Evolution Theory Has a “Secret Sex Problem”

During the century and a half since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many books have been written on the subject of the origin of life.  Some provide an in-depth technical treatment of evolution but attract a relatively small audience.  Others treat evolution as “strictly science.” In so doing, they ignore or dismiss the fact that evolution has philosophical and moral ramifications that influence how we define our purpose and destiny in life.  Still other writers present religious attacks on science.  They ignore or dismiss the fact that science has a legitimate role in explaining how genetics and natural selection allow populations to adapt to gradual changes in their environment.

Today, if you would like to get your hands on a book that provides a solid critique of evolution while also being understandable and enjoyable to read, let me recommend one for you.  Darwin’sSecret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex (Westbow Press, 2018), by F. LaGard Smith*, combines sound scientific logic, a thorough understanding of the biology of sexuality, and the author’s unique blend of humor to uncover what is perhaps the “greatest secret of sexuality”—that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the origin of SEX!

Allow me to entice you into obtaining a copy by mentioning a few reasons why Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem will be excellent reading for researchers, teachers, pastors, laypersons, and anyone else who enjoys curling up to read a witty, engaging page-turner about a topic that is never far from the minds of any of us.  After all, we are all sexual beings and if you have followed what has been published about sexuality in the past fifty years or so, you know how influential views of origins and sexuality are on the formation of our worldview.  Specifically, philosophical naturalism and its offspring, including Darwinism and genetic determinism, have had a major influence on worldview formation with respect to human origins, sexuality, marriage, and personhood.  Professor Smith’s stated reason for authoring Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is based on his concern over the “wide-ranging ramifications of evolutionary thinking.”

Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is different from most books about evolution in at least three ways.  First, to his credit, Professor Smith clearly distinguishes the legitimate scientific theories of population genetics and natural selection which attempt to account for micro-evolutionary changes (or, what Smith calls “’little-e’ evolution” or “bounded evolution” within recognized taxonomic classes of organisms) from macro-evolutionary changes (or, what Smith calls “microbe-to-man evolution,” or “Big-E” Evolution).  Many writers fail to make this distinction.  Instead, they build out of the shadows of ambiguity what only appears to be a strong case for “Big-E” Evolution (unverifiable scientifically) on a foundation of “little-e” evolution (verifiable and within narrow limits).  Professor Smith argues that latter cannot account for “microbe-to-man evolution.”

As a second unique and wise approach, Smith has chosen to ignore “…religious assumptions altogether and [introduce] a fresh, powerful argument solely from within the realm of science.”  Instead of using biblical revelation to counter Darwinian claims, Professor Smith uses Darwin’s own logic to challenge Darwinian evolution head-on with a scientifically logical argument. 

You may recall that Darwin offered an “admission” of potential vulnerability in his theory of descent with modification through natural selection (“Big-E Evolution”).  “Darwin’s admission,” as stated in his own words:  If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Darwin, 1859).

Professor Smith’s clear challenge to “Darwin’s admission” is to expose Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem with this daunting question:  How could asexual (non-sexual) replication have evolved by natural selection into fully-gendered sexual reproduction?   In other words, how can asexual replication deliver the genetic variation necessary for natural selection to act upon in order to form the complex mechanisms and behavior necessary for sexual reproduction?

It follows, according to Smith’s direct challenge to Darwin, that if there is indeed an unbridgeable gap between non-gendered asexual replication and male/female sexual reproduction, then that Achilles’ heel is the fatal undoing of microbe-to-man evolution.

A third unique feature of Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is best captured in the words of Dr. Geoff Barnard, retired reproductive endocrinologist, Cambridge University.  Dr. Barnard describes the book’s author as “a non-specialist whose careful research demonstrates that he understands the crucial issues surrounding evolution’s fatal sex problem, and who has a remarkable ability to communicate complex concepts to a broad audience.” 

I was also impressed immediately at LaGard Smith’s ability to insert wholesome humor, helpful analogies, and illustrations to make the technical science aspects inviting and clear to the reader.  Still, parents may want to provide some age-suitable guidance.  Here’s a sample of how Smith addresses some specifics of how the first sexual forms might have arisen by evolution:

When it comes to having sex, there’s always a first time.  This particular “first time” must be a prototype life form fully capable of “having sex” and thereafter “sexually reproducing.”  We’re not talking here about human sexuality, complete with all the external and internal apparatus we normally take for granted.  We’re talking about the ability to produce a “male” and a “female” (don’t rush past that not-so-minor detail!) who “mate sexually” (don’t take that for granted!) and then reproduce in a radically different (even counter-intuitive) way from any and every form of sexual replication that previously might have been in play.  So, it’s not just one “first time,” but three “first times”—somewhere along the line “all at the same time. And “all in the same place.”  That’s a huge ask!

Even the chapter headings and section titles are inviting.  Here are a few examples:

“When the Dog Doesn’t Bark”
”Extinction of an Unfit Paradigm”
“X and WHY Chromosomes”
“Hox Genes, or Hoax Genes?”
“Not Even the Sexiest Asexual Could Ever Be Sexual”
“When the Church Buried Darwin…A Case Study in Compromise”

Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem has already received strongly favorable reviews on Amazon.com.  For example, “Cookeville Reviewer” submitted this helpful review:

For the honest seeker of truth, whether a skeptic or a believer, this writing by LaGard Smith will make one wrestle with his/her preconceived notions about origins, particularly the origin of sexual reproduction. It is even-handed, yet challenging. It is fair, yet fearless. Thoroughly and vigorously researched, it is an open and well organized discussion of the tenuous assumptions that humans--whether religious, scientific, or both--make regarding Darwin's Grand Theory of Evolution.  It successfully reveals what Darwin himself said would be the undoing of his theory, that sexual reproduction "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Then, if that is not enough, theistic evolution is shown to be, though perhaps entertained by scientist/believers of good intention as an honorable compromise of science and religion, rather an idea that pays homage to flawed science to give support to flawed religion.  If you are an honest reader, this book will not disappoint, and it will illuminate. Its goal is to encourage knowledge of the truth.

Professor Smith provides over 300 reference citations, a helpful index, and a glossary of biological terms, defined at an understandable level for anyone who has had a good secondary level or introductory college biology course. 

Now I’m finished and will dismiss you to go purchase a copy of Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem:  Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex.  And, please pass this review on to your friends who will thank you for the referral.
---------------

* F. LaGard Smith is a retired law professor, having taught for 27 years at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California; then, 5 years as Scholar in Residence for Christian Studies at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee.  Prof. Smith retired after 2 years at Liberty University School of Law and 4 years at Faulkner University's Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama.  He is author of over 30 books.

Resolutions for 2018: Pursuing God --On Purpose

The New Year 2018 has seen the launching of many New Year’s resolutions.  But many well intended resolutions are already falling like leaky balloons.  A sense of failure is enough to keep many of us from ever trying again.   Maybe you can relate to this from your experience.

I’ve been there myself.  But, on this New Year, I’m thinking less about making resolutions and more about my life purpose.   A resolution may express a good intention or aim.  But it seems to me that my resolutions, good intentions, and aims must be based upon my sense of purpose.  I must first define and become committed to my purpose based on what I really value in life.  Then, my resolutions will be "on purpose" and I will become more resolute in my commitment to keep them.

My most recent focus on purpose began on January 1 while I was watching the film, Hugo, with our granddaughter, Della Rose.  This movie, directed by Martin Scorsese, features an orphan named Hugo Cabret who maintains the clocks in a 1931 Paris train station.  The colorful and creatively filmed movie tells the story of Hugo and his friend, Isabelle, who team up to solve the mystery of an automaton.  While attempting to learn more about Hugo’s deceased father, they also discover a mysterious filmmaker who had years before become so discouraged that he stopped applying his great gifts of magic and movie-making.  Hugo’s hideaway in the walls of the train station surrounds him with machines and their gears, springs, and pendulums.  Even the station inspector who seeks to capture Hugo must use a mechanical leg brace to walk.

As Della Rose and I watched Hugo, I began to see an interesting tension emerge—a tension between two contrasting worldviews.  On the one hand, Scorsese could have used his portrayal of early 20^th century machines to underscore a naturalistic philosophy.  Naturalism views the world as if it were a giant machine with interacting parts, all functioning according to laws of physics and chemistry.  Human beings in this world are simply another kind of machine operating predictably according to these same laws.  Accordingly, our behavior is determined by interactions of this evolved anatomical, physiological, and molecular machine we call the human body.  Naturalistic evolution claims that humans and all forms of life were “created” by time and chance collisions of atoms and molecules.  According to the naturalistic worldview, there can be no free will or purpose.

But while Scorsese’s movie has busy machines, unwanted orphans, and an old man who had given up on his purpose for living, it deliberately avoids presenting a purposeless view of life.  Just as the movie appears headed toward endorsing naturalism, a beautiful dialog between Hugo and Isabelle reveals their individual need to know their respective purposes for living.  Let’s pick up the dialog as Hugo tells Isabella about the kindness of a librarian named Monsieur Labisse who has just given him a book to keep.  Isabella replies,

ISABELLE:  He’s always doing that—“sending books to a good home.”  That’s what he calls it.
HUGO [reflecting on what Isabelle has just said]:   He’s got real [pausing again]…purpose.
ISABELLE:  What do you mean? 
HUGO:  Everything has a purpose—even machines.  Clocks tell the time, trains take you places.  They do what they’re meant to do.
ISABELLE:  Like Monsieur Labisse.
HUGO:   [pausing thoughtfully] Maybe that’s why broken machines make me so sad.  They can’t do what they’re meant to do.  Maybe it’s the same with people.  If you lose your purpose, it’s like you’re broken.
ISABELLE:  Is that your purpose, fixing things?
HUGO:  I don’t know.   It’s what my father did.
ISABELLE:  I wonder what my purpose is.
HUGO:  I don’t know.
ISABELLE:   Maybe if I’d known my parents, I would know.

Upon hearing Isabelle’s sad reflection, Hugo pauses to think.  Then he invites her to follow him into the clock tower to look across the grand lighted city of Paris at night through the face of the clock.  After gazing for awhile in silence, Hugo speaks:

Right after my father died, I would come up here a lot. I'd imagine the whole world was one big machine. Machines never come with any extra parts, you know. They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured if the entire world was one big machine... I couldn't be an extra part. I had to be here for some reason.    And that means you have to be here for some reason, too.

Hugo, Isabella, and automaton

Here, in a tender, thoughtful dialog between two orphans we learn that, while humans are machine-like, they are much more than machines.   Granted, both humans and machines are intelligently designed—“for a purpose.”  But each human being is much more.  Each person is marvelously formed in a mother’s womb and born into a parental relationship.  Seemingly engrained within the DNA and expressed in the soul of everyone is the need to discover and pursue purpose in life.  Isabella wonders if she would already know her purpose if she had known her parents.

After Della Rose and I had finished listening to Isabella’s sobering words, I stopped the movie and replayed the dialog.  Then, I asked,
“Della, can you understand how much Hugo and Isabella wanted to know their purpose for living?”  
She nodded, and I followed with,
“Do you think you will learn what your purpose is as you grow older?” 
She thought awhile and then shared some things she likes to do now as if she already understood how she might learn her purpose from experiences she has enjoyed. 
I continued,
“When you were a little baby, your home and your family was your whole world.  Then, you began to make friends in church, and then in pre-school and kindergarten.  As you continue to grow, learn to love God more, He will help you understand your purpose in life.  For now, God wants you to love Him, obey His commandment to Honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20: 12), and obey your teachers so that you can learn from them.

I thanked God for the opportunity to have this special conversation with our granddaughter.  Then, I realized that she and I had introduced the most important element in any pursuit of meaning and purpose in life—the life and teachings of our Creator.  Martin Scorsese had infused the otherwise cold, purposeless, machine-world of naturalistic philosophy with the warmth and human kindness of a librarian who had given a book to an orphan boy.  Then, God had used the movie to inspire a grandpa and his granddaughter to consider how their Creator is helping them learn who they are and what their purpose is as part of His plan for their lives—through parents, family, church, teachers, and community.

As Della Rose and I watched the rest of Hugo, we saw how two orphans in search of purpose found joy in helping a discouraged film-maker rediscover meaning and purpose.  As I now reflect on our New Year’s Day “movie experience,” I realize that God is our wonderful Counselor and Friend regardless of age.  For both a pre-adolescent girl and her retired grandfather, a sense of purpose in life is important—God desires to be a guide to both the young and old.  If this notion is true, then it is also true that we must subject our search of purpose in life to a much grander pursuit—an all-out pursuit of an intimate relationship with God. 

What does it mean to have an “all-out pursuit of God?”  The daily devotional book, My Utmost for His Highest offers words of wisdom and inspiration from its author, Oswald Chambers.  For January 1, Chambers refers to the Apostle Paul’s writing in Philippians 1: 20 and exclaims:

“My determination is to be my utmost for His Highest.” To get there is a question of will, not of debate nor of reasoning, but a surrender of will, an absolute and irrevocable surrender on that point.  Shut out every other consideration and keep yourself before God for this one thing only — “My Utmost for His Highest.”  I am determined to be absolutely and entirely for Him and for Him alone.

In today’s world, it seems that relatively few people make the pursuit of God their primary purpose. Instead, we seek meaning and purpose in human philosophy, material possessions, prestige, and power.  But, the prophet Jeremiah challenges us,

Thus says the LORD, "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things…" – Jeremiah 9: 23-24

This God, Who wants us to understand and know Him in an intimate way, came seeking us when the Word [Jesus Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us and we saw His glory (John 1: 14).  By reading the Gospel accounts, we can “see” the love of God poured out through the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Jesus modeled a life marked by an “all-out pursuit of God”—a life that is rich in meaning and purpose.  John 17: 3 records Jesus praying to His Father in Heaven, stating the essence of Life:  This is Eternal Life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 

Here, we have literally the essence and meaning of life spoken by our Creator, Jesus Christ. The commentator in The Reformation Study Bible (Reformation Trust Publ. 2015) expands upon this truth:

The meaning of our lives is at stake.  Our dignity is on the line. If human beings are considered alone, apart from relationship to God, then they remain alone and insignificant.  Our origin and our destiny are tied to God.  The only ultimate meaning we can have must be theological.

All our vows and resolutions end in denial because we have no power to carry them out. When we have come to the end of ourselves, not in imagination but really, we are able to receive the Holy Spirit. “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” — the idea is that of invasion. prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17: 3-4, we can see how closely Jesus’ ties His definition of “Eternal Life” to His sense of purpose in coming to Earth as Savior of mankind:

This is Eternal Life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.  I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.

All---Of course, Jesus continually realized that He could do nothing on His own initiative (John 8: 28).  Oswald Chambers reminds us that we must follow the example of Jesus in our dependence upon God for meaning and purpose:

All our vows and resolutions end in denial because we have no power to carry them out.,  When we have come to the end of ourselves, not in imagination but in reality, we are able to receive the Holy Spirit.  "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" -- the idea is that of invasion.  

Maybe you are still holding forth and determined to keep your New Year’s resolution.  More power to you.  As for me, I am learning that it helps if my resolutions are first grounded upon a clear sense of purpose in my life.  And my effort to be “on purpose” is helped as I pursue the joy of the gift of Eternal Life—walking and working daily in the power of God’s Holy Spirit living in me, fed by the “bread” of His Word. 

Halting the Demise of “Liberal” Education

Jacob Tanenbaum, a fourth and fifth grade science teacher, recently wrote “A Science Teacher Draws the Line at Creation,” in Scientific American.  The online version was originally published in the January, 2013 print edition of Scientific American under the title “Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts.”

Mr. Tanenbaum laments that, according to a recent survey, "40 percent of the American electorate seems to have forgotten what science is." However, I would respectfully contend that Mr. Tanenbaum, like many scientists who have “drawn the line,” are either ignoring or are unaware of the philosophical context of science.  

Perhaps some of the “problematic 40%” are still aware that the process and progression of the natural sciences depends upon several presuppositions--claims that are not provable, but are accepted by faith.  Let me briefly list them.  First, scientists must acknowledge the existence of objective reality—belief that physical reality exists apart from our imaginations or individual subjective interpretations.  Second, experimentation is based on presupposing the operation of “cause and effect” relationships in nature. Finally, scientists believe that experimental outcomes should be repeatable because it is accepted that natural processes are orderly and governed by certain natural laws that do not change from day to day.  In short, these presuppositions represent a belief system that precedes and under-girdsscientific thought and activity.

Mr. Tanenbaum’s view raises a second contextual problem for science and science education.  When we consider the philosophical context of what we call natural science (once called natural philosophy), we realize that “natural science” is limited in its capacity to define the boundaries of what we call “the real world.” On the other hand, those who credit natural science with limitless powers to know all of reality (i.e. possess the faith that "all we see is all there is") find it completely logical to deny “supernatural causation.” 

Truman (Jim Carey) walks to work
in his contrived world

Instead of acknowledging a supernatural power or being as the creator, many scientific naturalists like Mr. Tanenbaum attribute the complexity of living organisms to the laws of matter and energy operating through chance occurrences over billions of years.   But, because the operation of science depends upon the “faith presuppositions” noted above, how can science deny the validity of models that extend the boundaries for what we call reality?  Is it legitimate for scientists to “guard the boundaries” like the managers of the artificial, TV studio world of Truman Burbank in the movie, The Truman Show?

I believe that many in Mr. Tanenbaum's "40 percent" are good scientists, well aware of the wonder and complexity of the natural world; yet they are also well aware of the philosophical context of science.  The resulting perspective has led them to choose not to believe that life can be explained entirely by undirected natural causes.  Therefore, these folks tend to favor discussions of supernatural causation in the science classroom.  They argue that belief in such models is as valid as the belief that inanimate matter can self-organize and become animate without supernatural intervention. 

Truman touches the limiting horizon
of the contrived world.

Many of the “40 percent” are adolescents and college-age students or younger children and adults who are endowed with a quality of human nature that thrives in a learning environment characterized by freedom of expression and inquiry.  Like, Truman Burbank, they desire to probe the boundaries and discover things beyond the horizon.

What then is the role of the teacher or professor in a place of learning?  Is it his or her place to guard the boundaries as if to keep Truman from discovering that there might be something beyond the horizon?  Or is it to rediscover the joy known by educators of past centuries who believed in a truly “liberal” education?   I have known the satisfaction of watching students motivated to learn when they are exposed to the “inquiry approach” in the science classroom and laboratory.  The scene in which Truman breaks through the false horizon erected around his artificial world should convict all of us against the tendency to limit our students and cut off creative thinking.  If we fear the entry of “junk science” don’t we believe that “good science” is capable of eliminating false hypotheses through honest inquiry?

Exhilaration in discovering "reality beyond"

I close with a final consideration. It is one that all honest scientists must realize; namely, that no one was there to observe the creation of the first organic molecules, the first genes, the first cells, or the fossils in rock strata such as those of the Grand Canyon. Therefore, I suggest that both naturalistic evolutionary scientists and creation scientists must exercise caution in their attempt to explain the origin of life.  Instead, each should read the others' research and writing and strive for honest, respectful dialogue.  I suggest that a good place for both evolution and creation scholars to begin is by reading Dr. Leonard Brand’s excellent article, “A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.”

As I complete this blog entry, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is calling on Ball State University to discipline Dr. Eric Hedin, a professor of physics and astronomy, for his alleged attempt “to proselytize students and advance Christianity by using gaps in scientific knowledge—the ‘boundaries of science’ in an attempt to prove religious belief correct…”  What’s the harm in college students “exploring the boundaries of science” at an age when they are seeking the meaning of life?  After all, aren’t they also exploring moral and ethical boundaries as they consider their relationship to alcohol, drugs, and gambling?  All the while many students are bored and unfulfilled as they listen to liberal progressive and humanistic dogma in the classroom.  Many can relate to Jim Carrey’s character, Truman, was as he went to work daily in his artificial world.   On the other hand, might the answer to the woes of science education be found in the science classroom where ‘tolerance’ for all viewpoints is justly applied?”  Wouldn’t it bring a breath of fresh air on secular American university campuses and on many “Christian campuses” to offer to students a “truly liberal education? 

From a Christian worldview, teaching and research in the natural sciences should be undertaken as a stewardship of the truths of the natural revelation and of the special revelation.  As stewards of both the knowledge of science and the young learners entrusted to us, we should take our role seriously:

                Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren,
               knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.  – James 3:1

Useful Sources:
Brand, Leonard.  2004.  A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science.  http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_31B/31Bcc_043-080.pdf
Ham, Ken, Georgia Purdom, Steve Golden.  2013.  Responding to the False Claims of a Scientific American Columnist.   www.answersingenesis.org  Search word:  “Tanenbaum”
Pearcey, N.R. and C.B. Thaxton.  1994.  The Soul of Science:   Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy.
Crossway Books,   Wheaton, IL.