1. Howard Taylor. Before he retired in June 2008 he was Heriot-Watt University Chaplain teaching: –Moral and Social Philosophy. –Philosophy of Science and Religion. Also still a visiting lecturer: `International Christian College’. Edinburgh University Open Learning Department. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. (SHUFE) Previously: –Parish Minister in West of Scotland - 17 years. –Author of several small books/booklets. –16 years in Malawi, Africa: Minister, Theology lecturer, African Language teacher. Maths and Physics lecturer: University of Malawi. –Graduate of: Nottingham, Edinburgh and Aberdeen Universities. Married with three grown up sons and four grandsons and three granddaughters.

2. Physical things are things we detect with our five senses e.g. stars (very large) or cells (very small) and other things we see through a microscope. When we say something has a physical cause we mean that it has occurred because something else that is physical has acted upon it. Some think we can give a physical explanation for the origin of humans. We are merely descended from bacteria which came from chemicals in a pond. (They don’t explain where the chemicals came from.) So life is just an accident of nature without any overarching purpose. Some use the theory of evolution to support this view. They deny that the non-physical or spiritual (e.g. the soul or God) exists, or, if it exists it does, it does not act upon the physical world. Others say human life must be more than this. TE say God used evolution over a long time to bring us into being.. YEC reject evolution & say God created in 6 24 hr days 6000 yrs ago. OEC also reject evolution and believe the main groups of animals were created in stages over a long time but they accept that the universe is billions of years old, beginning with a big-bang of light caused by God. Physical Science (PS) examines the physical world. Does the non-physical (spiritual) exist and does it act on the physical?

3. World Views: 1. Atheistic Materialism : There is nothing spiritual - no god, spirit or human soul. Only what we can detect with our 5 senses is real. Impersonal matter/energy/physical laws (in one form or another) are the basis of all that exist - the whole story. –Some kind of impersonal matter/energy is eternal –It has developed into the universe including all life & human life & minds which are just complex forms of impersonal chemicals. In principle the human person, including his/her appreciation of beauty, right and wrong, could, in the future, be understood entirely by sciences such as physics and chemistry and biology. –A complete understanding of the human could, in future, come from a study of impersonal physical matter/energy which make up his/her physical body/brain & environment.

4. World Views: 2. Deism: God is entirely transcendent - out there, not in here. –God created the universe with its physical laws and now leaves it to run its course. –There is no continuing relation between God and the physical universe. –God is not relevant to our physical lives.

5. World Views Continued 3. Pantheism: `God’ is immanent - in here, not out there. –There is no Creator God distinct from the universe. –`God’ is the spiritual dimension of the physical universe. –God is impersonal. We tune into God rather than pray to Him in a personal way. We may pray to spirits but not to God. –All things are sacred in their own right. –The physical/spiritual universe is eternal.

6. World Views: 4. Theism - God is both transcendent and immanent –He is distinct from the physical world but He is with and `in’ all things. –He alone is eternal –He created matter/energy/laws of physics. –He holds all things in being. –He is personal Mind. –Some believe that we may know Him personally.

7. World Views: 5. Christian Theism. As well as the theism already outlined : –God is love. –He does not remain distant from our sin and suffering. –He stoops to the human level, and bears human sin, pain and death for us. (The Cross) –He lifts us up back to where we belong, forgiving us all our sin. (The Resurrection and Ascension.) –This is focussed in Jesus, but it is a process that occurs throughout history - the subject of the Bible. –Judgement, New Creation and Eternal Life are real. –There our true destiny is fulfilled.

8. Micro evolution - non very controversial. Small changes and adaptations do occur, changing species that previously interbred with one another to new ones that cannot interbreed. The fossils demonstrate that the simpler were first. These changes do not produce new parts of a plant or new organs for the animal - such as leaves, bark, petals, wings, eyes, livers, lungs, blood streams, brains, nervous systems, etc. So if micro-evolution is true, it explains modification with descent, i.e. there are species which are related, but it does not show that all species are related to all other species. Micro evolution alone cannot explain how bacteria changed into elephants, trees, humans etc. So is there macro evolution? Macro evolution (controversial) Evolution can gradually bring entirely new organs into being and thus explain the whole process from bacteria to tiger, rose and human. Darwin. Darwin saw micro evolution & hypothesised that there was macro- evolution too, explaining the origin of all species. Was he right?

9. I once believed in macro-evolution & Christianity. I support ID or Mind, but this is not based on religious belief. Some Christians believe macro evolution to be true. I think Darwin’s theory (in his time) was not unreasonable. Intelligent Design (ID) should not attack Darwin himself. The later discovery of DNA etc made Darwin’s theory much more difficult to believe because DNA had to exist before evolution could get started, and it is a code of instructions that Darwin could not have imagined. My conversion from macro-evolution came after reading Dawkins’ TBW. I realised that his English and imagination were brilliant but his arguments were poor. I am not a defender of religion in general. Its not obvious that religious influence has had an overall good or bad effect on world history. A case can be made for both sides. I am not even a defender of Christianity – if is meant a fixed closed system of dogma and ecclesiastical ceremonies. A great book condemning abuse of spiritual power is the NT itself.

10. What is physical matter? E.g. The question ‘What is an electron?’ provides us with a mystery. Saying that there is a physical explanation for something does not solve the mystery because we don’t know what ‘physical’ is. If every physical thing is made of fundamental waves/particles, what are they made of? Bertrand Russell: It is not always realised how exceedingly abstract is the information that theoretical physics has to give. It lays down certain equations which enable it to deal with the logical structure of events, while leaving it completely unknown what is the intrinsic character of the events that have the structure … All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to - as to this, physics is silent. (My Philosophical Development, page 13)

11. Faith is believing things without any evidence. Or is it? There is indeed such a thing as faith without evidence. Physical science (PS) examines physical things therefore it could never show that non-physical things don’t exist. PS has been very successful in examining physical things (however mysteries about the physical world get greater not less with time, e.g. DNA). PS could hold the lesser view that the physical world is entirely self contained. However it could never reach that view unless it had reached a theory of everything (TOE). Faith in physical science (that it will, one day, answer all mysteries), is without evidence – so this kind of blind faith does exist!

12. True statement: “I went to nursery school.” But this body and brain didn’t go to nursery school. So what went to nursery school? -------------------------------------------------------------------- People intuitively recognise that there is more to reality than physical existence so ‘religion’ (good and bad) is widespread in the world. The Cross links our greatness with our wretchedness. (Pascal.) Suffering and injustice is not the end of the story.

13. As we have said physical science examines physical things. As we have seen it could never show that the non- physical does not exist. Our minds (non-physical) interact with the physical world. Therefore one cannot explain the workings of the physical world entirely by physical science.

14. Some say: ‘Measuring & testing is the only way of knowing.’ What is wrong with that statement? The statement cannot be measured and tested itself. So if it is true it is not true – i.e. it is nonsense. How do you know other people? By testing? No! By friendship. So friendship involving trust & being in the other person’s presence is a real way of knowing. Testing spoils the friendship. Thou shalt not put the Lord Thy God to the test. We are saved by faith not works of the law. How do we know our friends? By listening to what they say. Their word. Not by examining their brains.

15. Wherever we look in nature we cannot find the origin of nature’s creation or its rational structure. Job 28. 12 “But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? 13 Man does not know its worth, and it is not found in the land of the living. 14 The deep says, ‘It is not in me,’ and the sea says, ‘It is not with me.’ 28 And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.’”

16. Humans cannot make something out of nothing - but the universe of matter and energy certainly exists. Two basic issues with regard to life and evolution: 1. Origin of Life. We can’t make life from non-living things - not a blade of grass! 2. How did life develop from bacteria to trees, cats & people? Once life existed (in the form of primitive a bacteria or virus) how did it (without bark, blood stream, brain, nervous system, liver, eyes, consciousness, music etc etc.) develop into all the marvellous kinds of life we have today - with all its beauty? According to Dawkins evolution is the answer to 2. but not to 1. How is it that much of nature today is exquisitely beautiful? What about ET?

17. The Atheist Richard Dawkins writes : What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, nor a 'spark of life'. It is information, words, instructions... Think of a billion discrete digital characters... If you want to understand life, think about information technology.

18. Information and Word? (1) When we consider matter/energy as a wave or field we find that it is a wave understandable by Mathematics. Galileo: “Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe.” Consider a message in a letter or a formulae in a mathematical treatise. Is the message/formulae explained by the chemistry of the ink and paper, or the mind who wrote the letter/treatise? In one of his non-religious books on Quantum theory, John Polkinghorne says it is intelligibility from which all physical existence emerges. So information, (in the form of mathematics?) lies in and behind all physical reality.

19. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from minds. (Minds are conscious.) - minds that have agreed on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences and that express both desire and intent. If we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say: Messages, languages and coded information never come from anything else besides a mind. No-one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind. Languages etc can be carried by matter or energy (eg sounds, ink, electronic and radio signals) but they are none of these things. Indeed they are not matter or energy at all. They are not ‘physical’. The physical universe can create fascinating patterns - snowflakes, crystals, stalactites, tornados, turbulence and cloud formations etc. But non-living and non-conscious things cannot create language. They cannot create codes.

20. Consider this from Bertrand Russell’s ‘Study of Mathematics’: Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty - a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, … is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. And consider this from Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize: Quantum Theory):.. fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power … One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Eugene Wigner, (Highly honoured in the world of Maths) and Dirac’s brother-in-law, wrote of the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in understanding nature. He said: “ It is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

21. Now to life and evolution. However hold in your head what we have said about information, word and mind. At a higher level than physics, life at its heart, has ‘information’ too. The Mystery of the Origin of Life. A common theory about the origin of life (before the supposed processes of evolution can start): In the early earth there was a ‘cosmic soup’ of gases and liquids. Electricity from lightening produced, in the cosmic soup, amino acids - the building blocks of life. This can be replicated in the laboratory today.

22. How did life originate? (Cont) However it is one thing to know how stones (say) were formed but another to know how an intricate stone palace was built from the stones or how the stones were laid out to form a message. Energy and an intelligent mind are needed to work on the stone. Simple proteins involve many amino acids in correct sequence. How are proteins actually made? In the cells of life. In each cell of life there is a chemical factory (cytoplasm) for making the proteins, a computer program (the DNA) and a translation system (the RNA)

23. Nucleus of cell made up of DNA Cytoplasm for making proteins. It receives its instructions from the DNA via the RNA translation system. RNA

24. Professor Francis Crick, who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA (the famous double helix), writes: “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going” (italics added). Professor Harold Klein, chairman of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed origin-of-life research, writes: “The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened” (italics added).

25. How did life originate? (Cont) The chemical factory receives its instructions from the very complicated DNA code. The DNA is a code written in a four letter ‘alphabet’. (Each letter is a different nucleotide.) The DNA code even for a simple bacteriam may be thousands of ‘letters’ long. These letters have to be in a particular order to provide the information necessary for the manufacture of the proteins. The DNA sends its instructions to the cytoplasm via the RNA which ‘translates’ the instructions so that the cytoplasm can ‘understand’. The DNA, cytoplasm and the RNA are themselves made by the very cells of which they are a part!

26. Some say that life’s beginnings may have been much simpler than this. However we still have the problem of the origin, not just of complexity, but of information. You could never discern the message in a manuscript from the chemistry of the paper and ink.

27. The Origin Of Life Antony Flew: It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.[12][12]

28. Commenting on Flew's change of mind, Dr. Jonathan Witt writing to the Times (22nd December 2004) says: " Peering into the world of even the simplest functional, self-reproducing cell — the thing Darwinism needs before it can even begin to work — Flew finds a world of intricate circuits, miniaturised motors and enough digital code to fill an encyclopaedia. Natural selection can’t build this bit by bit. It needs life first. Nor can the natural outworking of the laws of nature. Flew and the rest of us are waiting for a detailed, credible description of how such complexity occurred without design. Bold assertions, prestigious degrees and hand-waving don’t count.“

29. How did life originate? (Cont) In his award winning book ‘Consilience’ Edward Wilson the eminent non religious science writer who has recently won many prestigious prizes tells us that cells use “very modern technology involving digital logic, analogue-digital conversion and signal integration.” He tells us that this complexity exceeds that of “super- computers and space vehicles.”

30. How did life originate? (Cont) Encyclopaedia Britannica: The origin of the code. A critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus supporting the operation of the code the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, and so on are themselves each produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.

31. How did life originate? (Cont) Douglas Hofstadter, (a world famous and non religious artificial intelligence expert) writes: "A natural and fundamental question to ask, on learning of these incredibly, intricately interlocking pieces of software and hardware is: 'How did they ever get started in the first place?'..... from simple molecules to entire cells is almost beyond one's power to imagine. There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of central questions: "How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation originate?”’

32. Karl Popper: The Self and Its Brain. Page 28: The probability or propensity of any atom, taken at random in the universe, to become within a chosen unit of time, part of a living organism, is indistinguishable from zero – even on the assumption that there are many planets in the universe capable of sustaining life. He reports that Jacques Monad said, “with good reason”, that the chances of life appearing anywhere in the universe were “virtually zero”.

33. How did life originate? (Cont) My comment: We can add to the mystery of the `miracle' by noting that the DNA, by itself, is useless; it must be translated via the RNA so that its `message' can be put to use by the cytoplasm `factory'. The problem is that the RNA that links the DNA with the factory, itself is manufactured by that very factory which cannot function without the RNA and the DNA! Indeed each component depends on the other for its manufacture. Try to imagine a factory for making computers - the factory itself being run from the beginning by the very computers it alone can manufacture! This is only one of the enigmas of the origin of life even in its simple forms.

34. An individual life form is more complex than the DNA codes in his cells. I am more complex than even the cell of life from which I grew. Just consider one of a thousands of possible examples the brain. Writing about the brain Richard Dawkins in his preface to `The Blind Watchmaker', tells us : " The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones (ten thousand million neurones). Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand `electric wires' connecting them to other neurones." Where does this greater complexity come from?

35. An individual life form is more complex than the DNA codes in its cells. (Cont) The Plot thickens - differentiation! Research Chemist Ernest Lucas tells us: The single fertilised egg does not have miniature arms and legs. These new structures appear later as the cells multiply and divide. If every cell in my body contains the same DNA code, how, at the beginning of my life in the womb, does each new cell know whether it is to be part of a nose, my liver, etc? How does this mystery of differentiation happen? Who or what tells it?

36. An individual life is more complex than its DNA codes. (Differentiation Cont) Paul Davies writes: If every molecule of DNA possesses the same global plan for the whole organism, how is it that different cells implement different parts of that plan? Is there, perhaps, a `metaplan' to tell each cell which part of the plan to implement? If so, where is the metaplan located? In the DNA? But this is surely to fall into infinite regress.

37. What is the theory of evolution? A scientific theory of how physical nature behaves. How do we arrive at scientific theories? By reason. But reason is not physical. Therefore the theory cannot explain the existence of reason. Yet reason is fundamental to being a human being. Why is reason not physical? If reason were physical: Your thought would have a physical cause. My different thought would have a physical cause. How would one decide which thought was correct? By thinking? That too would have a physical cause.

38. If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called ‘facts’, it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements: hence a world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood. Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, page 70.

39. Darwin had his own doubts related to this point and wrote: But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind if there are no convictions in such a mind. Letter to W. Graham in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Edited by Francis Darwin. (3 rd son of Charles Darwin)

40. Bertrand Russell. Design (next slide.) Pythagoras. Moral Argument. Mind - where our thoughts and intentions are. Matter – the physical stuff which we detect with our senses.. “I am not a materialist.”

41. The Argument from Design – Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell, (sceptic though he was) greatly respected the argument from design especially as expounded by Leibniz. (He regarded Leibniz, in whom he specialised, as "one of the supreme intellects of all time") BR writes: "This argument contends that, on a survey of the known world, we find things which cannot plausibly be explained as the product of blind natural forces, but are much more reasonably to be regarded as evidences of a beneficent purpose." He regards this familiar argument as having no "formal logical defect". He rightly points out that it does not prove the infinite or good God of normal religious belief but nevertheless says, that if true, (and BR does not give any argument against it) it demonstrates that God is "vastly wiser and more powerful than we are". (See his chapter on Leibniz in his History Of Western Philosophy.)

42. David Hume. What is Hume’s most general verdict on natural theological reasoning? The third sentence of his work The Natural History of Religion of 1751 will surprise those who, without properly studying him, hail Hume as a committed metaphysical atheist. Hume in fact writes as follows: The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.

43. 2.EVOLUTION. Random mutations (changes) in the DNA in succeeding generations sometimes accidentally produce improvements which make the species more able to live in its environment. So it then survives better and passes on its new characteristics to succeeding generations - and so on. This process is called: Natural Selection or (less accurately) The Survival of the Fittest. However it would have to be the result of aggregation of very small steps, so Darwin says ( OOS page 162) : "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow, steps.” However many geologists now say that the fossil record shows relatively sudden appearances of new forms of advanced life. (The argument between the late S. J. Gould and Dawkins)

44. An ancient belief in Evolution? St Basil, the 4th century Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia: ‘Why do the waters give birth also to birds?’ he asked, writing about Genesis. ‘Because there is, so to say, a family link between the creatures that fly and those that swim. In the same way that fish cut the waters, using their fins to carry them forward, so we see the birds float in the air by the help of their wings.’ (Quoted in the Spectator:25th October 2003)

45. Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. The finches on different islands vary by the shape of their beaks and what they eat - some eating seeds and others eating insects. Their beaks vary in accordance with their diet. They seem suited to the environment on their respective islands. The Ground Finches eat ticks they remove with their crushing beaks from Tortoises. The Sharp Beaked Ground Finch jumps on the backs of other birds pecking at their flesh and feeding on their blood. Woodpecker and Mangrove Finch use small twigs and cactus spines as tools to dine on the larva stored in dead tree branches.

46. Though they have adapted to allow for specialised feeding most finches were generalised eaters. Different beaks were useful in times of drought. They ate what is left on their respective islands in dry years. Then these specialised beaks allow the birds to compete better for food sources. Certain beaks and diet were suited to certain islands. Those that had suitable beaks survived and reproduced and those that didn't died out. (i.e. Natural Selection.) Each island had finches suited to its environment. Not that God created this finch for that island. In one island the fittest to survive did survive and then it passed on its characteristics to its offspring.

47. Some important questions. 1. How did the initial change in the shape of the beak come about? - before Natural Selection could begin to work? 2. Does this relatively small change in the finch (shape of beak) give us solid ground for believing that creatures without nerves, brains, blood streams, bark, petals would develop new organs and would change into the many life forms we see today so we could explain the origin not just of the beaks but of the finch itself? It is spoken of as if it is clear but is it clear or is it an assumption? 3. Isn’t the belief that these developments took place solely by random mutation and natural selection based on the assumption that only physical causes exist. But what is the evidence for that assumption? In principle there can be no such evidence.

48. Nature’s report on a prestigious September 2008 Conference: "What's wrong with this picture....? Molecular biology, cell biology and genomics have provided a much richer picture of how genotypes make phenotypes. The extenders claim that enough insights have now come from this and other research for it to re-examine problems that the modern synthesis doesn't address. These problems include some of the key turning points in evolution: the patterns and changes seen in the fossil record as new branches spring from the tree of life and new anatomies - skeletons, limbs, brains, -come into being. "When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of land", says Graham Budd, a palaeobiologist at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, "But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.” (Emphasis added)

49. Nature magazine: February 2009: The term Macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origins of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead the natural world is often characterised by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved. Another category is that species and higher ranks in the taxonomic hierarchy are often separated by gaps without evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution."

50. Evolution (Cont) In response to a claim in late 2001 by Eugene Scott of the (US) National Center for Science Education that “virtually every reputable scientist in the world” supports (Darwinian) evolution, a list of over 100 reputable scientists was published in an advert in the New York Times - entitled “A “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Signatories included 5-times Nobel nominee Henry F Schaefer, University of Georgia chemist, and other research scientists who are faculty members at Princeton, Berkeley, Yale, MIT etc. These are not arguing for creation in 4004 BC, but scientists who dare to doubt Darwinism on the basis of the evidence itself.

51. Evolution (Cont) Darwin did not believe that Natural Selection could provide a full explanation for the origin of species. Many modern evolutionary biologists (such as the late Steven Jay Gould) agree with Darwin that there must be more to it than that. Militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins insist that random mutation and natural selection alone will one day provide sufficient explanation for the existence of all life. What is the evidence for their prophecy? That is the question.

52. Evolution continued: Irreducible complexity. (This is one of the points made by the controversial Intelligent Design movement.) Challenge from Darwin: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly be formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Michael Behe’s ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ responds, claiming there are many irreducibly complex organs in nature. He uses the workings of a mouse trap to illustrate his point. If just one of the eight parts of the mouse trap is missing the mouse trap will not trap fewer mice - it will trap none at all. Others dispute this claim - the debate continues.

53. Bertrand Russell: An extra-terrestrial philosopher, who had watched a single youth up to the age of twenty-one and had never come across any other human being, might conclude that it is the nature of human beings grow continually taller and wiser in an indefinite progress towards perfection; and this generalization would be just as well founded as the generalization which evolutionists base upon the previous history of this planet. ( The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, volume 8, page 62 line 19.)

54. Malcolm Muggeridge: I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example. The End of Christendom, But Not of Christ (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 4-5.

55. Sunday Telegraph February 2009: Christopher Booker firstly points out some unresolved problems with Darwin’s theory that are generally ignored or suppressed today. He comments that “It becomes increasingly obvious that…the Darwinians…are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and …their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma.”

56. Spectator, February 2009: Why does natural selection lead to endless complexity? Complex organisms are more fragile than simple ones. They are less capable of repairing themselves when things go wrong. If natural selection has a purpose, surely it is durability rather than complexity. How can it become more durable by becoming more complex? It may be that selection leads to complexity in the short run but in the long run it ought to lead to simplicity, which must make it more durable...... There are many other riddles. Darwin’s general theory will eventually be overthrown, or fundamentally modified, as Newton’s was by Einstein’s relativity. Unlike his fundamentalist followers, Darwin was not afraid of change...

57. Evolution (Cont) Problems for the view that natural selection alone can account for the origin of the different species of life: –If the mutations were truly random then one would expect harmful changes to be common and improvements to occur very rarely indeed - if ever. A common answer is to say that there were billions of forms of primitive life - so improvements are not all that unlikely. Eg bacteria mutate to their own advantage. A response says that this does not explain alleged evolutionary changes in bigger species where their numbers were relatively small, and the changes that benefit the bacteria are not the result of making new large molecules but simply of switching parts of the bacteria’s code on or off - not the manufacture of a new form of life. –If the changes in DNA code are not random - what or Who guides them?

58. Evolution (Cont) I do find it difficult to believe that purely accidental processes and random changes, even given billions of years of the `survival of the fittest', could change a single cell (without brain, nervous system, liver, eyes, ears, blood, lungs, leaves, feathers, bark, roots, petals, etc. etc.) into all the wonderful forms of animal and vegetable life we see around us. However this process could have occurred if the process of mutation was not random but guided by an overarching purpose that transcends the universe. That could happen only if the universe were an open system. According to this theory we are the result of ‘the survival of the fittest’. (This was Nietzsche’s point.) However ‘the survival of the fittest’ goes against our normal moral sense.

59. Evolution (Cont) Perhaps a clue to the development of life could come from the underlying quantum physics in the cell - the ‘language’ at the subatomic level. Lothar Shäfer's quantum view of evolution. However that only pushes the question about the source of life’s developing information, one stage further back.

60. I am reminded of what guided Einstein who said: "We are in the position, of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects." (Emphasis added). (Quoted by David Bodanis in his book: E=MC 2 )

61. Psalm 19: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

62. So how is mind known? I can only know your mind by hearing you speak or communicate in words. Words express minds. By examining your brain I could never discover your thoughts - your mind. I need to hear your ‘word’. However if I have a personal relationship with you, listening to what you say, I can learn something of your mind.

63. So how do we find the Mind of God and how is it expressed? John 1:-3,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

64. Mind - Consciousness - Soul 1 Corinthians 2:11 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

65. Not only is the existence of God necessary to make sense of the grandeur and beauty of reality but so also is the Cross of Christ in whom He makes Himself known in the midst of the suffering, ugliness and evil of the world. I am reminded of these words from 1 Corinthians 1: 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” (NIV)

66. We now to the ancient world. Ancient Greek philosophers believed the ability for reason abstract thought universal thought –made human beings unique and superior to all other earthly living or non-living things.

67. Richard Dawkins compares the coming into existence of the DNA with the self-generation of a Xerox copying machine. Although this is unlikely there are probably enough planets in the universe to justify it, or so he says. He says that a Creator, in order to make such a thing as DNA, would have to be at least as complex as DNA. If we have to explain the origin of the DNA's complexity, then we must explain the origin of the complexity of God. The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the laws of nature (i.e. cause and effect) apply to that which is beyond nature - a patently false assumption. If God exists then he is, by definition, beyond nature.

68. Even in the physical world his argument is unsound He also says: You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that sort of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there'. and be done with it. It is beyond dispute that DNA and life were not always there. No one pretends that they were. Also, a war between nations may be very complex, but the cause of the war maybe just one man’s greed, or jealousy. Just as we invoke non-complex causes for complex situations, (e.g. a match for a forest fire) why not invoke a simple cause for the existence of life? Indeed Thomas Aquinas argued that God must be simple i.e. He must have no component parts.

69. AE; (Intellectually fulfilled atheist.) Weak TE; (Fruitful potentiality) Strong TE; (ID) OEC; (ID) YEC. (ID) Universal Flood, Catastrophism, Dating Methods, No suffering before the Fall. Fallen Time and Redeemed time. We could never get back to God’s time. Jewish year commemorates Adam, not Creation, because Genesis 1 is God’s time unknown to us. What is the alternative to Evolution? It does not bear thinking about. Hence the passion. Much is at stake.

70. Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism. Creationism takes authority from the Bible and attempts to fit science to the Biblical narrative. ID starts with science and says it points to a non- identified Designer. No opinion is expressed by ID as to the age of the earth. ‘Creationist’, these days, often means someone who thinks the universe is about 10,000 years old. There is considerable overlap. Some people are in both but most ID people do not believe the Universe is only a few thousand years old. In America ID is dominated by Old Earth Creationists (OEC). However there are Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in their midst.

71. Intelligent Design (ID) tried to reconcile Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists also Protestants and Catholics by putting aside differences until the anti-evolution case wins. Then, afterwards, they will be free to discuss differences.

72. Intelligent Design (ID) and the American constitution. Originally the constitution meant there must be no established denomination. This has come to mean that ‘God’ must be kept out of anything that depends on government funding – e.g. public schools – the majority of schools. American and UK constitutions. Biblical view. So how does one say, in American schools, ‘God created life’? Answer: Don’t identify the Designer, just say that science points to design, therefore there must be a Designer. (Hence ID). After all, the concept of ‘design’ is used in forensic science. Specified complexity would indicate design. ID is rejected on the grounds that it is really Christianity by the back door and all religion must be kept out of schools. A problem is that some in the ID movement are non-Christians e.g. agnostics or Jewish people. The argument in America continues.

73. TE criticisms of creationism and ID and Vice-Versa. 1.All reputable scientists accept evolution – therefore you are wrong. What do you mean by reputable - those who accept evolution? 2.Creation is one seamless whole – ID is proposing an extra miracle. Creation was in stages – not all at once. 3.It is true that there is no viable theory of the origin of life but there will be one day. God of the gaps. (A thunder storm.) No, ID has come from the advance of science revealing the wonderful structure of the cell. 4.The creation story in Genesis 1 is spiritual not physical. Don’t separate the physical from the spiritual. 5.The term Designer is inadequate for God. He also is a source of beauty and goodness? On this TE is right. Roger Penrose. 6.TE people say that they accept the miracles of Redemption but not those of Creation. We shouldn't make this distinction.