Argument: Chance cannot produce complexity

Evolution depends on chance mutations in genes producing changes that make it more complex and introduce survival benefits. Mutations do not increase the complexity of organisms, but damages them: for example, cancer. Mutants might gain new powers in comic books, but not in real life. [1]

Mutations may have beneficial side-effects, but do not add new information. For example, sickle-cell anemia increases resistance to malaria. [2] However, it does this because the normal functioning of the blood cells is impaired, not by evolving into something more complex, which is necessary for evolution to take place.

Many biological systems are irreducibly complex: you need all the parts to work, or they will not work at all, like a mousetrap. They cannot have arisen by step-by-step changes.

[1] Daniel W. McShea, ‘Complexity and Evolution: What Everyone Knows’, Biology and Philosophy, 6: 303-324, 1991. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k87536105j01g806/ Accessed 1/6/2011

[2] Michael Aidoo et al., ‘Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality’, Lancet 2002; 359: 1311-12 http://www.biomed.emory.edu/PROGRAM_SITES/PBEE/pdf/Udhayakumar6.pdf Accessed 3/6/2011

Candidate 1: "Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Science simply describes what is, not what ought to be. Social Darwinism and eugenics are misapplications of science. We have evolved the capacity for higher reasoning, and so we can develop ethical and moral systems to suit us, rather than following the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. [1]

Social studies indicate that secularised societies in which evolutionary science is widely accepted enjoy lower rates of societal dysfunction, whereas the USA, which is much more religious and anti-evolution, has worse social health. [2]

Morality may have an evolutionary basis. People who look after their relatives, those who share many of their genes, are maximising the likelihood those genes will be passed on. Altruism benefits the survival of the group as a whole.

[1] ‘Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Gregory S. Paul, ‘Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies’, Journal of Religion and Society (Volume 7, 2005) http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf Accessed 31/5/2011"
Candidate 2: "Most scientists are not Christians and do not accept the Bible as God’s word: in 1996, only 40% of US scientists believed in God. [1]

Many Christians interpret the Creation account symbolically and have done so since long before Darwin. For example, in the 5th century, the theologian Augustine argued that the account in Genesis was not a literal, chronological account. [2] Even if Genesis was inspired by God, it could not have been intended to be a literal, scientific account, because it would have made no sense to the people of the time. It must be interpreted according to its original genre and purpose. [3]

When the Bible says death entered the world through Adam, it could refer exclusively to humans rather than the animal kingdom as a whole. Alternatively, it may refer to spiritual death, which is separation from God, rather than physical death, the separation of soul from body. [4]

Science proceeds by reason, evidence and observation, not by arguments from religious authority. If science contradicts the Bible, we should accept the findings of science, which is based on reason and evidence, rather than the Bible, which is based on faith.

[1] Edward J. Larson, Larry Witham, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature, 23rd July 1998, p. 313 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf , accessed 24/5/11.

[2] Alister McGrath, ‘Augustine’s Origin of Species’, Christianity Today, May 2009, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[3] Ernest Lucas, Science and the Bible: Are they Incompatible? The Creation story as a test case, http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/lucas/lecture.html Accessed 31/5/11

[4] ‘Was there Death before the Fall?’, Biologos Forum, http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall/ Accessed 2/6/2011"
Candidate 3: "Theists and atheists alike use ‘methodological naturalism’ when doing science, because scientific method depends on understanding and explaining the natural world in natural terms. It does not assume that God does not exist. Many Christians do not believe that the evidence supports Creationism despite believing in God, and instead believe that God is the one who sustains and upholds the natural order as understood by science.

Uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption for understanding the world. If the laws of nature changed on a whim, so that science worked one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday, we would not be able to make observations and predictions that worked. But all our observations indicate that the world does operate consistently. The success of science in providing accurate models and explanations of the world shows that its presuppositions are correct.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a metaphysical question outside the scope of science. But science can show that evolution explains the origins of life, and there is no need to invoke a God of the Gaps to explain it. The supernatural is outside the scope of scientific enquiry, and therefore a matter of faith."
Candidate 4: "Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]

The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]

[1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html Accessed 3/6/2011"

Evolution is not just a matter of chance. Mutations can add, change or remove genetic information. Natural selection acts as a feedback mechanism to filter those mutations to pass on useful changes in organisms to adapt them to their environment.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. For example, gene duplication is a common mechanism for introducing new information. When a long stretch of DNA is copied, then mutations often occur in one or both of the copies. This is the likely origin of some proteins. [1]

The argument from irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance: if we cannot currently explain how a complex system arose naturally, it must have been God who created it. But the development of supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ systems can be explained: different parts in biological systems often have multiple and changing useful functions, and apparently irreducibly complex systems arise when these interlock in new ways. [2]

[1] ‘Mutations Adding Information’, Talk.Origins, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Accessed 3/6/2011

[2] Pete Dunkelberg, ‘Irreducible Complexity Demystified’, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html Accessed 3/6/2011
