The Design of Science, Evolution, the Environment, and Redemption: A Student's Guide to Discovering, Defending, and Measuring the Usefulness and Truthfulness of Your Worldview and Why It Matters

By Jim Keck

Don’t send your kids off to college without this book, especially if they will be engaged in the sciences or philosophy. The Design of Science, Evolution, the Environment, and Redemption will clarify the differences, scientific basis, and logical foundation for the two most dominating and competing worldviews we have adopted in western society nowadays—namely science and religion. After reading this book, you will be able to better understand, articulate, and defend what you believe and why. As a society in general, we need to understand the basis of our morality and culture, and how science and religion each have a role to play. Just a few of the types of questions answered are:

Is there really competition and conflict between science and religion?

What is the technological and philosophical scope of science?

How does our worldview affect the development of morality and virtue, both individually and collectively?

Do we really need to be concerned about global environmental changes?

Which type of worldview does the best job of providing answers to the tough questions on origin, purpose, environmental issues, morality, government, and eternity?

Is a belief in God and the Bible part of the evolutionary process?

Written by a mechanical engineer with more than thirty years of design and R&D experience, The Design of Science, Evolution, the Environment, and Redemption lays out in a clear, concise, easy-to-read, and entertaining manner much of the science, logic, and data used by academia and the media to answer life’s toughest questions as compared to the biblical Judeo-Christian tradition. This book explores how we can measure the truthfulness, accuracy, and scope of these worldviews and how they can affect us personally, spiritually, and culturally. The answers are logically, spiritually, and technically robust, as well as just plain surprising in many ways.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Covenant Books, Inc.
• Release date: Jul 18, 2022
• ISBN: 9781638857181

Book preview

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Introduction

Chapter 1: Origins, Evolution, and the Environment

Chapter 2: The Role of God and Religion—Can We Allow a Divine Foot in the Door?

Chapter 3: Evolutionary Ethics, Human Flourishing, and the God Contradictions

Chapter 4: What Is the Scope of Science?

Chapter 5: Intellectual Satisfaction and Your Worldview

Chapter 6: Is Evolution God, or Is God Just a Product of Evolution?

Chapter 7: Is Atheism Possible?

Chapter 8: Is Evolution Possible?

Chapter 9: Just Exactly What Is Religion?

Chapter 10: Tying It All Together

Chapter 11: Loss of Logic

Chapter 12: The Mechanism of Redemption

Snapshot 1: The Plan

Snapshot 2: The Questions

Snapshot 3: What about You?

Snapshot 4: When Will the Truth Break Through?

Snapshot 5: Where Did the Bible Come From?

Snapshot 6: Truth Table

Snapshot 7: ABCs of Redemption

Final Comments

Bibliography

About the Author

cover.jpg

The Design of Science, Evolution, the Environment, and Redemption

A Student's Guide to Discovering, Defending, and Measuring the Usefulness and Truthfulness of Your Worldview and Why It Matters

Jim Keck

ISBN 978-1-63885-717-4 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-63885-718-1 (Digital)

Copyright © 2022 Jim Keck

All rights reserved

First Edition

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Covenant Books

11661 Hwy 707

Murrells Inlet, SC 29576

www.covenantbooks.com

Your interpretations of the world should shield you, to the degree possible, from excess suffering and death.

—Jordan Peterson

Political Correctness and Postmodernism

September 12, 2017, YouTube video

Introduction

Most would agree that everyone has a desire for their life to be grounded to some sort of philosophical foundation in order to make sense of the world. This foundation is what we are defining as a worldview. At some point in life, significant events and new information acquired begin to be filtered, judged, and evaluated through the lens of one's worldview. Exactly how a worldview is formed and developed is likely different for each one of us. Those who may have had traumatic life experiences, especially while young, were likely heavily impacted and consequently see and interpret the world accordingly. Others may have developed their worldview through upbringing, culture, education, or even indoctrination by those whom they respect, revere, or fear. It is likely a combination of these as well as many other factors. Some would say your worldview is what you use to determine your core values, while others would say it is your core values that determine your worldview. Either way, a robust worldview should be able to address the basic questions of origin, purpose, value, morality, politics, God, and eternity.

Of course, no one claims to have all the answers, but your worldview should at least provide the basic foundation on where to search for answers as well a framework to interpret information and life experiences. Stated another way, even though your worldview may be limited in scope, it should perform at least two functions. One is to provide boundaries of what are considered as acceptable and trusted sources for answers, and secondly, it must provide the context for which information and data may be judged and interpreted. Stated bluntly, your worldview is your personal philosophical bias through which your life is filtered. There is no such thing as a neutral position because we are all human and are a product of our experiences and environment in many ways. The best we can hope for is to have enough humility to engage in honest discourse, debate, and study.

So based on the scope of what a worldview should do, we can now make the assertion that when it comes to the foundation for a worldview, most of us either lean toward science or religion. We justify this statement because science and religion are the two main sources for answers to these basic questions. If science is to be our foundation it would be logical and important to think about what science is actually designed to achieve. Likewise, the same logic and thought can be applied to religion.

Finally, in addition to the two functions listed above, and regardless of what your foundation is based upon, there is at least one more important job your worldview must accomplish. That is, it must help define the value we place on others and the environment in which we live, and hopefully in a way that is benevolent and redemptive.

For many who may not think too much about these issues, there may be a tendency to just put our trust in what we hear from those whom we respect and consider to be an authority in either science or religion, depending on which way our bias is leaning. We may assume, for example, that most of life's important questions have been addressed by science and naturalism as presented by cosmologists, physicists, molecular biologists, astrophysicists, university professors or otherwise. If highly respected scientists are confident about such matters, then we can just trust what they say and be spared from the effort of further investigation and get on with our lives. We may choose, in a similar manner, to adopt the doctrine put forth by religious leaders, church pastors, or other institutions. Of course, everyone formulates their worldview in their own way, and how a worldview is formed is not the topic of this book except to point out that everyone has one and is what you use to justify and defend your actions, words, and value system.

If we all have a biased worldview, then at some point, it would be very important to ask if there is a way to measure how well it reflects reality. How do we know if it is based on truth, or even if there is such a thing as absolute truth? If someone were to ask, would we be able to provide a clear definition of what our life and values are based on and why? What motivates us to live life the way we do?

In general, these questions are not something people talk about openly. Why not? Maybe because we assume these are personal issues and open discussion makes us feel uncomfortable. Or maybe it seems that since no one else is too concerned, why should I be? After all, I did not ask to be born. As long as we keep ourselves busy with our daily activities, we can just keep looking ahead to the next task and never really stop and ask, what am I trying to accomplish with this life of mine? Am I adding value to the human experience in a way that will remain after my time? Do I even care, or am I just living for the moment? What are my core values and why? Do my worldview and core values include character qualities that will add value both personally and collectively?

Based on what we see in media, academia, politics, and where the world seems to be headed, I do not think many would disagree that the character quality of virtue is in short supply nowadays. A dictionary definition of virtue is "moral excellence; goodness; righteousness; conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness. If we, both individually and collectively, are moving down a path that produces less and less virtue, it might be a good time to stop and ask what my worldview is and why? Are my demands for tolerance and individual rights actually making me less tolerant and less virtuous in some ways? Does my worldview promote the growth of virtue and tolerance or even have the ability to define what they are? If one's core values change or evolve in some manner, they may view those who do not agree with or adopt those changes as being divisive, intolerant, bigoted, or ignorant, but fail to recognize that the divergence had nothing to do with the other person or group. It may be that they had no intention of being intolerant" but simply believe their core values to be based on an unchanging foundation and are exactly that (i.e., core values) and hence nonnegotiable. Therefore, this book is an attempt to look at some of the science, logic, and consequences of two dominating and possibly antagonistic worldviews we see in American and most European cultures and why they seem to be diverging. It is also an attempt to consider how we might measure or gauge their validity, truthfulness, usefulness, and whether or not they encourage a virtuous, tolerant, and environmentally responsible lifestyle.

In addition, we also discuss how our worldview might also affect our ability to flourish, both individually and collectively. Although I do not hold a degree in philosophy, as an engineer in a design environment, there is a tendency to look at problems and issues logically and compare the most relevant data. In any attempt to get to the truth about a matter where there are many unknowns and possible solutions, one of the best ways to compare possible explanations or proposed solutions is to consider how well they each explain and address the known variables. The apparent strength or plausibility of a given proposal, theory, or solution to adequately address an issue is sometimes referred to as explanatory scope and power. The following pages are based on some logical thought as well as significant research into the areas being discussed. Explanatory scope and power are tools we can use to help measure the logic and credibility of a given theory or worldview.

Chapter 1

Origins, Evolution, and the Environment

As stated in the introduction, most would agree that a robust worldview should at least be able to answer the basic life questions, one of which is, where did we come from? The most dominate and commonly accepted explanation for our origin and mechanism for all of existence is taught in most schools, universities, and science media. Time, space, and matter (i.e., the entire universe) is a product of a rapid expansion of an infinitely dense singularity about 14 billion years ago known as the big bang. There are many theories about the details of course, but the origin of the singularity and the cause of the rapid inflation have yet to be identified because they are outside known physical laws. Nevertheless, it is hypothesized that the energy and matter released after this expansion eventually condensed and coalesced into stars, galaxies, and planets as a result of gravitational attraction, planetary accretion, conservation of angular momentum, nuclear fusion, and other physical laws. This formation of stars, galaxies, planets, and solar systems from naturally occurring processes after the big bang occurred is sometimes referred to as cosmic and stellar evolution.

After formation of the Earth about 4 billion years ago, environmental conditions gradually improved until they became suitable for primitive life. As a result of chemical evolution, life was able to emerge through a process called abiogenesis from random combinations of chemicals under just the right conditions and stimuli. Beginning about 3.6 billion years ago with simple bacteria and countless beneficial mutations, more complex and robust organisms evolved and eventually achieved the ability to reproduce. The ability to divide and reproduce allowed the further development and the branching out into all the various plants and animal kinds we have today from a common ancestor, sometimes referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). In short, the formation of the chemicals needed for life, the beginning of life, and finally, its increase in complexity and interdependencies are achieved through processes called chemical evolution, abiogenesis, and biological evolution, respectively.

Possible scenarios where life could spontaneously appear is still an open question and an exceedingly complex topic. One of the original assumptions was that life had to begin in a primordial soup or a hot water vent in the early ocean. However, we now know the peptide bonds required to form the long chains of amino acids needed to create the folded proteins necessary for life cannot occur in the presence of water due to hydrolysis, so one of the more recent hypotheses is that the amino acids were able to combine on dry crystalline or clay structures such as salty outcroppings. Once life did emerge, however, forces and processes like environmental influences, random beneficial mutations, and natural selection were some of the mechanisms that formed the original RNA molecules necessary for the eventual rise of DNA and continual increase in complexity. Life is believed to initially have begun as simple bacteria and algae, which continued to evolve into primitive plants, invertebrates, and fish. Some of the fish eventually evolved into amphibians and, through various evolutionary mutations and pressures, were able to adapt to live on dry land and eventually become reptiles and mammals. Random chemical interactions, mutations, natural selection, adaptation, and speciation are considered to be the cause, origin, and development of all life and its diversity. One of the consequences of this theory is that we are products of our environment in many ways. A fundamental principle of the evolutionary process is that living things evolve and adapt to whatever environment they are subjected to through the processes of beneficial mutations and natural selection.

It is not the intention or objective of this book to provide extensive technical detail about the different types of chemical and biological evolution or the mechanisms by which they occur, but it is essential to differentiate between a few categories of biological evolution that may help avoid some confusion about a very complex topic. This is because the first two categories are observable and are many times referred to as examples of evolution in action.

First are the changes within kinds due to natural selective processes, which is normally referred to as organic evolution. Organic evolution (sometimes referred to as adaptation) occurs when animals of the same reproducing kind or variety develop different physical characteristics over a period of time in response to the environment in which they live. Geographical, environmental, behavioral, or physical differences will only allow those with certain traits to prosper and reproduce, while those that don't have those traits will die or relocate. A simple example might be when frogs with darker pigment living in murky water do not get eaten by predatory birds or snakes because they are harder to visually detect than the lighter-colored frogs. Eventually, the lighter-colored frogs either all get consumed or they relocate to an environment where they blend in better. Apparently, the differences that develop between the separated populations can become quite significant, even to the point where they no longer interbreed. Although not discussed here, there are several distinct types or categories of organic evolution depending on what mechanism causes the populations to separate from one another.

Second are the changes that occur when two distinct varieties of the same family interbreed, such as when a lion and a tiger produce a liger, or a zebra and a horse produce a zorse, or a donkey and a horse produce a mule, or different breeds of dogs, such as a Yorkshire and a Poodle produce a Yorke-poo. This is referred to as hybridization. While some scientists may not recognize or agree that there are discreet boundaries within evolution, in general, both organic evolution and hybridization are sometimes referred to as speciation and are considered contributors to the overall evolutionary model.

However, evolutionary processes must ultimately account for major morphological changes required for the diversity of life. The process by which life diverges and branches out from a common ancestor into all the discrete reproducing kinds (e.g., dogs, cats, horses, fish, birds, insects, people, etc.) that we have today is also sometimes referred to as speciation. However, this branching out from common ancestry is more accurately referred to as biological evolution, macroevolution, decent with modification, neo-Darwinism, modern evolutionary synthesis, or the general theory of evolution (GTE). A web search on these words and phrases will produce images of phylogenetic trees or flow charts in which all the different varieties of life branch out from a single-celled organism at the trunk or base. This branching out of a given ancestral kind requires new, useful, and constructive information to be added to the genome as well as corresponding ribosomes and machinery needed to interpret and make use of the new code. This results in an increase in functional complexity and diversity. For example, the emergence of new genetic coding along with new molecular and cellular machinery is believed to have ultimately fueled the development, progress, intelligence, and behavior of the humankind to separate physically and mentally from our primate ancestors. The development of different physical characteristics as well as superior ability to interact, communicate, explore, learn, and create are the major factors that elevate the human species above the rest.

Another way to define the general theory of evolution (GTE) is to think in terms of a simple equation:

Observable speciation + billions of years = diversity of life (i.e., large-scale transformations)

We can observe speciation, adaptation, and hybridization in real time, and we are certainly aware of millions of different types of life, but the mechanism to produce all these different reproducing kinds is assumed to be the result of an accumulation of new genetic code primarily through beneficial and useful mutations over billions or millions of years. This process cannot be observed due to the large time scales required but is assumed to have occurred and that it can still occur.

The diagram below is an approximate highly simplified summary of the GTE.

Before looking at observable evidence, technical, or biological details, let us first consider a few logical implications of the evolutionary theory and how it might affect our view of life and the environment. One consequence is that everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, all of existence, are all a product of the big bang, cosmic, stellar, chemical, organic, and biological evolution. It follows then that there is, at least in theory, little we should be able to do to benefit or harm our environment or our existence in the long term for the simple reason that, in order for evolution to occur, all life must have a natural ability to adapt as needed through environmental pressures, mutations, and natural selection. There is no way to foresee the evolutionary consequences of our actions, which may take millions or billions of years. Any type of change, regardless of whether we perceive it to be good or bad in the short term, must, or at least could be, categorized as a consequence of evolutionary pressure. For example, the first fish which struggled to adapt from water to land must have been subjected to extreme pressure during this long and arduous process. The initial stages of this process would most likely only have produced crude precursors of land creatures whose only ability would have been to flop around with little or no evolutionary advantage for survival. Whatever the driving forces were behind the adaptation to land, it surely in some physical and instinctual way must have seemed futile and frustrating to the primitive fish creatures experiencing these transitions.

Likewise, the evolution of reptiles into birds must also have been a difficult transition. The reptiles/birds were eventually able to adapt and take advantage of aerodynamic laws and ultimately mutate into the feathered flying kinds we have today. This also had to be a very destructive and painful process for the millions of years it took to make these transitions. Yet look at the results! That is, the ability of natural evolutionary processes to overcome pressures and hardships and use them as stepping stones to ultimately produce millions of different types of plants and animals with amazing abilities to function, interact, and thrive in nearly every type of environment on the planet. It is assumed that time, energy, environmental pressures, beneficial genetic mutations, and natural selection have provided a path from the simple to complex, resulting in an abundance of diversity and complexity in the natural world.

Some evolutionary literature postulates that all increase in complexity has little or nothing to do with the environment or external pressures but is based primarily on random mutations that naturally occur. Those mutations that provide some evolutionary advantage result in more reproduction, while those that are negative result in extinction. In other words, the mutations occur first, and then natural selection takes over. Environmental pressures act as filters by which only the more evolved are able to pass through.

However, this hypothesis does not seem feasible when considering a major transformation, such as the monumental changes required to move from water to land or land to air. The complexity of these types of transitions could not have occurred incrementally in a way that would have provided consistent evolutionary advantage and continuous survival during the transition process. In other words, it seems the prevailing view with regard to the increase in the complexity of life would in fact require external pressures to at least help drive the mutations. Furthermore, the very definition of organic evolution is genetic changes which occur in response to environmental changes. Consider the first few paragraphs from a January 16, 2012, article by Christine Wilcox in Scientific American entitled Evolution: The Rise of Complexity:

Let's rewind time back about 3.5 billion years. Our beloved planet looks nothing like the lush home we know today—it is a turbulent place, still undergoing the process of formation. Land is a fluid concept, consisting of molten lava flows being created and destroyed by massive volcanoes. The air is thick with toxic gasses like methane and ammonia which spew from the eruptions. Over time, water vapor collects, creating our first weather events, though on this early Earth there is no such thing as a light drizzle. Boiling hot acid rain pours down on the barren land for millions of years, slowly forming bubbling oceans and seas. Yet in this unwelcoming, violent landscape, life begins.

The creatures which dared to arise are called cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. They were the pioneers of photosynthesis, transforming the toxic atmosphere by producing oxygen and eventually paving the way for the plants and animals of today. But what is even more incredible is that they were the first to do something extraordinary—hey were the first cells to join forces and create multicellular life.

It's a big step for evolution, going from a single cell focused solely on its own survival to a multicellular organism where cells coordinate and work together. Creationists often cite this jump as evidence of God's influence, because it seems impossible that creatures could make such a brazen leap unaided. But scientists have shown that multicellularity can arise in the lab, given strong enough selective pressure. (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/)

The article continues to discuss experiments on multicellularity using single-celled yeast and how complexity can arise in incremental steps, but the above quote seems very clear in postulating that not only did life begin in an unwelcoming environment, but that these hostile conditions (i.e., selective pressures) are necessary for the jump to multicellularity. Furthermore, it also states that it was this new life that resulted in the process of photosynthesis, which was a major cause for the environmental shift to one more favorable for life.

The problem is that this exposes what could be a logical inconsistency with regard to the apparent fragility of our environment and life in general. If the evolution of all this diversity of life we see and experience are all the product of random mutations and great struggles over many millennia, it would seem one logical conclusion might be that the plants, animals, and the environment might not be as fragile as we seem to observe and are led to believe. Evolutionary processes must be very robust in order to have transformed the unwelcoming natural primeval world to its present state. However, the very foundation for environmental activism is that we have a very delicate environment and ecosystem that are no match for the intelligence and destructive tendencies of humans, which, by the way, are also a product of evolution. If true, then evolutionary processes may have produced their own worst enemy.

One might envision evolutionary progress like a roller coaster being ratcheted up the initial incline by the force of natural processes, only to descend to destruction under the weight of human interference.