Tim Keller’s Three Errors on Evolution That You Need to Know

Tim Keller’s Three Errors on Evolution That You Need to Know

By Reformation Charlotte

by Tom Hill – July 8, 2021

Timothy Keller: Evolutionist?

“”Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”

–Sir Walter Scott, 1808

Poor Eve. She never knew what hit her. It all sounded so right. The serpent asked a simple question: “Did God say…?” When Eve answered affirmatively, satan diverted her from the truth by questioning God’s goodness, and, by contrast, promising her his own version of spiritual growth and enlightenment. Eve blindly followed the evil one’s web of deceit. This evil dynamic echoes throughout history. It deceives many by the variety of untruths that infiltrate the professing Christian community.

For example, Dr. Timothy Keller’s article, “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople” parallels it. (source)

Keller’s Pattern

Keller began with an unstated but implied question: “Does one have to reject God to believe in evolution?” Keller said, “No.” (source) Keller states that many possible ways exist which remove the alleged incompatibility between orthodox belief in creation and evolution. (source) In the balance of the article, Dr. Keller proposes ways that will cause these barriers “to fade away.”

Faulty Presupposition #1: Infallibility of Science

Tim Keller grants infallibility to science when he accepts “scientific” conclusions re: evolution without proof. Scientists have yet to prove it. Evolutionists fail to apply their own scientific methods to validate their theories: e.g., the lack of first-hand evidence of evolution and the absence of the repetition of its alleged occurrences.

Faulty Presupposition #2: Foundation of Proper Basic Beliefs

Keller accepted the theories of science, which he elevated to the primary foundation for the development of his truth claims re: creation and evolution. Dr. Keller seeks to force Biblical interpretation to conform to “settled science.” He failed to accept the Bible as the one, true foundation upon which to build all other beliefs and values. He built his conclusions of creation upon the shifting sands of “science” instead of the Bible.

Faulty Presupposition #3: The Fallibility Of Scripture

Tim Keller’s article refers to a “high view of scripture.” What does that mean? Does that mean the Bible ranks with classical literature and does not provide God-inspired moral guidance? Does it mean that we alter the texts of the Bible that do not conform to cultural demands? Dr. Keller failed to define its meaning. He never affirmed the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, or the Holy Spirit’s role in the writing of scripture. He disputes important passages of the Bible to explain his positions. (source)

Need of Revival

The Church of Jesus Christ faces enormous pressures. Outside the Church, unbelievers reject the Bible and Christianity and assault the Church’s beliefs. Within the Church, professing believers forsake holiness, refuse serious Bible study, and defy obedience to Biblical imperatives. These errors contribute to the spiritual decline of the Church.

Summary

The Body of Christ desperately needs revival. Dr. Keller’s article contributes to this decline. The Church must take steps to set the sails to catch the winds of revival.

Note: This article is by Tom Hill .

If you accept science, based upon the premise that science is infallible and it’s “proven”, there is no evidence to support the claims of a risen savior. Basically, we are dead in our sins and there is no hope. If the miracle of the resurrection is true, and I believe it is, then how can I blindly follow the science of men when there is the possibility that they are wrong in their own theories with no visual evidence of the creation of this world and the universe. That’s why we trust in God and cling to faith. We hold to the infallibility of scripture and this does seem foolish to man. But using the arguments of man, to put our spin on scripture, refutes the wisdom of God in His purposes for how He created and how He has saved us.

-RE HyMES

Debunking Evolution

Scientific evidence against evolution – the clash between theory and reality

The top problems with evolution are explained using scientific evidence against evolution.  In the creation-evolution controversy, it is clear not only that the theory of evolution is wrong, the theory of evolution is false, but that the theory of evolution is a lie.

The strongest scientific evidence against evolution: “Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. Variation (microevolution) is the real part.

The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are varied. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.

This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it

– everything: sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature –

according to evolution theory. Just to be clear. The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book “The Way of the Cell” published by Oxford University Press, “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Evolutionists often say “it evolved”, but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.

So do the big changes (macroevolution) really happen?  Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.  A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.  They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.  We do not have these problems with bacteria.  A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.

There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones17).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.  Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Mutation – natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions, a mutation in DNA improves a creature’s ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution’s only tool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible.  To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as the mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.  They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance.  To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread (“sweep”) through a population and stay (become “fixed”).  To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a “classic sweep”, “in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population.”

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans and reported their findings in the journal Science.  “To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations”.  “In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years.”  Evolutionists had identified “more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome”, and they expected that “diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps.”  So what did they find?  “In contrast to expectation,” their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it.  They said there was a “paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings”.  Sweeps “were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity.”  “Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years.” –Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work.  Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies.  They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.  But, as usual, when breeding plants and animals, there was a downside.  In this case, the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.  There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.  They wrote that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations”.  “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”  “The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” –Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment.  Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988, that continues today.  It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations.  I have simplified a report by Scott Whynot, who studied 26 peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski (with others) published between 1991 and 2012.  These papers represent the major genetic findings from 21 years of the experiment.

  1. There was an insertion mutation that inhibited the transcription of DNA involved in cell wall synthesis.
  2. There was an insertion mutation in a regulatory region that encodes two proteins involved with cell wall synthesis.  This may have led to larger cells.
  3. A mutation in a gene led to a defect in DNA repair.
  4. An insertion mutation may have knocked out a gene involved in programmed cell death and response to stress.
  5. There was another mutation in a gene involved in response to stress, disrupting its function.
  6. There was a mutation in the gene that encodes an enzyme that loosens DNA coils, leading to an increase in DNA supercoiling.
  7. There was an insertion mutation in a gene that represses the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a molecule that participates in many metabolic reactions, some affecting longevity.  This might allow more NAD production.
  8. The researchers noted an insertion mutation that they think inactivated a gene, resulting in greater glucose uptake.  Glucose is a limited energy source in the experiment.
  9. Deletion mutations caused the loss of the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that is not available in the experiment.
  10. There was a mutation in a gene regulating the transport of the sugar maltose, an energy source that is not present in the experiment.
  11. After about 30,000 generations, the E. coli in one of the twelve isolated populations began to utilize an energy source, citrate, that they normally could not use in the presence of oxygen.  E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate where there is no oxygen, but they do not produce an appropriate transport protein for an environment with oxygen.  In E. coli DNA, the gene for the citrate transporter that works without oxygen is directly upstream from genes for proteins with promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen.  A replication of the region happened to put the transporter gene next to one of these promoters, so it could now be expressed in the presence of oxygen.

Except for number 11, the changes found in over 60,000 generations of bacteria were due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information.  The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information.  Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.

“Most long-term evolution experiments thus far have been performed in bacteria or haploid yeast populations, where, in most environments, there exist a number of loss-of-function mutations that provide a selective advantage.”  “For instance, sterility in yeast provides a selective advantage by eliminating unnecessary gene expression.”  “The emergence of the Cit+ phenotype is the exception in experimental evolution, where most evolved mutations affect independent genes and biological pathways, driven largely by large-target loss-of-function mutations.”– Lang, Gregory I., Michael M. Desai. 2014. The spectrum of adaptive mutations in experimental evolution. Genomics, Vol. 104, No. 6, Part A, pp. 412–416.

Microevolution – Macroevolution
This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:  “Darwin anticipated that macroevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  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 origin 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 characterized 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.”– Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin’s bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

Another evolutionary biologist wrote, “the processes underlying evolutionary innovation are remarkably poorly understood, which leaves us at a surprising conundrum: while biologists have made great progress over the past century and a half in understanding how existing traits diversify, we have made relatively little progress in understanding how novel traits come into being in the first place.”  “The origin of novel features continues to be a fascinating and challenging topic in evolutionary biology.”– Moczek, Armin P. May 2008. On the origins of novelty in development and evolution. BioEssays, Vol. 30, Issue 5, pp. 409-512.

Evolution’s Third Way
Evolution theory says that accumulated small changes in creatures (microevolution) lead to new types of creatures (macroevolution).  But some evolutionary biologists are admitting that microevolution does not happen by the supposed mechanism of evolution – mutation/natural selection.  Instead, living things have built-in mechanisms that adjust to quick changes in their environment to produce a variation.  The mechanisms are only beginning to be understood, yet 64 evolutionist academics have put their names and faces on The Third Way website.

A system for variation makes sense because species’ survival can depend on adapting fast and not waiting millions of years for “beneficial mutations”.  But this leaves macroevolution out hanging by itself, which is why Third Way members are often bitterly opposed by conventional Neo-Darwinists.  The quotes below were on The Third Way website; they have since been removed: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

“New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations.”

“The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well-regulated cell action on DNA molecules.”

“…the twentieth-century scientific consensus about evolution appears outdated and incomplete” due to “the inadequacy of natural selection and adaptation as the only or even the main mode of evolution”.

“The fossil record, in fact, does not show Darwin’s predicted gradual changes between closely related species but rather the “punctuated equilibrium” pattern described by Eldredge and Gould: a jump from one to a different species.”

“How do new species evolve? Although Darwin identified inherited variation as the creative force in evolution, he never formally speculated where it comes from. His successors thought that new species arise from the gradual accumulation of random mutations of DNA. But despite its acceptance in every major textbook, there is no documented instance of it.”

“The gene’s eye view of life, advocated by evolutionary biology, sees living bodies as mere vehicles for the replication of the genetic codes.” But “understanding the components of a system (be they individual genes, proteins, or even molecules) may tell us little about the interactions among these components.”

“Neo-Darwinism ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, the action of mobile DNA, and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”

“Evolution, as it turns out, is much more dynamic than biologists realized just a few decades ago.”

“Genomes merge, shrink and grow, acquire new DNA components, and modify their structures by well-documented cellular and biochemical processes.”

“…evolutionary change [is] an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.”

“To understand what life is, we must view it at a variety of different levels, all interacting with each other in a complex web. It is that emergent web, full of feedback between levels, from the gene to the wider environment, that is life.”

Orphan genes – the final blow?

 Here is an evolutionist with experience in molecular biology, Francois Jacob.  Francois Jacob won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, along with two others, for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis.  He had joined the Institut Pasteur in 1950.  He was appointed Laboratory Director there in 1956, then Head of the Department of Cell Genetics in 1960.  In 1964 he was appointed Professor at the College de France, where a chair of Cell Genetics was created for him.  He was Chairman of the Board of the Institut Pasteur from 1982 to 1988.  The work of Francois Jacob dealt mainly with the genetic mechanisms existing in bacteria and bacteriophages, and with the biochemical effects of mutations.

He wrote, “Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one.”

“During chemical evolution in prebiotic times and at the beginning of biological evolution, all those molecules of which every living being is built had to appear.  But once life had started in the form of some primitive self-reproducing organism, further evolution had to proceed mainly through alterations of already existing compounds.  New functions developed as new proteins appeared.  But these were merely variations on previous themes.  A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein.  The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero.  In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information.”20

For decades, everyone agreed.  But as researchers compared the genes of similar creatures, they found that the genes differed, from just a little to a lot.  They imagined different ways that could have happened.  Gene duplication, non-deleterious frameshift mutations, alternative reading frames, overlap with transposable elements, horizontal gene transfer, or overlapping gene.45  As usual with evolutionists, they do not know what really happened, they assume it was one of these mental explanations, and that is enough.  But some genes are so unique, even imagination fails.  Evolutionists now conclude they must have assembled spontaneously – “de novo”.  In fact, “all genome and expressed sequence tag (EST) projects to date in every taxonomic group studied so far have uncovered a substantial fraction of genes that are without known homologs [equivalents].  These ‘orphans’ or ‘taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs) are defined as being exclusively restricted to a particular taxonomic group.”21  “Orphan genes are defined as genes which lack detectable similarity to genes in other species”.  “They typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome.”45

The foundation of evolution theory, gradual modification over time, slowly transforming genes that already exist, suddenly ran up against orphan genes, genes without parents in every taxonomic group studied so far.  Looking at it objectively, the theory of evolution has been falsified.  After careful study, evolutionists made a bold choice:


__________________________________
 
They cut the theory’s last connection to reality, declaring that the impossible is normal: of course genes are produced de novo!  The new foundation of evolution theory is Poof – there it is (which sounds like the foundation of creation by Intelligent Design – de novo).     Evolutionists now think orphan genes are awesome. “There should be a greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes.”  “Today, we know that this evolutionary process is not impossible.”47  “De novo evolution is clearly a strong force – constantly generating new genes over time.”  “It seems possible that most orphan genes have evolved through de novo evolution.”35  “It looks as if we couldn’t find the families of most orphans because they don’t really have families.”35  “The sequencing of a large number of eukaryotic and bacterial genomes has uncovered an abundance of genes without homologs… and has shown that new genes have arisen in the genomes of every group of organisms studied so far including humans”.21

For evolutionists, the theory of evolution can never die.  The rest of us can see that Francois Jacob was right.  Orphan genes reveal that macro-evolution does not represent reality, and is physically impossible.

Leave a Reply

HTML Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com