .

More frequent triggers led the plant to make more of these molecules . . . because bigger prey will nudge more trigger hairs. The increased activity lets the plant know it will have a big meal to consume.4

Incredible, isn’t it? Only two triggers within a certain number of seconds will spring the trap (kind of like how many alarm systems require you to put in the alarm code within a certain time limit to activate it), yet only if exactly three more triggers occur will digestion be activated. And the system is even further optimized beyond this. Larger prey requires larger volumes of digestive fluid, so only if there are many frequent triggers after the fifth will the plant produce larger volumes of digestive fluid to take care of the larger meal it will be breaking down.

All if-then programs have only ever been observed to originate from minds, not mindless matter.

And remember, all if-then programs have only ever been observed to originate from minds, not mindless matter, and of course I’m referring here to the mind of God, who created all plants on day three of creation. Again, matter can be programmed to perform if-then functionality—such as that in your automatic transmission, your car’s navigation system, a drone, or your favorite chatbot—but there isn’t even one observed counterexample, no instance whatsoever, of if-then programming originating without an intelligent mind initiating it. So if you want to believe that it somehow happened in the unobserved past, then I will simply respect your faith but challenge you should you attempt to call it scientific in any way, shape, or form.

Using Logic to Make Correct Decisions

Atheistic evolutionists like Richard Dawkins often claim that their worldview is reasonable, rational, and scientific, contrasting that with the belief of the Christian as simply one of foolishness and faith, devoid of logic. However, what logic allows you to do is infer from the premises I just mentioned to validly construct the following conclusion.

If we have consistently and only seen if-then programming arising from an intelligent mind and have never once observed it happening naturalistically, then standard inductive logic indicates that the repeatedly observed cause is the best-supported explanation for the phenomenon being assessed. I mean, based on logic and science, this shouldn’t even be a question.

Science infers causes from repeated observation. If A causes X has been repeatedly confirmed by direct observation, and B causing X has never been observed (i.e., you have no data demonstrating it), then A is obviously the best-supported explanation.

This is the principle of parsimony—it’s the logical appeal to Occam’s razor, which prefers explanations that fit the data and don’t introduce convoluted, unsupported, unseen, and only imagined mechanisms that add unobserved causes. The fact of the matter is that the burden of proof here clearly falls on the evolutionist, who must make the claim that if-then programming can come about through natural processes yet lacks any evidence of it and contradicts an established explanation.

Unpacking the Real Motivations Behind Much Decision-Making

However, perhaps all of this simply isn’t about science and logic at all. For example, I referenced a ScienceDaily article in Part 1 that said,

A key feature of intelligence is an ability to anticipate behaviours that that will lead to future benefits. Conventionally, evolution, being dependent on random variation, has been considered “blind” or at least “myopic”—unable to exhibit such anticipation.5

In contradiction to what it admitted was the norm in evolutionary teaching prior to this and because of the incredible sophistication they are observing within living things, the article also said the following.

Evolution may be more intelligent than we thought, according to researchers. In a new article, the authors make the case that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.6

To all of the skeptics out there that are still able to reason about this topic, sincerely, does that sound reasonable to you? According to the definition of what intelligence is and requires (a thinking mind), can a no-mind process be “intelligent” without a thinking mind as a first cause? Can something with no mind “learn” things without being programmed to do so by an intelligent mind?

In our experience, obviously not. But rather than changing their minds based on new, overwhelming evidence (like scientists are supposed to do), many have imbued evolution with the power needed to explain the world—the power of intelligence—based on zero evidence. I believe this motivation to view the world through completely materialistic lenses must have far deeper underpinnings than what the “science and rationality” brigade professes.

And a perfect demonstration of this comes from a video on YouTube titled “Richard Dawkins in Conversation with Peter Boghossian,” where at the 12:35 mark, Boghossian asks Dawkins,

PB: What would it take for you to believe in God?

RD: Well I used to say it would be very simple—it would be, you know, the second coming of Jesus or a great big deep booming . . . voice saying “I am God and I created,” but . . . even if there was this booming voice and the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it’s a hallucination. . . . A non-supernatural second coming could be aliens from outer space. . . .

PB: If you walked out and there are these globes that were spinning around that said, you know, “I am God; believe in me,” or . . . you walk out into the sky and still spells out in the stars in different languages, “I am God; believe in me,” well, again, the problem is it could be a delusion. . . . I mean, there could be an alien trickster culture or something, “Ha, we’re going to get those little humans.” . . . So what would persuade you?

RD: Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming—trouble is, I can’t think what that evidence would look like.7

The “Cosmic Authority” Problem

Do you see what Dawkins has finally admitted? He’s just been paying lip service to this whole “science is all about the evidence” shtick. As mentioned in Part 1, it doesn’t matter what you show him as evidence, he can’t even tell you what evidence he’s looking for, which means until he can, he’ll never be able to find it. He’s become like what we read in 2 Timothy.

People will be . . . proud, arrogant, . . . unholy, . . . swollen with conceit, . . . always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. . . . corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. (2 Timothy 3:2–8)

Ultimately revealing, that he’s ended up as just another example of all of the broken and bitter God haters we read about in Romans.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23)

As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, many atheist and agnostic types fully understand the fact that if God is real and his Word is true (which he and it is), they would be subject to his law, and Dawkins certainly isn’t the only one trying to suppress that fearful fact. Take this quotation from the esteemed and influential atheist Dr. Thomas Nagel (professor of philosophy and law at New York University).

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.8

The Very Best Decision You Could Ever Make

God shows mercy to those who humble themselves.

God shows mercy to those who humble themselves. I know because I was once very much like Thomas, Richard, and many of you accessing the type of information we’ve been discussing. Yet today, all because of God’s grace, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

Whom Will You Serve?

For those of you who’ve been sitting on the fence for quite some time and who now have more information regarding how to think about life’s origin, perhaps you should consider what Joshua, the great leader of the Israelites, did when challenging his countrymen to decide who they would commit their lifelong affections toward.

We all have the ability to make decisions on what is best for us based on the information we now have. Why not decide this day who or what you will dedicate your life to serve based on that knowledge? Will you continue your illogical commitment to mindless matter or commit rationally to the one who created everything—including yourself—and to whom you are responsible: “Choose this day whom you will serve. . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).