June 21, 2012
What came first, the chicken or the egg. For Christians, obviously, the chicken. For evolutionists, the egg, or some “non-chicken” life development process based on chance mutations. Both are hard to believe but one is based on ultimate intelligence and one on ultimate chance. Normally, it´s not intelligent to bet on chance.
My problem is that we humans have never seen somthing come from nothing without an intelligent cause. Never. Not once. Maybe the creation of the world is different, but the Big Bang seems to rule that out. We did come from nothing, apparently.
Also, we have never seen order come from chaos (or chance) in this world without an intelligent cause. Never. Not once. And yet here we are living in an ordered universe and we have the intelligence to recognize it and appreciate it. I find that significant.
Until we have better scientific answers, I can choose to have faith that science will one day figure it out. Or I can take the intuitive leap of faith that takes a chance on intelligence rather than squander my intelligence on chance.
Is it risky? Yes, but at least it´s consistent with life as we know it. It isn´t mindless or unreasonable, but, yes, it is risky because once I open the door to the possibility of intelligence behind life as we know it, personality must also enter and I am faced with the existence of God.
Now the arguments for the existence of God and religion in general come into play. Now I have to sift through various religions all the while acknowledging that the philosophical, historical, scientific and literary evidence points clearly in one direction. Intelligence, creativity and design demands a self-aware personhood for God that excludes most Eastern religions. That demand is based once again on our own experience which excludes a non-personal intelligence (even computers) that acts with purpose.
Further study of the character and person of God leads to the Judeo-Christian God of the Old Testament. Only in that place is there a solution to the problem of man that is rooted in the necessary perfection of God (grace based on justice, not in spite of it). The Jews will give you law but only Christ will give you grace.
Yes, it is risky because once you let God exist, really exist, independent of your own ideas and approval, than you must ask a further question. What does He want…….with me?
If the chicken came before the egg, God exists. If God exists, it´s a game changer. He has something to say. He has a purpose. He has rights. I may have obligations, not just morally, but relationally. My whole world is at risk. My life has been turned upside down.
There is a new level of danger (or safety) that I need to understand and assess. I need to get to know Him and find out what He wants (especially with me). I need to understand his point of view on the world and on mankind (and me). What´s His agenda? What is His character like? If he is just (He would have to be, wouldn´t He?), am I in trouble? What is His standard? Can I live up to it? How will I know? Has He spoken? Has he done anything? Will He do something to me?
I suppose, then, that eternity is a real possibility as well. Does that mean I have to be concerned now about later? If so, why? Why can´t I wait for confirmation that God exists with my own eyes? Why does He insist that I turn to Him in faith, not by sight? Why does he remain hidden? If I see Him as He truly is, in all of His glory, will my fear overwhelm me and leave no room for love? Will I be so concerned for my safety in the light of the obvious danger to my eternal soul that any possibility for a voluntary, uncoerced love will disappear?
Did He really have to die on a cross to save me? Isn´t that a bit extreme? Am I really so bad? Can´t love just overlook our imperfections? Why is He also a just God? Is justice really so necessary and so strict? Or would that make Him arbitrary, capricious and self-serving? Would that make Him, in fact, the Devil? God forbid.
Why must love fulfill justice rather than simply overlook faults? Does it give significance to moral choices and value to the people who are hurt every day by those choices?
The more I ask these questions, the more sense it makes and the more questions it raises. But there is a direction. It is intelligent, rational and true to life.
The problem is that I may not like the answers I get. I may come to some conclusions about myself that will break my self-confidence, destroy my self-image or diminish my sense of self-value. Why must I be destroyed by the perspective of eternity to find life in a new relationship with God?
Where is my intrinsic value as a human being? Is that value in my abilities, my self-awareness, my humanity or is it in a primal, necessary relationship with my Creator first of all? Is my nature relational? Is my identity rooted in my nature? Is my purpose dependent on a higher, larger purpose? Is my significance related to my role in life? Is the meaning of my life determined by what I do with the truth rather than with circumstances?
Am I asking too many questions, the right questions, or questions that have no answers if this proposed Diety does not show up and act, speak, and empower.
I suspect that He must be involved in this world in deep and significant ways. He is the unified field theory of science. He is the ultimate reality we all look for and, yet, fear.
If He is there, and I suspect that He is, then He will also answer these very questions if they are heartfelt and searched out and thought through on the basis of His perspective on life. He must be involved. His opinion counts. My opinions and interpretations of life must bow the knee to His truth, his intimate knowledge of me and of mankind, of the past, the future, of all things and His goodness, his character, his behaviour, his intentions. In that place of humility, questions can be asked and answers will be given.
Only then, will the truth set me free.
The Desert Warrior
Reflections by Bert A. Amsing.
Copyright © 2012 by vanKregten Publishers. All rights reserved.
www.desertwarrior.net info@desertwarrior.net
Desert Warrior Ministries
A Burden of Glory
0 thoughts on “The Chicken or the Egg”
Leave a Reply
Bert Amsing – Author
There is no “chance” involved in evolution. Try reading about it again. There is only probability over vast time scales.
Thank you for your comment. It´s always a pleasure to engage in a bit of debate on important issues. If you notice in the post, I mention “gambling” as an example of what I mean by “chance.” Your definition of “probability over vast time scales” is the common defintion of chance. The issue isn´t actually the time scale as you know but the “probability”. The idea of “probability over vast time scales” leaves out the action of intelligence, which, for us, is the key issue. Was their intelligence involved or not…..whether it was an intelligent creation in an instant or over a long period of time is a secondary issue. Why is it that you disavow “chance” in favor of another definition (for most people the same definition) that still excludes intelligence? Would love to hear from you…..Bert
Using chance implies it could have happened or not with similar probabilities. On the other hand, probability (reasonable probability — I’m not talking about the silly argument that a monkey, given infinite time, would write the complete works of Shakespere, by banging randomly on a typewriter [which I believe is impossible]) over vast time is not a chance event but an almost certain event. You have to realise that evolutionary changes from parent to child are not wildly improbable. We are talking on the scale of one in fifty depending on the particular mutation. Some mutations are less probable, some are more. But a monkey doesn’t change into another animal in one generation. This is the equivalent of the monkey on the keyboard analogy. This is not how evolution works. It works by many small steps. Each only a little improbable. But remember: of it is a one in fifty chance and fifty babies are born in that species in one year, then according to probability, one is likely to have that mutation. Therefore, to call this chance, I think you can now see what I’m saying, is definitely misleading. Flipping a coin is a chance event if you do it once. Saying it will come up heads about 50% of the time over deep time is probability.
*if it is a one in fifty chance
I wrote this on my iPhone. “i” and “o” are beside each other 🙂
No problem…..I knew what you meant….lol……listen, a few comments and then a question for you…..I rather thought that you would come back to me with the statement that chance was random but probability was based on the action of natural laws (laws of physics for example) over time as certain elements were brought together to mutate into something new……a sort of microevolutionary process like we see in dog breeding or genetically modified foods for example. Noone doubts the validity of microevolution (although there is some debate on the right terminology). Perhaps that is in the background of your comments (would you confirm, thanks). It is a common position and one that seems to hold some promise at first but there are a number of problems that have not yet been resolved by evolutionists. For one, the examples of microevolution that we have are all induced by intelligent intervention (by humans). We have not seen any microevolution without intelligent intervention but that may be because of the time scale……we humans simply haven´t been around long enough or kept records long enough to be able to recognize the process. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The point is that we are extrapolating from an intelligent process to a process without intelligent intervention. Secondly, you do know that the math people have already torn apart this concept of probability (without intelligent intervention) and found it wanting….and I´m talking about evolutionists, secular humanists, who have a vested interest in the concept. Probabilities, apparently, are not increased or decreased by the time scale when the number of possibilities is almost infinite. Given the Big Bang theory and a relative beginning of the universe, much less our solar system, much less the appearance of life on earth, we are talking in the tens of billions of years when billions of billions of years are necessary for this theory of probability to function. Hence, various attacks on the Big Bang theory have been advanced to try to maintain a longer period of time for the universe to have existed. This worked better when we thought the universe was infinite…..of course, if you take the position that an infinite number of possibilities could just have easily occured sooner rather than later, then you are back to blind, random chance. Finally, the real question has to be raised…….if you believe in a macroevolutionary process of small steps……small probabilities leading to a great macro change….which is classical evolutionism, then you would agree with Darwin´s own statement that if the fossil record does not show these small transitional steps then his theory of evolution is thouroughly discredited….I can get you the quote if you like. Now, a lot has happened since Darwin….the main thing to point out at this juncture is that the fossil record does not show any indication of this slow transition model that you are suggesting on the basis of small probabilities. In fact, quite the opposite…..you are no doubt aware of what they call the Cambrian explosion…..most of the main types of life forms coming into existence at about the same time independent of each other….according to the fossil record…..isn´t this why neo-darwinism has developed the concept of “mutation” jumps to try and account for thier missing links that noone can seem to find? And what exactly is the difference between their mutation theory and the concept of creation by an intelligent intervention? There are differences of course, but they both seem to describe the sudden emergence of different life forms at the same time….interesting…..and all of this is really about biology….what about cosmology….if the Big Bang theory is correct, what set in motion the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity with such precision in that first split second that ultimately provided the environment for life to emerge on this planet….anyway, those are some of my questions. Would love to hear what you think…..Bert
Hey Bert,
Well, there’s a lot to deal with here. I’d rather just focus on what we were discussing: probability.
I’ve written a blog post as a sort of reply because too much writing is required.
In the blog, though, I didn’t address your reply directly. So, a couple things:
“We have not seen any microevolution without intelligent intervention but that may be because of the time scale”
– yes we have, actually. There are certain species that reproduce quickly, such as flies or bacteria, which have been exposed to conditions that generally kill them, such as in the case of bacteria, anti-biotics, and these organisms have adapted.
“Secondly, you do know that the math people have already torn apart this concept of probability (without intelligent intervention) and found it wanting….and I´m talking about evolutionists, secular humanists, who have a vested interest in the concept.”
– I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Probability itself? Probability applied to DNA? Probability applied to evolution? Anyway, I have never heard anyone say that probability of any of these sorts has been “torn apart”. My coworker majored in mathematics in university. I asked him about this and he said he has never heard of any questioning of probability.
“. Probabilities, apparently, are not increased or decreased by the time scale when the number of possibilities is almost infinite. ”
– I said that I don’t believe in the infinite-time monkey-typewriter scenario
The other things you talked about are off topic, and I’d rather focus our discussion because I don’t want to write massive replies. 🙂
Hello William,
Thanks for your comments…..interesting…..communicating well is not always easy. We haven´t really defined our terms and that lends itself to misunderstanding. And you´re right, it´s hard to deal with these big issues in a comment. I looked at your post on your website and I will reply with another post dealing with the key issues from our point of view. But let me say a few things here…..I will get you the math evaluations of the application of probability theory to macroevolutionary theory. Then we can revisit the probability issue…..I think that there is a fallacy in assuming that mutation and adaptation are more or less the same (yes, I saw your comment on your post about mutations but I don´t think you can generalize like that….). I also think that it is a jump in logic and certainly lacking in evidence to assume that adaptation/mutation on the microevolutionary level within a species means that it has also happened across species, especially from lower life forms to higher life forms…..Finally, I was a bit surprised that you didn´t respond to the key issue that I pointed out about the fossil record and the quote from Darwin himself about the absence of transitionary forms in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion…..would love to hear some discussion on those topics….I know that you would rather focus only on probability theory as it relates to macroevolutionary theory but that is a rather narrow focus even if an essential one.
One other comment….you call yourself “the great antagonizer” and that you are fighting “evil with antagonism”. I like the idea of fighting evil, that´s always welcome. How exactly do you do it with antagonism? Does that mean that you aren´t afraid to fight, to be a warrior, to stand up for what you believe and to call a spade a spade? Great…..I try to do the same thing…to be a desert warrior….but not with antagonism….with truth and grace (firm gentleness, undeserved favor, thinking in terms of the relationship as well as the truth so that the truth can be heard and a life changed because the relationship is also important). The Bible says that Jesus was full of grace and truth. Most of us are hard as nails on the truth or wishy-washy with too much grace. He was full of both. I consider that a worthy example to follow. Hold me to account on that. Telling the truth the best I can but doing it with respect and care. Keep up the good work. Bert
Hey Bert,
First, I never said mutation and adaptation are the same. I didn’t want to get into the details in that blog post, I wanted to keep things simple so that people could understand the basic concept of evolution. There are actually at least four, from my memory, concepts that lead to adaptation: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and selection. So, adaptation is the result of these things, NOT the same. Maybe you meant to write “selection” instead of “adaptation”?
Next, the “jump” from the so-called microevolution to the so-called macroevolution. Well, these two terms are highly problematic because they are “qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different” (wikipedia). This is a more advanced discussion that I definitely didn’t want to get into in my blog post — or here for that matter. The point is that separating these two completely is misleading. They work together. You cannot say where one species stops and the next starts. If you read my blog post, as you said you did, you would recall the example of lions and tigers creating ligers or tions — hybrid animals. Lions are not tigers. Tigers are not lions. Yet, they can mate. Is this your “microevolution” or “macroevolution” at play here? The reason that the answer is not easy is explained by the aforementioned wikipedia quote.
Next, as for the “absence of transitionary forms” in the Cambrian explosion, Evolutionary speed changes relative to the relative environment. There are some time periods where you will find fewer “transitionary” forms and times you will find more. Also, finding fossils is not easy. Have you ever found a fossil? I haven’t. Further, finding the exact fossil you need is not easy. Further, the conditions required for bones to fossilize are not common. So, if this is your “proof”, it’s pretty weak (not trying to be rude).
Last, I’d recommend that if you are serious about discussing evolution, you shouldn’t preach about Jesus at the end of your discussions. This merely shows that you have a very strong bias and are (possibly) unwilling to consider the other person’s opinion. I hope that’s not true (that’s why I wrote this lengthy reply).
Thanks for responding 🙂
Hello William,
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on the “preaching Jesus” thing…..as you know, one person taking offence does not mean that the other person meant to offend. I speak from my context, you speak from your context. That´s to be expected. Still, I find it interesting that you did not reply to what I said but reacted to the name (or example) of Jesus (which I applied to myself not to you). I would still like to hear your answer to that part of my email….regarding your position as an “antagonizer” and how that equates to fighting evil. As you must know, Christians believe (always based on the biblical revelation that we take to be true) that evil is within all of us and that evil is ultimately relational (with others and with God). Even the secular problem of evil recognizes that truth even if it tries to give other solutions. As to the other comments…..in fact, you did what I asked you to do….which is clarify your position…..I assumed that you equated adaptation and mutation because you never clarified it either in your comment or in your post. Now you did. Thank you. Your argumentation for the “jump” and dismissal of the fossil record is weak. But you are right, it is difficult to discuss this in depth in the context of a comment or even a post. I´m not sure where that leaves us other than to perhaps write some lengthy posts to discuss the matter there. I´m up for it if you are….let me know. And yes, my loyalty to Jesus does not close my mind to facts and truth but, rather, it obliges me to consider all truth and all facts as aspects of a reality created by God. It is the interpretation of those facts that should concern us. So we start with defining our terms, determining the data and then deciding what theory best describes the facts as we know them. What is different between you and me is that I allow for the existence of God as an apriori belief and the Bible as a source of interpretation of the facts. The reason that I do so, is because the evidence (facts and rational conclusions) supports the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which undergirds the authority of the Bible). I believe that if I was there at the time of Jesus with a video camera, I would be able to film the miracles, the resurrection and all of the rest. We believe that these things are historically true. If truth corresponds to reality and I think it does, then I must also be commited to the reality of facts and data. But even Nitzech said, there is no truth only interpretation. Of course, he didn´t believe in God. If he did, he might have said, the only truth is in God´s perspective. Because of the resurrection of Jesus in time and space, as a historical reality, we believe that the Bible is truth because he said it was. If that is true, and it is an “if” and it takes “faith” (a whole other discussion we can have sometime), then it is God´s interpretation of reality that I am interested in. All other interpretations are suspect, even my own. Am I open to other people´s opinions and interpretations of reality, of course? But in order to change my mind, a person would have to deal with the evidence for the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that evidence can be overturned rationally, scientifically, historically, then, of course, I would need to change my position. But there you have a problem, at the end of all the discussion between the two sides, it usually ends up a tie between the agnostics and the believers (the atheists don´t even want to play ball). The problem with atheism is that it is an untenable position. In order to prove that God doesn´t exist, you would have to know everything, which would make you God (God forbid….lol…). Anyway, I thought it was only fair to you to explain my position with regards to my faith…..I believe, but my belief is not irrational or unthinking….in fact, quite the opposite….hope that helps. Bert
Hey Bert,
I wasn’t offended about the reference to Jesus at the end of your last reply, I just wanted you to know that generally, non-believers are going to see that as an emphasis of your bias, if it’s attached at the end of a discussion about evolution. The reason being that evolution by itself does not state anything about religion. It is the religious that have taken offense to the fact that evolution goes against concepts in certain religions. Therefore, if you say something about Jesus at the end of a discussion about evolution, it seems like you will never budge in your opinion because your religious conviction prevents you from being open-minded. Read that carefully, I am not saying that you are not open-minded, but your postscript about Jesus makes it seem that way. That’s why I recommended that you don’t do that.
As far as my username; I’m not that strongly dedicated to being antagonistic. I tried many usernames before settling on this one, but they were all taken. I do like to push people out of their comfort zones, however. Regardless of their political or religious positions — I find it most fun to question people who would be considered on “my side” because I know what they will probably respond with for every question.
Instead of going into the discussion about evolution some more here, I’d rather do what you said: create blog posts that take different perspectives of the same issue.
The issue here, if we can keep our focus narrow, would be the likelihood of evolution creating all the organisms around us.
I’ve gotta get back to work now, so that’s all for now 🙂
Hello William,
Good. I´m glad that you weren´t offended. Yes, it is easy to assume that when I speak about Jesus it means that I have a bias. I do. We all do. You have a bias against Jesus by definition since you, apparently, are not a Christian. One of the great myths of the modern era was the idea that we could be unbiased and objective in discussing our interpretations of reality. In the post-modern world, most people realize that is not possible. Better to be aware of your bias, be open about it, but try to focus on discussing the distinctiveness of your position while still holding an open mind about the other person´s position. It´s a question of humility. Humility about your own interpretation of reality as subjective even if it is based on evidence. The evidence still needs to be interpreted even if your theory or bias seems to fit the evidence nicely. When you watch police shows on TV, they have this problem all the time….and it is true to life…..our interpretations and biases are based on the most common assumptions about circumstances and people. The problem is that strange, un expected things do happen in life. One of those things is the resurrection of Jesus. So the evidence needs to be looked at with the possibility that an uncommon event could happen. That is what an open mind is all about. The evidence needs to be looked at with an open mind, different (even conflicting) interpretations must be explored and finally a communal decision must be made in humility recognizing that we might have gotten it wrong and it may need to be revisited again and again as new evidence or new ways of looking at the evidence emerges. In other words, in the post-modern era, process is as important as content even though there is a lot of skepticism that truth exists at all. I think that is a bit extreme but the end result of humility in discussing evidence is good. On both sides. So, I am not that concerned about whether or not people appreciate that I speak from a particular bias or interpretation of reality. I don´t want to offend but I do not mean to offend either. I just want to be honest and open about my bias. Perhaps exposing my bias is a sign of an open mind, not a closed one. Perhaps focusing on the process of evaluating the data is a sign of an open mind, not a closed one. I would challenge your assumption that evolution is a neutral position with regards to other interpretations of the data (whether religious or not). Evolutionary theory is not fact. It is a theory. The best theory, granted, if you do not factor in the existence of God and the truth found in the Word of God. If I wasn´t convinced by the evidence of the resurrection and the existence of God, I would believe that evolution is the truth. But, hopefully, I would hold that position with humility, knowing that there are other interpretations of the data that would not agree (even among former evolutionists). Yes, I like to push people out of their comfort zones too…..and I think you are right…we should write some blogs and then comment on those. One of the things that I try to do is to be at the forefront of the discussion on both sides so that my answers reflect well thought through positions that are more than just my opinion. I am not always successful at that, but I try and that is my goal. Hold me to it. Thanks. Bert