I was sitting in the cafeteria in my second year of university, studying, when suddenly I burst out laughing. My friends glanced at me, then at the thick green textbook I was reading, and raised their eyebrows. What could be so funny about biology?
I had just been studying DNA, one of few biology topics that actually interested me. I was fascinated with how DNA managed to replicate itself, over and over again, without error. The textbook went into great detail explaining the mechanisms that were in place to make sure that, if there was an error in DNA replication, it was quickly corrected.
Occasionally, however, a problem in the DNA would escape notice. This was very rare, the textbook and our professor explained. It was also very harmful. Our professor gave us a list of diseases caused by DNA replication errors. There were only about a dozen diseases on the list, all very rare and all leading to death by the time the person was a teenager. Clearly, it was vitally important that the DNA was reproduced perfectly.
Flip the page in the textbook. Here it begins explaining that we all evolved by DNA mutations. That was when I started laughing. I’m sorry—aren’t mutations a bad thing? How does it make sense that DNA is carefully programmed to replicate without mistakes and that these mistakes are horrible when they do occur, but because of such mutations in our DNA, we managed to evolve from lower forms of life? Pardon me if I don’t believe that.
That’s the theme of Frank Peretti’s book Monster. My husband picked it up at the bookstore a few months back, and I finally got around to reading it this week.
This post contains affiliate links; as an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Monster Plot Summary
Burkhardt is a scientist who believes that, since “humans are 98% chimpanzee,” he can mix chimp and human DNA to create a new creature. Something bigger and better.
The problem is, all he creates is monsters. Many of his creatures die before they are even born, horribly deformed; or they survive with their deformations, ugly and misshapen and barely able to function. (Like my biology textbook explained, DNA mutations are usually bad!)
The monster of the book is a huge, deformed chimpanzee that escapes and starts brutally killing people until it is finally found and destroyed.
Cap, a creationist and scientist, has been expelled from his position at the university for suggesting that Burkhardt is wrong. He discovers Burkhardt’s unethical experiments and deformed creatures, and points out that, even with carefully selected DNA mutations, nothing good had come of all the experiments.
The mutations caused problems, not great scientific breakthroughs. All Burkhardt’s attempts to prove the validity of evolution has failed, because evolution hinges on the idea that we mutated and evolved into better species. And science has only proved that that can’t and doesn’t happen, despite what textbooks and evolutionists might attempt to say to contrary.
With a great cast of characters, plausible science, and Peretti’s trademark suspense, Monster is a page-turning, thought-provoking novel from beginning to end.
If you liked Monster, you may also like:
- Seize the Night by Dean Koontz
- Flight of Shadows by Sigmund Brouwer
More about Frank Peretti
Frank Peretti was born in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada and is one of Christian fiction’s hottest authors. He has written 19 novels, for adults and teens, including This Present Darkness (his first novel) and The Oath (which I can still remember reading with fear and trembling), and The Cooper Kids adventure series (some of my favourite books as a teen).
He and his wife Barbara now life in rural Idaho. For more about Frank and his books, visit his website.
14 Comments
That’s a good point about the big bang Pat, and I agree, although I tend to regard that particular event as, at this point, somewhat exceptional to the tentative conclusions of physical theory.
The question why is there something rather than nothing bothers me. It seems ill-formed somehow. It’s like asking what is the reason for the principle of sufficient reason. This principle isn’t strictly necessary and it doesn’t follow from the principle of contradiction or any other laws of thought. But in general, intelligibility seems to presume its validity. Perhaps the world is simply a given in the same way, something that isn’t open to doubt. The question smells of category erroneousness, but I don’t claim to be able to state with any persuasiveness just how that is so. But my suspicion is that you can’t ask of the world itself the same questions you can ask of things within the world, such as what is the reason for this instead of that, how did this come to be, what does this mean. By doing so, you seem to call into doubt the conditions under which I can understand the question at all. We have a world, therefore it is senseless to ask whether there ever was nothing rather than something. Maybe the problem is in treating THE WORLD as though it were some thing, when it is not a thing at all. That’s Heidegger’s move. I’m not sure I see where he got it wrong.
Hecky, Husband, whoever, I’m just posting to say that I don’t care enough about evolution to really get into this debate. But I would like to say that, Hector, your view of space-time seems just a TINY bit off. There are models of the universe where space-time (or at least parts of it) are perfectly empty. Of course, we know that space-time is not perfectly empty (check us out!) but it is conceivable that at one point it was – or, as our best theories tell us, that everything there was was in a little tiny, very dense point. So, the question of “how did something come from nothing” still makes sense. And that’s not even the big metaphysical question. The big one is WHY is there something rather than nothing?
Furthermore, I get what you’re saying about pragmatics in adopting scientific theories, and I’m with you. But science DOES need to make some metaphysical – or, at least, ontological – claims. Theories need to have these commitments. If you do not accept the existence of quarks and neutrinos, then telling a story about them doesn’t actually explain anything. Explanation requires that the elements of the said explanation exist. Otherwise, you’re just lying.
To the “studier” of logical fallacies, etc., I actually don’t find you very far off the mark in your paraphrasing of my post. I think you’ve managed to capture my disdain for the view I oppose and the overall absurdity of this discussion. But it’s also clear that you feel that you’ve smugly established something here, so I’d invite you to let us all in on your secret. I’m not actually sure where I see these fallacies of which you speak, except in those places where you have obviously and purposely inserted them; in those places, your paraphrasing hasn’t exactly done its job.
So if you have some specific contributions to make, let’s hear them.
I’d also like to ask the creationists, who appear to be mainly Catholic if I’m not mistaken, why they don’t simply follow the Church’s orthodoxy on this issue and embrace some kind of theistic evolutionary view. The Church at least has enough sense not to contradict or attack evolutionary science. They know that’s a losing battle. So they retreat to the metaphysical level to preserve their faith. Why don’t you all simply do the same? I’m honestly curious here. Why the need to promote this unscientific view of creationism or intelligent design (or whatever it’s calling itself these days)? Why bother trying to sully the reputation of legitimate science by claiming that it ignores anomalies, or suppresses other “valid” theories, or does any of the nonsense that creationists claim the scientific community does? Why not just side with the Catholics? Are they really not conservative enough on this issue?
Hector, I feel like having a little fun. As a future English major, debater, lover and studier of logical fallacies, and a few other things that amount to very little, I decided part way through reading your first post to go through it and sum it up, as I understand it, removing extraneous words. Please understand that this is not supposed to be insulting or disrespectful or any such thing, but rather it is supposed to explain precisely why I am not in the least swayed by it, or in any such danger.
“Ordinarily I would refrain from contributing a clearly unwelcome view to someone’s private blog, but you guys are being so unjustly dismissive of good evolutionary science that I feel compelled to speak up.”
I hate to comment, but I’m going to, because I think this matters.
“First off, the theory of evolution works. It does exactly what it was designed to do: it explains biological development very successfully. So there’s a strong pragmatic basis to accept the theory. If your goal is to understand how the world works, and how animals got to be the way they are, and you want to understand how this happens in a natural (i.e. not supernatural) world, then you ought to accept evolutionary theory because it’s the best theory we have.”
Evolution is right because I say it works. Therefore, agree with me.
“That said, if you don’t want to understand how things work in a natural world, then you’re perfectly free to reject all the plausible theories out there. If you’re satisfied with a view on which some giant X-factor like God comes in and sets things up in an arbitrary way, no one’s telling you that you can’t think that. But it’s a view that is simply inconsistent with professing in good faith that you want to understand the world. You can’t both be committed to understanding things AND to allowing there to be something incomprehensible and inexplicable like God. Science is about understanding how the world works. God only serves to muddle such explanations.”
Feel free to disagree with me and by wrong. By the way, your God doesn’t exist and isn’t helping you any.
“But of course this is not a metaphysical or theological point. So you are free to be a scientist in good faith and also accept an alternative metaphysics of reality where God reigns supreme. But you need to keep the two views sharply separated, because they are not consistent. To say that there is something like God just derails the whole project of understanding the world as it appears to us naturally. God doesn’t submit to theory like the rest of nature, so he has no place in good science.”
If you want to be scientific, you could always make up your own little world where you’re right, but this isn’t it.
“Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a “crazy idea” with no confirming evidence. There’s tons of evidence that supports the theory, and hardly any that contradicts it. The cases that do challenge the theory are simply vastly outweighed by the number that support it. They don’t pose a significant challenge (add “yet” if you like), only an interpretive challenge. You’ll have to do your own research here, I don’t have any inclination to entertain the ridiculous claim that there is some kind of dispute among reputable scientists concerning whether the theory is supported by the evidence. It is. Anyone who says otherwise is too lazy to check their sources.”
Evolution is right, but I’m not gonna bother telling you why. However, to say it’s wrong, is to demonstrate a remarkable lack of a work ethic in regards to research.
‘Next, the point about evolution saying that some species are “better” than others is way off base. The theory makes no such claim. It merely says that the reason some species are alive rather than others is that some managed to survive in their environments while others did not. In a colloquial way of speaking, we can say that certain species had an “advantage” relative to their respective environments. But this doesn’t entail any value claims. It merely explains successful propagation in terms of environmental “fitness” or acclimation. There is nothing inherently better about one species that survives over another that does not. One simply happened to thrive in a given environment while the other did not.”
You’re wrong about evolution, and I believe in a politically correct wording of the Theory of Natural Selection.
“Also, whoever suggested that evolution is not science is just plain wrong. It happens to be one of the most successful theories yet devised. I’m sorry, but I do get annoyed when people make these kinds of silly claims without providing any support, because I used to do the same thing, and people much more intelligent than me got very annoyed. Nobody is brainwashing or forcing children to accept evolution. When we learn about it in school, it’s so we have some idea how other people have tried to understand the world. All their work and steps are laid out before students. You’re free to poke holes anywhere you see them in the theory and the suppositions advanced on the basis of the evidence. We test students on this material because it’s important for them to know how other members of society have tried to put things together. It’s important to follow their steps because those steps seem to lead in a direction that makes sense. These children will live in society, so it’s important that they are familiar with its central means of conducting itself. If you want to take part in society, then that means you need to know what conclusions society has reached about the world in which it finds itself. The conclusions of science are better than those of religion in the sense that they work more effectively: they allow us to make clear and precise predictions, they allow us to develop tools to help us survive longer and live healthier lives, and they do all this in a way that anyone could reproduce the same results if they follow the same steps. Evolution is fine example of this approach. To suggest otherwise is naive and prejudiced.”
Evolution is very scientific. Science is useful. Therefore, evolution is true.
“Now, I will also say that evolution has one thing in common with every other theory, namely that it will eventually be replaced by a better theory, and is therefore in that sense “wrong”. But so far, we don’t have a better theory, so it’s “right”. All this is of course a matter of pragmatics. Which is why it doesn’t matter what your metaphysical views are. Scientific theories don’t make metaphysical claims of the sort that religious people want to make. Theories are nothing but more or less effective ways of speaking. If you don’t like that way of speaking, you don’t have to participate. You don’t need to speak at all if you don’t want to. No one is saying that you do. But of course, you’re better off if you at least understand what is being said by those who do speak that way. You can them communicate with a larger segment of society, and likely live a happier life. Science has no conflict with religion because science makes no metaphysical claims. It simply offers one way of understanding the world we all experience, a way that makes sense, is clearly laid forth, is free from contradiction, and happens to explain how things work. If you have no interest in explaining or understanding how things work, and are content to rely on your own judgement about everything, then you will probably have little interest in the theories of science. But that’s no basis for dismissing them. Maybe people prefer them to the implausible, volatile, and unsatisfying views handed down from dogmatic tradition. Those views are unsatisfying because they discourage people from raising questions that cannot be answered by those same views. And since I do not think people will cease to ask questions, I happen to think these views should be cast aside. They don’t help us to make the world a better place, because they don’t allow for discussion about what “better” could mean.”
By the way, I might actually be wrong, but for now, agree with me, because you’re more wrong than I am.
Ok, I’m done. Understand me, yet?
PS: Analytical technique used here learned, in part, from Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It. I’m less sarcastic and probably a bit nicer to this sort of thing. But I gotta give credit where credit’s due.
Wow, this did turn into quite the debate! Now you know how to get more comments; just write on controversial topics. What’s up next? Stem cell research?
Nat, the answer to your question is that we don’t need to explain how something came from nothing. The question is meaningless. It rests on an erroneous conception of time. Basically this conception presumes that there could have been some time before the universe, at which there was nothing prior to there being something. But our current understanding of time refutes this possibility. The phenomenon of physical spacetime is part of the fabric of reality. Time is always bound up with something physical. There is no “before” the universe, because time (i.e. spatiotemporal positioning) can only be defined in terms of physical reality. So to ask how something comes from nothing is to assume that some kind of absolute time exists above and beyond the world, and therefore at a time when there was nothing, i.e. before the world. But this doesn’t make any sense because it is no longer strictly possible to describe the world in terms of such absolute time.
So a physicist would probably say something like “the world didn’t come from nothing. The world has always been. Insofar as there is time, there is the world.” It’s like trying to find the end of the earth on a globe; you can never reach the edge because the entire surface is the edge; it just goes around and around. Time permeates the whole universe just like the earth’s edge permeates its surface. (This analogy isn’t optimal, but it should serve.)
I should add that this question has been the source of much confusion in philosophy. You might even say the whole legacy of metaphysics is wrapped up in attempts to answer it. But we know now why it is a badly formed question, and so we don’t need to devote more energy to it.
Husband… I see your point about the false dichotomy. I happen to disagree about its source…most studies show that a large proportion of research scientists are persons of faith, and so I tend to think it’s not the scientists who go around creating conflict. But that’s a difference of opinion only.
I wonder why you think we need to posit “motivation” for the process, as you say. I don’t see what we’re missing if the processes of nature are entirely neutral and totally bereft of anything deeper. Can’t they just be? Why do they need an added metaphysical dimension in order to work?
I think science gets construed as metaphysics in the less nuanced debates. But there’s no need to take its theories as metaphysical positions. You can think of them as languages. Some languages work, some don’t. Some parts of working languages perform better than others, depending on our purposes. But adopting theories about the world doesn’t have to mean that we think the world “really is” one way or another. It only means that we have more success when we think of things one way rather than another. The reason we can interpret science as refusing to take that ontological step is that, firstly, it’s an unnecessary step, and secondly, history suggests that those who do take that step (e.g. every major religion) are mistaken in doing so. We can’t say with any certainty how the world will turn out, so it’s best not to say that it definitely is one way rather than another. It’s fine to proceed as though it were a certain way, and in fact the marvels of science depend on such a procedure, but one has to be willing to give it up if the facts say otherwise. I actually think the Catholic church has been one of the better organizations for this kind of thing. They don’t argue with science, even if they try to preserve questionable interpretations of theoretical grey areas. They display a willingness to abandon clearly absurd doctrines, such as when they amended their stance on evolution. That’s progressive spirituality, one that can accept articles of faith but is also open to amending them when good sense demands it. Matters of faith don’t need to be absolute. That’s a key insight of the scientific mindset. In order to get anywhere, we need to be flexible about our most rigid beliefs.
-Hector
Just to clarify:
My point was that if people hold too dogmatically, or emotionally, to either extreme true dialogue can’t occur. Faith and reason need not be mutually exculsive. I believe it is when they enlighten each other that we see the truly human,(remembering that humanity is in the image of God).
I believe God created everything in existence. This includes things, processes, natural laws, etc.
As such, if he chose to use a process such as evolution the choice depended on him first creating the type of reality in which such a process could sucessfully operate.
Her Husband
Fair enough, the Husband. But you have to admit, there are so many people in “your” camp who denigrate God that we simple believers do tend to get a bit defensive and perhaps we go overboard in our response. I hope you see the emotional bias in much of what Mr Dawkins has to say, for example.
Hector, you say “science has no conflict with religion because science makes no metaphysical claims.” Could you please then explain how something came from nothing? That sounds like a rather metaphysical claim to me.
Koala Bear Writer, sorry to be entering into dialogue with complete strangers about this on your blog – it’s your space after all! So I’ll shut up now.
Just a quick thought. There is a false dichotomy that often occurs in this discussion. It does not have to be either evolution or creation. They can be mixed in a variety of possible fashions.
The key is getting off the process and questioning what is behind or motivating the process. Is it natural laws or a divind being or prehaps a divine being creating natural laws and processes?
One can be just as faithful to a the dogmatic tradition of science or empiricism as others hold blindly to faith. Better yet though is to find a place where the empirical and metaphysical can co-operate. Where faith and reason can complement, comment on, and lead together into a deeper understanding of the reality we exist in.
Further, it doens’t help to denegrate the other side of a debate. It adds no strength to one’s position and usually has the effect of ending true or future conversation. Maybe it’s critical to critique constructively so the constructs we criticize contribute to further constructive relations and knowledge.
The Husband
Ordinarily I would refrain from contributing a clearly unwelcome view to someone’s private blog, but you guys are being so unjustly dismissive of good evolutionary science that I feel compelled to speak up.
First off, the theory of evolution works. It does exactly what it was designed to do: it explains biological development very successfully. So there’s a strong pragmatic basis to accept the theory. If your goal is to understand how the world works, and how animals got to be the way they are, and you want to understand how this happens in a natural (i.e. not supernatural) world, then you ought to accept evolutionary theory because it’s the best theory we have.
That said, if you don’t want to understand how things work in a natural world, then you’re perfectly free to reject all the plausible theories out there. If you’re satisfied with a view on which some giant X-factor like God comes in and sets things up in an arbitrary way, no one’s telling you that you can’t think that. But it’s a view that is simply inconsistent with professing in good faith that you want to understand the world. You can’t both be committed to understanding things AND to allowing there to be something incomprehensible and inexplicable like God. Science is about understanding how the world works. God only serves to muddle such explanations.
But of course this is not a metaphysical or theological point. So you are free to be a scientist in good faith and also accept an alternative metaphysics of reality where God reigns supreme. But you need to keep the two views sharply separated, because they are not consistent. To say that there is something like God just derails the whole project of understanding the world as it appears to us naturally. God doesn’t submit to theory like the rest of nature, so he has no place in good science.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is not a “crazy idea” with no confirming evidence. There’s tons of evidence that supports the theory, and hardly any that contradicts it. The cases that do challenge the theory are simply vastly outweighed by the number that support it. They don’t pose a significant challenge (add “yet” if you like), only an interpretive challenge. You’ll have to do your own research here, I don’t have any inclination to entertain the ridiculous claim that there is some kind of dispute among reputable scientists concerning whether the theory is supported by the evidence. It is. Anyone who says otherwise is too lazy to check their sources.
Next, the point about evolution saying that some species are “better” than others is way off base. The theory makes no such claim. It merely says that the reason some species are alive rather than others is that some managed to survive in their environments while others did not. In a colloquial way of speaking, we can say that certain species had an “advantage” relative to their respective environments. But this doesn’t entail any value claims. It merely explains successful propagation in terms of environmental “fitness” or acclimation. There is nothing inherently better about one species that survives over another that does not. One simply happened to thrive in a given environment while the other did not.
Also, whoever suggested that evolution is not science is just plain wrong. It happens to be one of the most successful theories yet devised. I’m sorry, but I do get annoyed when people make these kinds of silly claims without providing any support, because I used to do the same thing, and people much more intelligent than me got very annoyed. Nobody is brainwashing or forcing children to accept evolution. When we learn about it in school, it’s so we have some idea how other people have tried to understand the world. All their work and steps are laid out before students. You’re free to poke holes anywhere you see them in the theory and the suppositions advanced on the basis of the evidence. We test students on this material because it’s important for them to know how other members of society have tried to put things together. It’s important to follow their steps because those steps seem to lead in a direction that makes sense. These children will live in society, so it’s important that they are familiar with its central means of conducting itself. If you want to take part in society, then that means you need to know what conclusions society has reached about the world in which it finds itself. The conclusions of science are better than those of religion in the sense that they work more effectively: they allow us to make clear and precise predictions, they allow us to develop tools to help us survive longer and live healthier lives, and they do all this in a way that anyone could reproduce the same results if they follow the same steps. Evolution is fine example of this approach. To suggest otherwise is naive and prejudiced.
Now, I will also say that evolution has one thing in common with every other theory, namely that it will eventually be replaced by a better theory, and is therefore in that sense “wrong”. But so far, we don’t have a better theory, so it’s “right”. All this is of course a matter of pragmatics. Which is why it doesn’t matter what your metaphysical views are. Scientific theories don’t make metaphysical claims of the sort that religious people want to make. Theories are nothing but more or less effective ways of speaking. If you don’t like that way of speaking, you don’t have to participate. You don’t need to speak at all if you don’t want to. No one is saying that you do. But of course, you’re better off if you at least understand what is being said by those who do speak that way. You can them communicate with a larger segment of society, and likely live a happier life. Science has no conflict with religion because science makes no metaphysical claims. It simply offers one way of understanding the world we all experience, a way that makes sense, is clearly laid forth, is free from contradiction, and happens to explain how things work. If you have no interest in explaining or understanding how things work, and are content to rely on your own judgement about everything, then you will probably have little interest in the theories of science. But that’s no basis for dismissing them. Maybe people prefer them to the implausible, volatile, and unsatisfying views handed down from dogmatic tradition. Those views are unsatisfying because they discourage people from raising questions that cannot be answered by those same views. And since I do not think people will cease to ask questions, I happen to think these views should be cast aside. They don’t help us to make the world a better place, because they don’t allow for discussion about what “better” could mean.
Hector
Good post, Bonnie! I also enjoyed your editorial in the latest FS about names. I’m sure you’re enjoying your new one 🙂
My friend Mike has a great blog called Decompose. I think you’d like it. Anyway, his new post made me think of yours. Check it out: http://mikeduran.com/?p=751
I’m laughing with you. Loved Peretti’s Monster! Another well-thought out and well-written post. Thanks!
It’s amazing how pathetic the theory of evolution is, huh? What I really don’t get is how evolutionists scorn the idea of religious faith when they so passionately believe in such a crazy idea themselves. Why is it so much harder to believe in God than in spontaneous random mutations over billions of years that result in perfect and incredibly complex organisms?
Someone once pointed out that David Attenborough’s reason for not believing in God was because of the cruelty of the animal kingdom. But that’s a theological answer, not a scientific one. Where’s the scientific evidence against a Creator?