Scientific explanations for the evolution of the universe and the Abrahamaic genesis: do they match up?

I was out and about with the good people of the Kansas City Atheists Coalition, and one gentleman raised the point (and I'm going to paraphrase, as I didn't record what he actually said), "How can you dispute the fact that the theory of evolution and the book of Genesis in the Bible line up, chronologically (assuming a non-literal interpretation of the usage of the word 'day')? How can you assert that the Bible is false when the authors, thousands of years before the discovery of evolution, possessed knowledge of how the world came to be and evolved?"

Now, following my deconversion to atheism, I had taken it on the word of reliable sources that the theory of evolution and Genesis did not, in fact, line up. What I realized that night, though, was that I had never done the actual research to verify the truth of the statement. While I don't mean to imply anything not-nice about those who informed me of the inconsistency between Genesis and the theory of evolution, I felt the need to solidify my knowledge of this assertion in order to make sure that I had proper ground to stand on and that, if challenged, I could knowledgeably defend my position, lest I find myself easily swayed by a conveniently-persuasive counter-argument or find myself defending an indefensible stance to begin with.

ReligiousTolerance.org has a brief break-down of the inconsistencies, but I wanted to know exact details. What I investigated goes a bit beyond just evolution, though, since the book of Genesis covers not only how life reached the state it currently has, but how the universe was created; the scientific theoretical analogues are the theory of evolution and Big Bang theory, respectively.

What This is Not

This is not meant to be an in-depth argument for evolution, the Big Bang theory, or any other prevailing scientific explanations for the course of changes taken by our universe. This article moves forward with the acceptance of evolution and the belief that the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, and other such theories are fact, in the scientific sense of the word.

How the World Evolved, According to Genesis

In the book of Genesis, the following events occurred in the following order:

1. The universe and the Earth are created (Genesis 1:1)
2. God created light, and the rotation of the Earth (what I interpret to be a separation of light from darkness, as the rotation of the Earth would give the appearance of a separation of light and darkness) (Genesis 1:3-5)
3. God created a separation of space from water - the atmosphere of Earth (Genesis 1:6-8)
4. God created the landmasses out of a planet covered in water (Genesis 1:9-10)
5. God created plant life (Genesis 1:11-12)
6. God created the stars, including our sun, and the moon (Genesis 1:14-18)
7. God created the marine and bird life (Genesis 1:20-21)
8. God created the land-faring animals (Genesis 1:24-25)
9. God created humanity (Genesis 1:26-27)

Already we can see an inconsistency: the sun was created after plant life, the Bible says. How can plants, which subsist on light (in addition to nutrients in soil and water), survive without any source of light such as the sun? One might posit that the plants that existed at the time prior to the creation of the sun somehow survived without light, but that's pure speculation - no evidence exists for trees or other seed-bearing vegetation that can survive without light - and, as a result, cannot be used in a rational, factual-based discussion.

Accuracy in Genesis argues that the entirety of the creation story is written from the viewpoint of an observer on the surface of the Earth, and that verses three through five describe the actual creation of the celestial light sources (stars) and that versus 14 through 18 are a description of a clearing of the atmosphere to such a degree that light could actually reach the surface of the planet. However, this interpretation still fails the litmus test of "how can plants survive without light", as this interpretation still implies that light was unable to reach the surface of the Earth, light that is critical for the survival and life of plants. As a result, it can be dismissed, like the above, from a rational, factual discussion and I will continue with the interpretation that the sun is not actually created until versus 14 through 18.

How the World Evolved, According to Scientific Theory

1. Approximately 4.57 billion years ago, the sun was created (Sun - Life Cycle)
2. Approximately 30 million years later (4.54 billion years ago), the Earth was formed (Earth) from the protoplanetary disc of matter surrounding the sun (Formation of planets)
3. During this formation, it is hypothesized the still-forming Earth collided with another protoplanetary body, and the resulting collision created the moon (The giant impact hypothesis).
4. Close to 250 million years after the formation of the Earth (4.3 billion years ago), the atmosphere and oceans were created (Oceans and atmosphere)
5. Three hundred million years following the creation of the atmosphere (4 billion years ago), the continents appear (The first continents).

At this point, life does not yet exist on the planet. In addition to the logical conclusion of the inaccuracy of the order of events based on the requirement of sunlight by plant life, we see reliable measurements that, while there is room for error in the exact accuracy of the values themselves, the events are, relative in their sequence to each other, logically sound. Thus, it is readily apparent that the creation of the sun predates the creation of the Earth, and that the moon predates the creation of the atmosphere. This conflicts with the story of Genesis in two ways:

• Verses 14 through 18 assert that the sun was created after the Earth (which was created in verse 1)
• Verses 14 through 18 assert that the Earth, its atmosphere, plant life, and continents were created were before the creation of the moon, which we know to be demonstrably false.

From here, I moved on to researching of the formation of life. Wikipedia has a very concise and informative timeline of evolution, which states that, omitting steps that are not directly mentioned in Genesis:

1. Fish
2. Plant life and, 75 million years later, seed-bearing plant life
3. Reptiles
4. Mammals
5. Birds
6. Humans (approximately 200,000 years ago)

This conflicts with Genesis in the following ways:

• Verses 11 through 12 contend that plant life preceded marine life, but we see, from the timeline, that fish marine life definitely came before plant life
• Verses 20 through 21 state that bird life preceded all land-faring creatures, but we see that reptiles and mammals, both of which categories contain land-bearing animals, precede the existence of birds.

In Summary

What we see is the incompatibility of evolution and the Biblical account, literal or otherwise (assuming that a non-literal interpretation still adheres to the sequence of the events in which they are presented). The logical conclusion, due to the evidence backing scientific theory, is that the creation account by the book of Genesis is incorrect; however, that's not always the conclusion that one adheres to. There is no better example of this than Kurt Wise, a man who has a doctorate in geology from Harvard University, who wrote:

...try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible ... It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

Wise is also quoted as saying:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

For reference, I obtained these quotes from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, pp. 322-323; Dawkins himself cites it as being from Wise's "contribution to the 1999 book In Six Days".

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed": An Analysis

In 2008, Ben Stein released a movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which purported to detail a conspiracy to exclude intelligent design from scientific discourse and discussion, a conspiracy that goes so far to ruin the careers of those who support it.

In a discussion unrelated to intelligent design, I posted a link to an interview between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins, the latter of whom I respect very much. I was asked if I had seen the documentary from which it came and I had not. I took it upon myself to watch it, despite having heard multiple individuals advise against it.

I went into the documentary expecting more of what occurred in the Stein/Dawkins interview: interviews with educated individuals giving rational arguments against and (with the expectation of this being the greater percentage of the interviewees) for intelligent design. This was not what I encountered.

The site "Expelled Exposed" does a very good job of exposing the misrepresentations and outright lies in the film, but I'd like to touch on some of the presentation flaws in the movie.

Evolution Has Problems

It's quite likely true that evolution does not have all the pieces to the puzzles; as there has been no mechanism purposefully keeping a natural record of the world, it's all too likely that there are holes and will remain holes in the theory of evolution.

Paul Nelson from Biola University (founded as the "Bible Institute of Los Angeles") makes that statement that,  "after the third or fourth beer", evolutionists will say that the theory "has a lot of problems". Neither Stein nor Nelson bother to elaborate on what these problems are, but the implication is that, because evolution does not provide the entirety of answers for how life evolved from the moment of creation to modern day, that evolution is not the strongest answer (and, implicitly, that intelligent design is).

William Albert Dembski makes statements equally ambiguous to Nelson, saying natural selection does not provide a sufficient explanation for how life has arrived at its current state, but that intelligent design does - yet he does not provide any evidence to explain how intelligent design is the superior answer.

Stephen C. Meyer contends that, for every evidence-based argument for Darwinism, there exists an evidence-based counter-argument. This may be true (no specific examples are given, so no specific refutations can be made), but, even if there exists an evidence-based counter-argument, that doesn’t imply a conspiracy on the part of evolutionists; it’s entirely possible that the counter-argument’s evidence simply isn’t as strong or as conclusive as the argument for Darwinism. We can only speculate, though, since all the movie provides itself is speculation and no specific examples of what these counter-arguments are.

Jonathan Wells claims that Darwinism "corrupts the evidence" and "is bad for science", but this is all presented as hearsay, as no specific examples of this corruption or negative effect on science is given.

David Berlinski may be the most ludicrous of them all. He makes the claim that evolution is "not clear enough", likening it to "looking into a room full of smoke", and that "it lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematic physics", but he doesn't explain what any of this means - he even goes so far as to make the claim that "we don't even know what a species is". Berlinski's unsubstantiated claims continue, as he states that Darwinist and Nazi ideas "leap from the page" when reading Hitler's "Mein Kampf", but fails to elaborate on what those ideas exactly are.

Evolution Implies Eugenics

Stein leads a significant part of the film trying to draw links between eugenics and proponents of natural selection; refer to "Expelled Exposed", linked above, for arguments of why this is a fallacious assertion. Beyond that, Stein attempts to link abortion and euthanasia to eugenics: David Berlinski makes the offensive claim that those in favor of keeping abortion and euthanasia as options view them as "an excellent way to get rid of useless people." Statements such as this betray a fundamental self-imposed ignorance or misunderstanding of the reasons supporters of abortion and euthanasia take the stances they do, and come across as childish attempts to demonize the opposition.

Because Other Ideas Exist, Intelligent Design is the Victim of Conspiracy

Stein describes two ideas that are proposed for the origin of life:

• Directed panspermia: this theory fails to actually explain the actual origin of life (it simply moves the question off of the planet Earth)
• Crystal growths: Michael Ruse proposes the idea that organic matter came about from inorganic matter growing "on the backs of crystals"

Stein goes on to imply that these theories strain credibility (the former fails to answer the question, and I don't have enough education in the fields relevant to explaining the origin of life to comment on the latter), but he goes on to imply that, because these two ideas that are difficult to believe in, that there exists a conspiracy against intelligent design because the two theories are not treated with the same incredulity as evolutionists treat intelligent design. The flaw in this argument is that Stein fails to demonstrate any acceptance of the two aforementioned theories, especially any level of acceptance as evolution and the theory of evolution both currently enjoy. The fact that we're supposed to believe in an anti-ID conspiracy because two other theories exist is ridiculous.

Information Theory Makes Evolution Impossible

Maciej Giertych, who was a representative to the European Union for Poland at the time the film was created, proposed that the reduction of genetic information across successive generations has been observed and that such observations directly contradict evolution. This article sums up nicely why Maciej is ignorant of the matter.

Larry Witham

Larry Witham was so ridiculous that he deserved his own section. He makes vague claims of people who do not accept evolution being barred from progressing professionally, receiving funding for their research, or getting jobs, but fails to provide any specific examples.

He goes on to claim that he has spoken to "dozens of scientists" who claim that "molecular biology is in a crisis" and "is incredibly complex". While one speculates as to why complexity implies falsehood, one should also consider why nothing was presented to prove that these "dozens of scientists" have any authority of the matter; indeed, conveniently for Stein and Witham, Witham states that these critics of evolution are prevented from speaking out publicly.

Witham continues further by asserting that only "liberal Christians" accept evolution (fluff that isn't actually backed up by anything remotely resembling statistical evidence) and they only do so because, in their pursuit of allies against religious fundamentalism, they find solace in the company of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for the low, low price of believing in evolution - once more, fluff that lacks any substantiating evidence.

Lastly, Witham makes that statement that implicit in any evolutionary theory is the assertion that God does not exist or cannot have a role; this is a critical intellectual misstep on his part, as the reason there is an absence of  a god (or intelligent designer) in evolutionary theory is because there exists insufficient evidence for such a participant in the theory. Adding a god to the theory when there is insufficient information serves only to needlessly clutter up the theory.

Evolutionists Lead Lives Devoid of Hope

Will Provine is interviewed in the movie and makes the assertion that the life of an evolutionist is devoid of hope and "imminent morality", for which there is given no definition. Provine states that:

1. The lack of an intelligent design as part of Darwinism immediately leads to a doubt of one's theistic leanings
2. Such doubts lead to a disbelief in life after death
3. Such a disbelief "fairly easily" leads to a lack of "imminent morality." (Alternatively, I realized today that perhaps he meant "eminent morality" and just botched the enunciation, which makes a bit more sense, assuming that such a term means "morality that comes from God". While probably accurate, Provine fails to demonstrate as to why getting one's moral code from something other than a god is a bad thing.)
4. Provine follows with, "If you believe in evolution, you can't hope for any free will."
5. Provine concludes with, "There's no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life"

These assertions are fraught with philosophical and moral insubstantiations and fallacies:

• When Provine refers to a lack of "imminent morality", I assume he means to imply that atheists are devoid of morality. This is a tired argument used by theists and, in itself, betrays a selfish tendency toward good deeds: "if there is no Hell in which to burn eternally for my sins, what reason do I have to be good?" - i.e., "I'm only good because I'm afraid of Hell".
• Provine asserts that evolutionists have no hope for free will; while one could argue that we are slaves to our genes, that's only one argument. More absurdly, Provine implicitly argues that, in a universe where a god knows everything that we are doing, which implies pre-destination, we have free will. That's the greater logical mistake.
• Lastly, Provine makes the broad-sweeping assertion that there is no hope in of "deep meaning in human life" as an evolutionist, but given the gammat of philosophies that cross the spectrum of evolutionist and, implied by his arguments, atheists stands in stark contrast of that statement.

In Summary

Ben Stein attempts to expose a conspiracy of persecution against intelligent design and make an argument for the legitimacy of intelligent design as a theory, but fails on both counts by providing false information, misrepresentation, omitting facts, and flat-out failing to make an argument at all for any evidence for intelligent design (perhaps I, the viewer, was supposed to already believe in intelligent design?).

This movie is much more of an argument against the rationality of intelligent design and its proponents than for it.