The limits of evolution

The Acts & Facts of September 2008 had some interesting quotes from Werner Arber
The following are quotes from the article without added comments. (The footnote numbers have been deleted from the body of the text but are cited at the end.)

The most recent replication is by Lenski et al, who evaluated the changes in over 30,000 generations of E. coli, concluding that millions of mutations and trillions of cells were needed to produce the estimated two to three mutations required to allow cells to bring citrate into the cell under oxic conditions. This corresponds with Michael Behe's deductions that if one mutation is required to confer some advantage to an organism, this event is likely; if two are required, the likelihood is far less; but if three or more are required, the probability rapidly grows exponentially worse, from very improbable to impossible. Evolution by mutations for this reason has very clear limits.
…
Regarding major evolutionary questions, such as the origin of the information required for natural selection, Arbor wrote in his Nobel Prize speech that the answers so far proposed are often trivial or avoid the major questions facing Darwinism. He gave the example of using meaningless phrases such as "evolutionary driving forces" to explain how life evolved. As Arbor wrote, the claim that "more intensive research is needed to understand the apparent complexity of nature" is actually an admission of ignorance about the origin of complexity in the living natural world.9
…
For his study of mutations, Arber selected bacteria because they have short generation times (20 minutes vs. 20 years for humans) and therefore reproduce enormous numbers of progeny in only a few days. They also do not have sophisticated genetic repair mechanisms as do eukaryotes, allowing far more mutations to be expressed in their offspring. One of Arber's studies evaluated 10,000 generations of E. coli under various conditions, finding that "tremendous diversity accumulated within each population." The phenotypic change was very rapid for the initial 2,000 generations, but far slower for the subsequent 8,000 generations, conforming to the research on viruses that found the rate of fitness gain "decelerated significantly over time," as did the rate of nucleotide substitution.11 Arber concluded that genetic variety has definite limits, a finding carefully documented by Behe.7

This evidence indicates that the changes he observed in bacteria resulted almost solely from transposition and other types of chromosomal rearrangement, not mutations as required by macroevolution. This study provides clear evidence that the putative evolution observed in microorganisms is primarily, if not totally, a result of built-in mechanisms designed to produce genetic, and thus phenotypic, variety.

References
7.Behe, Michael. 2007. The Edge of Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
8.Arber, W. 1996. Molecular Mechanisms Promoting and Limiting Genetic Variation. In Di Castri, F. and T. Younes (eds.), Biodiversity, Science and Development: Towards a New Partnership. Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International.
9.Arber, W, D. Nathans, and H. O. Smith. 1992. 1978 Physiology or Medicine, Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1971-1980, 469-492.
10.Arber, W. 1991. Elements in Microbial Evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 33: 4-12.
11. 11.Papadopoulos, D. et al. 1999. Genomic Evolution During a 10,000-Generation Experiment with Bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA. 96: 3807-3812.

Odd priorities in the EFCA

The EFCA (Evangelical Church of America) was debating about changing their statement of faith. Number 11 of their prior statement read:

"We believe in the personal, premillenial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer."

The proposed changes were:

"We believe in the personal, bodily and glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels when He will bring His kingdom to fulfillment and exercise His role as Judge of all. This coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, requires constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission."

Many pastors didn't appreciate the removal of the word "premillenial" from the statement.

One local EFCA church's head pastor was against the change. Yet, he was (apparantly) comfortable with the openness the EFCA has to BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism. His off-handed comment was "we just differ on Soteriology". He gave me a photocopy of "This We Believe Creeds in Conflict", spelling out the history of how the EFCA could have divided over "just Soteriology" (my sarcasim).

How is it the the message of SALVATION IN CHRIST and how it is accomplished could be of less importance than the contentin that there is a future, literal 1,000 reign?

The Premillenialists won and the EFCA still has "premillenial" in their statement of faith.

Where is "heaven" mentioned in the OT?

"Where is heaven mentioned in the OT?"
I've asked that question many times and have had a lot of silence in response.

In Genesis, Abraham is promised "the land." In Romans 4:13, Paul says that Abraham was given "the promise that he would be heir of the world."

I'd like to offer the premise: "The fulfillment is always greater than the promise."

Abraham was promised a piece of land in the OT. In the NT we see that it is really the whole world that was promised!

Hebrews 11:10 tells us that Abraham "was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God." This sounds like the heavenly Jerusalem seen at the end of Revelation.

Review all the OT "kingdom" passages. ALL of them are eternal kingdoms. They do not last 1,000 years; they last forever. I would contend that they refer to heaven.

No one can read all those Kingdom passages in a wooden literal way, but that discussion is for another day

Christ is the true Israel

In my last post I said that all believers are Israel.
It would be better and more accurate to say that Christ is the true Israel.

1. The servant songs of Isaiah (41:8-9; 44:1-2,21; 45:4; 49:3) have a double referent. On one hand, they refer to the people of Israel. On another level they refer to an individual. The New Testament authors interpret this as referring to Christ (Mt 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)
2. Matthew sees Jesus as Israel in many of his statements of fulfilled prophesies in Christ. Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son" is one such double referent.
3. Paul calls Jesus Christ as Abraham's seed, not physical Israel. (Gal 3:16)
4. Gal 3:7 and Romans 4:11,16 identify the church as Abraham's offspring. See also Gal 3:26-29, Rom 2:28-29, Phil 3:3.
5. The Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:8-12) and is not applicable and will not be reinstated in a future millennial period ("obsolete" means "obsolete"). Also, the reference in this passage to the new covenant being with "Israel" means that the author is identifying the church as Israel.
6. The Old Testament authors didn't understand their prophecies. 1 Peter 1:12 says that they looked into these things. Until Christ came and fulfilled his mission, the prophecies of the OT were unclear. We must use the NT to interpret the OT.

How many "Israels" are there?

March 7, 2007, John MacArthur gave a speech at the Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church. It was entitled "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist"

As a thoughtful amillennialist, Kim Riddlebarger gave a response to the speech. I have a few general notes to throw into the fray.

MacArthur said "There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers..."

----------------------------------------------------------

Several years ago I was listening to a Dispensational Premillennial radio program in which two pastors were stating the same thing: "there is only one Israel."

I called into the show and read Romans 9:6 to them. Note that this is the same passage MacArthur says "we" run to as a proof text.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."

My question was "if the word Israel is used twice in a sentence, with a negation between them, there must be two Israels, right?"

I don't recall that the pastors ever addressed my challenge/question.
A few of the people that called into the show after me said that they'd pray for me :-)

------------------------------------------------------------

Back to MacArthur's claims:
If Romans 9:6 "simply means Jews who were believers" then the verse would read "not all Jews who are believers are Jews who are believers."

Of course this is silly. John must not be meaning that "Jews who are believers" is to be substituted on both sides of the equation.

Paul begins chapter 9 with a concern that many of his fellow Jews are not being saved. In verse 4 he sates that "There's is the adoption as sons ... the covenants" and YET they aren't saved. How can that be, if God keeps his promises? (verse 6a asks) It's because "not all of the physical descendants of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (Israel) are of (spiritual) Israel."

In John 10:16 Jesus says "I have sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. ... and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

We believing gentiles are being made part of the "one flock" with believing Jews that Jesus spoke of.

In Ephesians chapter 2:11-20, Paul states the same thing:
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles
by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves
"the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)--
12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded
from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought
near through the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out
of the two, thus making peace,
16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the
cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to
those who were near.
18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow
citizens with God's people and members of God's household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

"We amillennialists" don't have to run to just one or two texts. We don't have to read into the text the meaning we want. We see the text plainly stating that we have been brought near (elsewhere "grafted in") and are no longer foreigners and aliens.

ALL BELIEVERS ARE ISRAELITES

The logical conclusion of Darwinism is a-morality

The following quotations are directly from “Darwinism: Survival without Purpose” from found in the November 2007 issue of Acts & Facts, written by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. (Bold added to highlight the a-moral nature of Evolution)


Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins
Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.


Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."
Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 206.


The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."
Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.


"undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.


John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."
Alcock, John. 1998. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 16, 609.


The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle.
Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.


Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.

---------------------------------------

Some of the above quotes/Evolutionists say that we only exist to pass on our genes ("selfish genes"). Speaking from within their system, that is totally wrong!

Evoltuion has NO PURPOSE. Things, animals and people exist, but they have no purpose.

If they pass on their genes, they have offspring. That could be a measure of success. However, perhaps some humans would measure success as "having climed the most mountains."

The Evolutionary system has been built on a tautology of "Survival of the Fittest." And they deem "survival" as good. But they have no philosophical basis for this belief. It is presupposed.


Another conclusion of their "Survival of the Fittest" has lead some to conclude that rape is just another method of ensuring the passing on of genes. Refer to Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer. A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1999).

"Move over Archaeopteryx"

I wonder how special we'd feel the Archaeopteryx is if we could see a South American Hoatzin up-close.



It is a beautiful, striking, bird. They have claws on their wings, allowing them to climb trees just like a monkey and helping them ward off enemies.

The Hoatzin become expert swimmers before they can fly. If a predator approaches, they can fall to the swamp below their nest and swim back to shore and climb back up to the nest.

Another unique trait is that they are the only bird known to digest their food like a cow. They have two stomachs and they ferment their food.

Lastly, molecular biologists say that it is a relative to the cuckoo. Huh, and I thought it was a dinosaur!

What's on your brain?

While the brain weighs only three pounds, it can do the work of 1,000 super-computers. It doesn't need to be connected to a power source and it doesn't overheat because it is able to make its own electricity and it operates on only microvolts of power. If you brain's 10 trillion cells were placed end-to-end, they would stretch for over 100,000 miles. Your brain has the capacity to store every word of every book on a bookshelf 500 miles long.

In order for the human brain to have evolved from a simpler brain in the time that evolutionists claim it has, the brain would have had to evolve millions of new cells every year for millions of years. A.R. Wallace, co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of Natural selection, once noted that there is a huge gulf between the human brain and that of the ape. Darwin recognized what Wallace's argument did to their theory and responded, "I hope you have not murdered completely you own and my child."

Ref: DeYoung, Don, and Richard Bliss, 1990,

Thinking about the brain, ICR Impact, Feb P.1

The darkness the engulfed the world at the time of the crucifixion was recorded by Apollophanes. He was a fellow student with Dionysius at Heliopolis and reported that, upon the occurrence of the unexpected (miraculous) solar eclipse Dionysius exclaimed "Either the God of nature is suffering, or the fabric of the world is breaking up."

History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff, David Schley Schaff, page 600

Scientific Red Faces

Some years ago scientists discovered human bones in California buried under thick layers of mud. Scientific authorities studied the bones and dated them at about 75,000 years old. Digging deeper, scientist discovered an old United States Army button! Was the U.S. Army around 75,000 years ago, or was the dating method unreliable? More recently an archaeological team from a Japanese university discovered drawings on a cave wall on a Japanese island. This important discovery was dated at 10,000 to 13,000 years old. When one of the local residents of the island heard about the discovery, he stepped forward to confess that as a boy he often drew on the walls of the cave with charcoal.

From an ICR (Institute for Creation Research) article, they quoted from
Jackson, Wayne 1990, Scientific red faces, Reasoning from Revelation, v. II, n. 1, Jan p.3

I trust ICR, but if anyone reads this and shows that one of these is an urban legend, I will quickly remove it from this post.