Icons

Today we talked about Case for a Creator Chapters 2 and 3 dealing with the iconic images of evolution. He spends quite a bit of paper explaining to the readers what these images themselves are, but ultimately his message seems to be one that urges Christians and scientists alike to just talk about them.  As he progresses, Strobel weaves a story that is familiar for many lost souls. As a child he is particularly influenced by the Stanley Miller experiment which acted as a foundation for other images to accumulate and make it possible for him at a young age to discount the existence of a creator.

Unfortunately, this is happening in classrooms every day. Even though some of these examples have been discredited or sufficiently doubted, they are still being presented in a way that can be perceived as very factual to those that are searching for answers, especially if they are looking for a way around answering to God. I think we all need to develop a sense of personal responsibility and teach our children (or in my case, somebody else’s children lol) and engage them in conversation about what they are learning in the classroom and from their friends.

While there are many more of these icons out there for discussion, Lee Strobel focused on the following images. I include the page numbers for a ‘full-size’ copy of the book. However, I realize that many of you may have received a smaller version when signing up for the class so I will try to snag a copy and include those as well later on!

                  1) Stanley Miller Experiment (p. 19, 37-41)

                  2) Darwin’s Tree of Life (p. 19-20, 42-47)

                  3) Haeckel’s Embryos (p. 20, 47-52)

                  4) Archaeopteryx (p. 21, 55-60)

                  5) Homology in Vertebrate Limbs (p. 35, 52-54)

                  6) Kettlewell’s Peppered Moths (p. 35)

                  7) Darwin’s Finches (p. 35)

                  8) Java Man/Hominid Fossils (p. 54-55, 61-64)

                  How many of these icons have you been exposed to? One? Two? Or in my case, all of them? (Feel free to assume as a literal or rhetoric question...there is always that comment section or the Reflect Here page for thoughts such as these!)

When reading or re-reading these chapters, or even in conversations about the individual images, I encourage you to embrace the controversy associated with each. Most of these have limited evidence and require some faith in conclusion making. To some pre-Christians these images are what they have solely based their conclusions about evolution on and it might be beneficial to ask them to examine them more closely. If the hinge-pin of a belief starts to decay or is removed completely, what a better time to bring someone to the conclusion of a creator and help them know our God and Maker of the Universe! Praise God for inventing Google so that we literally have a constant stream of information at our fingertips for our perusal and use in witnessing to the scientific community! I personally like to read both sides of the story; that is, I like to see where an evolutionist and non-believer would have developed their understanding so I can better approach and meet them with alternative interpretations. It can become a little daunting and perhaps even disheartening if you stumble upon someone with a very anti-Christian stance in the literature, but God is always there to strengthen my resolve in prayer.

I’m going to back up a bit and just sort of proceed through the chapters so I can hit a few points in the reading that may have not been addressed in our discussion this morning.  In chapter 2, Strobel really just states that it was his interest in science that led him to be receptive to the concept of macroevolution and then to jump to atheistic claims. As he is describing four of the icons, Strobel writes, “The moment I first learned of Miller’s success, my mind flashed to the logical implication: if the origin of life can be explained solely through natural processes, then God was out of a job!” (p. 19). This is not to say that a belief in the Theory of Evolution always goes hand in hand with the belief of atheism, but it can act as an easy avenue for someone searching to maintain control and avoid answering to a higher power if they are presented with an opportunity to remove God from the equation. In fact, Strobel quotes philosopher Daniel Dennett claiming that “Darwinism is a ‘universal acid’ that ‘eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview’” (p. 24).

Chapter 3 is pretty much all about addressing the icons in some detail. Strobel frequently references Icons of Evolution by Johnathan Wells published in 2000. In tackling these icons and presenting a case against evolution, Wells has experienced much criticism from the scientific community (see “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution” http://www.discovery.org/a/1180 Spoiler: it's not a good kind of raving). Many people have attempted to dissect these icons and whether or not these examples should be included in textbooks because of the false conclusions it can lead students to form. While I agree that learning often requires us to learn simplified and often incomplete or incorrect models to facilitate our comprehension of a more abstract concept, this sort of misrepresentation causes the young Lee Strobel’s of the world to glean false evidence for evolution.

I’m going to try and briefly address each of the icons in this post. I have included resources on the handout for this week which can be found under the Weekly Materials page on the right hand side of the blog page. If you find an image that is particularly poignant or has frequently been presented in conversations with friends and family, definitely do some research so you can feel more comfortable on the next go around. One more thing learned is another tool to use in the future.

Stan Miller: We don’t know what the atmosphere was for originating amino acids. It’s not necessarily the one simulated by Miller, but not necessarily contrary. There has recently been renewed interest in the experiment by Bada and Lazcano in the 2000s supporting the original setup. But guess what? Man has limited understanding and we may never know the prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth. Regardless, a mechanism of how amino acids would develop into the first cell is still very inconclusive.

Darwin’s Tree of Life: When Googling images, I was struck by just how many people had Darwin’s original tree of life tattooed on their bodies…One of the biggest challenges to the tree of life is the Cambrian explosion and other inconsistencies in the fossil record. There is always debate over the presence of transitional forms, or missing links, such as Archaeopteryx. We see an emergence of the major phyla in the Cambrian period and there is relatively little diversity in strata prior to this. Some people refer to this as a lawn arrangement rather than the branching tree that Darwin proposed. “A key aspect of his theory was that natural selection would act, in his own words, ‘slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations’ and that ‘no great or sudden modifications’ were possible” (p. 43). You might want to also dig into the concept of punctuated equilibrium as this has been cited as an explanation for the Cambrian explosion recently.

Haeckel’s Embryos: Basically, Strobel says there are three problems with the drawings: 1) they are faked (p. 48), 2) Haeckel “stacked the deck by picking representatives that come closest to fitting his idea” (p. 49), and 3) he used the midpoint of development instead of the early stages as stated (p. 49). Haeckel made a claim known as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ or rather that we could see early embryos passing through their evolutionary history due to common ancestory, thus resulting in similarities at the beginning. This is no longer thought to be true, but the popular notion of ‘gill slits’ on embryos still lingers. Just to be clear: they are never functional structures for breathing. These ridges form various structures in the neck, the small bones of the ear, and other structures in the head and neck area.

Homology: Various homologies have been identified amongst organisms, but one of the most popular is the vertebrate limb comparison. Take home point: similarity does not indicate evolution on its own. For that we would need a mechanism of some sort. Tim Berra tried to propose a mechanism and inadvertently made an argument for the existence of an intelligent designer in what is now known as “Berra’s Blunder” (p. 52-53). He used similar Corvette models with small successive changes to show descent with modification. His mistake came in forgetting that a designer had to be present in the entire process. New mechanisms such as common developmental pathways and homologies due to similar genes have been proposed since and can be found in research journals.

Human fossils: First of all, the ape to man progression is just wrong even though it is still one of the most prominent images of evolution. The fossil record can easily be faked and misinterpreted. A further look on my part into molecular techniques of analyzing fossils is warranted along with some reading on radioisotope dating. All in all, these fossils, Java Man, Lucy, Neanderthal, etc. are usually considered with caution for due reason. Much more is needed to make conclusions on their origins and place in the history of the Earth.

So here’s my summary.

-Scientists are compelled by this evidence; therefore, it is worth learning so that we can bridge the gap and find an avenue for talking about God.

-These icons play a significant role in shaping some people’s lack of belief in God.

-We should act as missionaries to the scientific community. Remember this year at FBCM is about equipping the saints so that we can act locally or internationally to spread God's word.

Happy reading! Nicole

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. –Deuteronomy 29:29

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully.

-1 Corinthians 13:12

Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them. Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.  -Proverbs 4:5-7