Full Transcript for Evolution’s 3 Biggest Unsolved Problems | William Lane Craig

debated it. 00:03:15 Speaker 1: And I'm curious if you could explain kind of what his thesis is and how maybe similar or different your approach is from his. 00:03:21 Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Al argued in this book that there is no conflict between theism and science, whereas there is a deep conflict between naturalism and science. Unfortunately, Al never addressed whether there is a conflict between biblical theism and science. He just completely avoided that issue, and that issue is squarely tackled in this volume. 00:03:56 Speaker 1: Okay, so maybe tell me what that difference is. I could guess, but what are some of the distinctions between like a broad theism and a biblical theism that would make it so important for you to address it here? 00:04:07 Speaker 3: A biblical theism will take the Bible as authoritative in everything that it teaches, whereas Plantinga was just dealing with a sort of generic monotheism, that would be quite consistent with denying biblical inspiration and inerrancy. 00:04:28 Speaker 2: Okay, got it. That's very helpful. 00:04:31 Speaker 1: Now, again, in this book, it's 578 pages, I think. You talk about creation ex nihilo, origin of life, image of God, anthropological dualism. But since we're going to narrow down on the topic of evolution, I'm wondering if you can define what is even meant by the word evolution here. And explain how evolutionary theory itself has evolved from what's called Darwinism to the modern synthesis to what's often called the extended evolutionary synthesis. 00:05:00 Speaker 3: The word evolution itself derives from the Latin evolvere, which means to roll out or to unfold. The English derivative basically means to change, and it's in this general sense that that we can talk about the evolution of life to indicate how life on our planet has changed over time. There is a long history of life on this planet from about 4.8 billion years ago until today. Now, evolutionary biology does not treat evolution as a change in individual organisms. Rather, biological evolution is descent with modification, that is to say, inherited change in the characteristics of populations of organisms over the course of the generations. Now, if we just set to the side pre-Darwinian evolutionary theories... What people need to realize, I think, is that the theory of evolution has itself evolved and continues to evolve. Darwin's original theory was comprised of two theses. One would be that there are natural variations of different sorts of animals, and then second would be that there is natural selection. Those best adapted to the environment will have an advantage in the struggle for survival. Now, it's been rightly said that Darwin's theory explained the survival of the fittest, but it never really explained the arrival of the fittest. That is to say, what is the source of those variations on which natural selection operates? Well, that was the advance of than in the modern synthesis, which was a marriage of Darwin's theory with Gregor Mendel's genetics. And in the modern synthesis, it is genetic mutations randomly occurring that are the source of the variations on which natural selection then operates. to advance the survivability of organism best suited to their environment. Now, that theory persisted until the 1980s, during which time it succumbed to extensive criticisms, so that now evolutionary biologists are seeking to enunciate what is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. And this moves beyond the sort of gene centrism of the modern synthesis to posit additional non-genetic factors and explanatory mechanisms to explain the origin of biological diversity and complexity. And so the advocates of this extended evolutionary synthesis are very critical of the modern synthesis for its explanatory inadequacy. And this modern herb, extended evolutionary synthesis, has not yet been completed or formulated. The field is in turmoil as evolutionary biologists are seeking to find these extended mechanisms that would explain the evolution of biological complexity. 00:09:09 Speaker 1: Very helpful to make some of these distinctions. And we're going to get into some of the problems that still remain for this extended evolutionary synthesis. I want to make sure I get this right. Yeah, extended evolutionary synthesis. We're going to get into some of that. Is it fair to say that what ties these three different understandings of evolution together minimally is common descent? That seems to be the common thread that runs through the three of them but there's a difference and a debate over the mechanism and means by which things change. 00:09:39 Speaker 2: Is that a fair summary? 00:09:40 Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's right. And I think it's important to see that each one incorporates the prior insights of the obsolete theory. It's not as though the older theory is simply discarded as worthless. Rather, each stage, each evolutionary stage of the theory of evolution incorporates elements of the previous stages and seeks to move beyond them to a more adequate theory. 00:10:16 Speaker 2: All right. 00:10:16 Speaker 1: Like good philosophers, we're going to make some more distinctions for people because it's important. 00:10:22 Speaker 2: A lot's at stake. 00:10:23 Speaker 1: And obviously you lay these out in your book very carefully and you document it as carefully as I've ever seen done. But one of the things that to me was most helpful is that you discuss three aspects of the evolutionary paradigm. And I'd be curious if you could explain what these three aspects are and why it's so important that we make these very distinctions. 00:10:49 Speaker 3: The eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala explains that the word evolution is used in at least three different senses today. The first would be the thesis of common ancestry. that all living organisms are genealogically related and descend from one or a few common ancestors in the past. The second aspect would be

the reconstruction of the tree of life, trying to figure out how various lines of descent branch off of one another to form a this tree of life. And then the third aspect would be identifying the explanatory mechanisms of evolution. What explains the advance in biological diversity and complexity over time? Now these distinctions are really vital, because when biologists say that evolution is a fact, that it's indisputable. They are referring only to the thesis of common ancestry. They recognize that evolution in the other two senses of the word is highly disputed among biologists today, and this is especially true, as I've already intimated, with respect to the third aspect of evolution, namely the identification of the explanatory mechanisms. Now, you ask which of these are theologically compatible with Christianity, and my answer, Sean, would be that given that the Bible does not teach young earth creationism, I think all of these are theologically compatible with biblical theism. If young earth creationism is not taught by the Bible, then the Bible says virtually nothing about how God created the organisms on this planet. And therefore, I think all three aspects are open to the biblically faithful Christian. 00:13:20 Speaker 1: So just to bring it back to Plantinga's idea to make sure I understand. You're saying these three theses are contradictory of a certain way of taking Christian theism, young earth creationism, but are not intrinsically in themselves inconsistent not only with theism, like Plantinga said, but a biblical theism broadly understood. There's no inherent contradiction there between the three ideas of evolution. Again, it would be common ancestry. It would be the phylogenetic tree, and then it would be the mechanism that drives it. Even if that were true, all three of them, you don't see a contradiction with biblical theism, assuming we don't associate biblical theism with young earth creationism. 00:14:06 Speaker 3: Right. That is the assumption. And in my work, I give a detailed discussion of how to interpret the creation story in Genesis 1. and argued that it is not best construed as teaching the literal creation of the biosphere in six consecutive 24-hour days. 00:14:33 Speaker 1: Now, you and I could probably have a full 24-hour conversation on each of these topics, and you discuss the genre of Genesis. You make your case. That's a chapter in this book. You talked about it elsewhere. You offer a critique in your book of young earth creationism. I know some people here want me to raise those objections. That is just a conversation for another time. I want people to know how much you cover in this volume here. I really want to explicate where your thinking is on this and why. So we're going to circle back to the first premise about universal common ancestry in a minute. But if you'd really kind of hone down on that third aspect seems really where the debate is. And when you said somebody assumes the fact of common ancestry

and people hear that assumes there's a mechanism that works, that's a huge equivocation that is taking place. So what's your assessment of the evidence for an explanatory mechanism? And does your assessment line up with how many scientists who embrace an evolutionary model also assess the evidence of that third aspect? 00:15:44 Speaker 3: Well, it's really interesting to read the statements of evolutionary biologists themselves with regard to the quest of an extended evolutionary synthesis. One scientist put it in this way. There is no postmodern synthesis. A kind of nice pun. There is no synthesis that follows the modern synthesis. Rather, great uncertainty reigns about what explains the origin of biological diversity and complexity that we observe today. So many different sorts of explanatory mechanisms are being explored, and much of the modern synthesis has been overturned or called into question today. 00:16:35 Speaker 2: That's really interesting. 00:16:36 Speaker 1: I think important for people to hear that it's not like a secret. It's common knowledge, and it's stated frequently. That there's no acceptable mechanism to drive this process. That's a pretty remarkable thing. Okay, let's shift to the first one a little bit, and I'm really curious to get your take on universal common ancestry. What is some of the key evidence that's offered for this, and what do you personally make of it? 00:17:05 Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. In the book, I review the various lines of evidence that are offered for the thesis of common ancestry. And I think that much of the evidence is inconclusive. It shows at best what I call extremely limited common ancestry, as opposed to universal common ancestry. For example, the pentadactyl limb, that is to say the appendage that features five fingers or digits. The pentadactyl limb is found in various forms in the human hand, in the seal's flipper, in the whale's fin, in the bird's wing, in the wings of a bat. All of these exhibit this pentadactyl limb. And this is said to be explained by their common ancestry. Over time, the pentadactyl limb has been adapted by natural selection to serve different purposes, but they all have basically the same structure indicating their common ancestry. But that is almost a triviality when you look at the... various kingdoms of life on this planet, all of those are vertebrates, and the vertebrates are just a tiny twig of a twig of the tree of life, so that even if this is conceded, it really only amounts to evidence for extremely limited common act ancestry among certain vertebrates. Rather, it seems to me that the most compelling evidence for the thesis of common ancestry comes from microbiology, where we see that all living organisms, from the most primitive bacterium to humanity, are built on the same DNA and RNA. It is astonishing that that basically the same genetic code governs all of life. Now certainly there have been mutations and changes, but it's basically all the same, and that seems

to be best explained by saying that these organisms are all genealogically related to each other. So the evidence of microbiology, I think, would provide the most persuasive evidence for a truly universal common descent. 00:20:05 Speaker 1: I'd be curious if this is considered such the factual of evolution, and I've seen this stated over and over again in some of my own studies, and this is the first of the three. Again, universal common ancestry, the tree of life, and the mechanism. You studied this from somebody who's saying, I don't see any theological or philosophical problem in principle with this and my Christian faith. You find the evidence inconclusive. Would you agree with a lot of intelligent design proponents who would see things like methodological naturalism and naturalism at work in the way a lot of people are assessing the evidence? Or would you be less likely to attribute the strong statements in favor of universal common ancestry when it's not as conclusive as you think it is? 00:20:54 Speaker 3: Well, I think that undoubtedly methodological and even metaphysical naturalism plays a a key role. It's easy to find statements by evolutionary biologists to that effect, but I'm approaching this as a Christian believer, as a systematic theologian, and therefore believing in the God of the Bible. And when I look at the evidence of microbiology, I do find it to be extremely persuasive and Four, thinking that all of these organisms are genealogically related to one another, rather than saying that God has created them over and over and over again on the basic same structure, the same code. It seems more plausible to think that they are related to one another. 00:21:50 Speaker 2: Okay, that's helpful. Fair enough. 00:21:53 Speaker 1: You have a section in your book that, again— There are so many things that jumped out to me, even the chapter on anthropological dualism. And there's a huge section on the origin of life and the challenges of life from non-life, how to think about that theologically. But you have a section on the fossil record. And I'd be curious in your assessment of this, what is the latest data reveal about the fossil record? And what kind of challenges does it offer to both universal common ancestry and the extended evolutionary synthesis? 00:22:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, everybody recognizes that there are abundant gaps in the fossil record. But I'm inclined to think that this is not evidence against common ancestry, but rather it's evidence against Darwinian gradualism. You see, one of the features of the modern synthesis was its gradualism. that evolutionary change occurs by small increments accumulating over time, and we just don't find evidence of that. Think of all of the transitional forms that would have to exist in order for a bat and a whale to descend from a common ancestor by incremental change. Instead, it seems that evolution may proceed by leaps and bounds, and so I think that the gaps are not so much evidence against common ancestry, which is strongly supported by microbiology, but rather it's evidence against Darwinian gradualism. Now let me say in addition to this that one of the problems with interpreting the gaps in the fossil record as evidence against common ancestry, is that so doing would require us to posit acts of divine creation out of nothing over and over and over again throughout the history of life. And I find it simply incredible to think that God created, for example, a herd of 50-ton brachiosaurs out of thin air, it seems much more plausible to limit God's initial creation to the beginning of the universe, and then to bring the new life forms into being out of the pre-existing organisms. 00:24:39 Speaker 1: That's really interesting. So I think you talk about this a little bit in the book. You would lean towards a little bit of kind of a punctuated equilibrium kind of model than Maybe explain what that is. And if I'm not mistaken, that still needs an adequate driving mechanism for it. 00:24:55 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:24:56 Speaker 1: Oh, yes. 00:24:57 Speaker 3: Yeah, this doesn't solve the problem of the mechanisms that we mentioned. But people like Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, recognizing that the paleontological fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism, this kind of incremental change over time, suggested instead that there could be punctuated equilibria. That is to say that there would be long periods of stagnation where there is no great evolutionary change, and then there would be suddenly a change to something new. And they posited different ways of trying to explain this by imagining populations that were separated by natural phenomena like rivers or floods or something, and then later those populations re-merged and one had evolved in a way the other hadn't. So they had attempts to explain these, and these have not won the day. They haven't convinced everybody, but It is, I think, an alternative to the sort of gradualism of the modern synthesis that is, I think, eminently challengeable. 00:26:27 Speaker 1: Now, I'm actually working on updating my book on intelligent design that I did with Dembski. So I'm starting to revisit some of these arguments that I haven't for a couple of decades. But it sure seems to me if we have some kind of punctuated equilibrium model it's quick on a geological scale. So there still should be a lot of intermediate fossils, maybe not as many as on gradualism, but there still should be quite a few that tell this punctuated story. Or would you say, no, we actually might not expect any on that model because it's so quick, geologically speaking? 00:27:03 Speaker 3: Well, we could, and I think we do have transitional forms in the fossil record. I mean, one of the most celebrated is this organism called Tiktaalik. So they do exist, but they're difficult to identify, and I think that what we need would be a theory that would enable us to explain how evolutionary change would be possible

without going through this incremental series of transitional forms. 00:27:39 Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha. We'll leave it at that and we'll keep going. 00:27:42 Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of debate about Tiktaalik and where it was found and how transitional it is. We don't have to enter into some of those particulars, but that's helpful. Okay, so you highlight three unsolved problems for the extended evolutionary synthesis. I want to highlight the three of them. I think the first one you may have stated you're position here about the problem of transitional forms. Anything you want to add to that one, or we covered it, keep going. 00:28:09 Speaker 3: Well, this just is the old problem of explaining how complex organisms could have gradually evolved through a series of transitional intermediate forms. How do you explain the arrival of new complex organisms from predecessors, it remains an unsolved problem of the explanatory mechanisms. 00:28:41 Speaker 1: And that's one that at the very beginning, Darwin commented on that. And it feels like we, you know, it still remains as entrenched as 200 and I'm not doing the math, whatever it was, 100 and whatever. 00:28:55 Speaker 2: What is the math? 00:28:55 Speaker 3: 1859. 00:28:55 Speaker 2: Yeah, roughly. 00:28:56 Speaker 1: Fair enough. So the second one is what you call the problem of organizational form. Maybe explain what that is so we're on the same page and why that's a persistent problem. 00:29:09 Speaker 3: This is the problem of how the basic body plans of the fundamental phyla that are present in the Cambrian explosion originated. In the Cambrian explosion around 500 million years ago, all of the basic body plans of various animals are found. And there aren't any predecessors for them in the fossil record to be found. And they basically are the body plans that have persisted until today. And so the problem of how this organizational form came to exist remains unexplained. 00:29:51 Speaker 1: So maybe explain for people listening exactly what you mean, because when they think body plan, they might think, well, body plan of a dolphin and body plan of a human, but those are both chordates. What do we mean by phyla, and why is that such a big problem when we don't have these earlier precursors leading up to them? 00:30:10 Speaker 3: Well, the phyla are one of the very broad categories of living things akin to aginus and species and order and family. The various phyla are types of organisms. And these basic types exhibiting these organizational structures are, they just appear in the Cambrian explosion. And this has not yet received an adequate explanation from a evolutionary theorists. 00:30:50 Speaker 1: And this would be some of the work that Stephen Meyer has done in his book Darwin Doubt. And I think you highlight some of these. And then you point about how on a Darwinian model, you have similarity and then complexity and difference emerges over time. That's what we would expect kind of in a

fanning out model where you have the complexity and the diversity at the beginning appear without these precursors. Like that kind of flips the model on its head a little bit. 00:31:18 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:31:19 Speaker 1: Now, the objections I've heard, and I know these are in your book, but some would say, well, we just don't have, like these kind of soft-bodied animals were not preserved in the Precambrian, but we assume that they were there, or we just haven't found them yet. What would be your take on those kind of objections? 00:31:37 Speaker 3: Well, I think the problem with that is you can always say that, but we do have fossils of microorganisms that little soft-bodied things that are found in the shale and the pre-Cambrian. So it's just not true that these organisms would not leave any evidence of their existence in the fossil record if they were there. 00:32:06 Speaker 2: All right. 00:32:07 Speaker 1: So we're talking about the three unsolved problems for the extended evolutionary synthesis. One was the problem of transitional forms. Second was a problem of organizational form we just talked about. And then third is you described the problem of genetic information. 00:32:23 Speaker 3: Yes. And this is basically the problem of the origin of the genetic code and the process of replication by RNA and DNA. And what we confront here is a vicious circle. How could an extremely... complex translation system involving RNA and DNA evolve before there were functioning proteins. But there couldn't be functioning proteins without an effective translation system. So you have this sort of chicken and egg situation that results in a vicious circle, and it remains to be discovered how this is to be solved. 00:33:14 Speaker 1: Now, you highlight these as the three unsolved problems. Are there other unsolved problems that you didn't bring in and didn't discuss that just seemed somewhat secondary or not as important to highlight on? 00:33:27 Speaker 3: Certainly, there are lots of specific questions. For example, one of the advances in the extended evolutionary synthesis is the integration of developmental biology— with evolutionary biology. Developmental biology is the term for what used to be called embryology, how that single cell, fertilized cell in the body develops into a full organism of a certain type with a certain body plan and everything. trying to figure out how to integrate developmental biology with evolutionary biology is one of the most fruitful areas of exploration in the extended evolutionary synthesis. Also, other so-called epigenetic factors that would explain evolutionary advance evolutionary biologists are finding out that is Lamarck believed inherited characters are rather acquired characteristics can be inherited. And there can be non-genetic factors that can affect this. So everything is really up for grabs today. 00:35:00 Speaker 2: So, Let me ask you this. 00:35:04 Speaker 1: Maybe you can't answer this, but when I look at like

that third premise again in terms of how close they are to a mechanism that describes this process or actually many of my biologist friends would say multiple mechanisms that contribute to this, not just one. Like would you say like we're 2% of the way there? We're 80% of the way there? Like how– I know numbers are impossible, but if you had to give a sense of like we have such a massive gap to jump across, we're not even close. Like some of my colleagues, Doug Axe here, he's argued on this show. He actually thinks the steps from the first life to the complexity of human beings is a greater step and more information than explaining the origin of life itself. That's what he argues for. But what's your sense of that third component? 00:35:54 Speaker 3: Well, I am not expert to answer a question like that or to give my own opinion. All I can say is that in my reading of evolutionary biologists, I never see anyone offer a confident estimate that we're 50% of the way there, for example, or something of that sort. They just don't do that. Instead, they will confess that that there is great uncertainty. And you mentioned the 150th anniversary of Darwin's origin of the species. One evolutionary biologist said the next time we celebrate this anniversary, he says, we don't know what evolutionary theory will look like by that time, but it will be very, very different than what we have today. 00:36:48 Speaker 2: Interesting, right? 00:36:48 Speaker 1: If we've had Darwinian model was replaced by kind of the Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism. And then this third model, what's going to be the fourth? What's going to be the fifth? I guess we'll find out in due time. Now, maybe tell us a little bit here because there's probably a lot of people listening going, okay, wait a minute. 00:37:08 Speaker 2: Is Dr. 00:37:08 Speaker 1: Craig going to make an argument for design because so many things that you said, there's a creation or design alternative to some of these facts. But maybe tell us, what is your unique approach that you're doing in this book as you look at some of these questions? 00:37:26 Speaker 3: Well, I'm not doing natural theology. As a systematic theologian, I assume the truth of Scripture, and I come to the table with my theism already in hand, and I ask, how is my Christian theism best to be integrated with the evidence of evolutionary biology? So it's not about constructing a design argument. It's about theological integration. But I have to say I'm pretty open to a case for a cosmic designer who has planned the evolutionary process to eventuate in man. I think that that conclusion is very plausible given the fine-tuning of the universe that already requires a cosmic intelligence to set the fundamental constants and quantities of nature. So the evolution of biological complexity as well as the origin of life would simply be icing on the cake for a design argument. 00:38:34 Speaker 1: As you well know, the Intelligent design proponents are not

doing biblical theism. They're starting with an understanding of science, an understanding of philosophy, asking, is there evidence for intelligent design either in the biological world, in the natural world, in the cosmos? And so there's actually disagreement. You cite Behe in the book. Behe embraces a kind of common descent, which is the first principle of but argues that A, it couldn't happen through purely natural means, and B, there's positive evidence of intelligent design. So there's a lot of folks who will say, yeah, I believe in common descent, but there's no positive evidence for intelligent design when we look at, say, the flagellum or the cilia or DNA, whereas design proponents will go further and say, oh no, God didn't just providentially guide this. He actually makes himself known and we can empirically interpret it. Now the reason I'm framing it this way is you're right and you make it clear in your volume you're doing systematic theology here, not natural theology. But you have a volume earlier where you kind of take an excursus and do natural theology and lay out your six arguments for the existence of God. When you said you're open to a design argument being plausible, is it– it seems to me there's two possibilities here. Maybe you have a third. A, saying I just haven't researched this, and I don't know. That's not my specialty. Or B, I'm just not persuaded by the arguments yet. What does that openness mean to the plausibility in terms of, say, like the DNA argument that's made? 00:40:12 Speaker 3: Well, I think it's a both-and rather than an either-or. Evolutionary biology is an almost impossible field to master because it involves so many diverse fields of science that no one person can be expert in all of them. And so I think it's requires us to approach it with tremendous humility rather than to be dogmatic. And so I'm open to a design argument based on biological evolution. And as I say, given that I already defend a fine-tuning argument, that just seems to layer on more improbability that would point to this cosmic designer. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm open to it, but that's just not my project in this volume. 00:41:18 Speaker 2: That's, that's totally fair. 00:41:20 Speaker 1: I appreciate that. I, uh, I thought there, there was a quote I'm just thinking of now by Behe where he said it wasn't so much challenging evolution that upset people, but that he made a case for design. 00:41:32 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:41:33 Speaker 1: Tell me what you make of that and why you think that's so significant. 00:41:36 Speaker 3: Well, I, I want to, um, reemphasize or underline the point you made for our listeners that many proponents of intelligent design are perfectly fine with the thesis of common ancestry. Not only Michael Behe, but Michael Denton as well, uh, affirms the thesis of common ancestry. And in his book on Darwin's doubt, Stephen Meyer shows himself quite open to the, um, notion of universal common descent. He says this is not where

the central issue lies. Rather, the issue really lies in the adequacy of the explanatory mechanisms behind this remarkable history of life and evolution of biological complexity. So, ID theorists themselves recognize that the part of the controversy does not lie with the thesis of common ancestry, but with those explanatory mechanisms. 00:42:42 Speaker 1: I've got a few more for you, but I'm wondering if we could maybe map for people just so they're tracking some of the discussions here is each of us are going to come to this question with certain assumptions and with a certain approach. And like I said earlier, Intelligent design proponents are simply looking at nature asking, is there positive evidence that an intelligent agent has act? And then it's a follow-up question. If so, who or what is that intelligent agent? Not even necessarily the biblical God. That's how intelligent design approaches this. Some young earth creationists and old earth creationists typically start with a certain understanding of Genesis and what it teaches and then find science as they understand. I'm not saying they're necessarily picking or choosing. They just have certain biblical commitments here and then find the science to match that model of what they have. You're approaching this uniquely here as a Christian Christian. theist asking, even if this is true, how would I wed it with certain Christian theist positions that I have? Is that a fair summary? 00:43:55 Speaker 3: Well, it's almost right. I would say that your description of the creationist's approach is mine, that I begin with the biblical teaching, and then I ask, how is this best integrated with what we learn from modern science? not assuming that evolution is true. No, no, I don't assume that. What I want to say is I want to look at the evidence. What is the evidence for these three aspects of evolutionary theory? And then ask, how is that best integrated with my biblical commitments? 00:44:34 Speaker 2: Fair enough. That's helpful. 00:44:35 Speaker 1: And I had you for a few classes and you're one of the toughest graders I know. So to say I almost got it, I'll take that. 00:44:42 Speaker 3: Close enough. 00:44:44 Speaker 2: Kidding aside. 00:44:44 Speaker 3: All right. 00:44:45 Speaker 1: So I followed your writings for a long time. And I remember you kind of weighing in on evolution, if I'm not mistaken, in that debate with Zindler back in like the 90s at Willow Creek. that Lee Strobel moderated. And he argued something in effect of evolution disproves God. And your take was, look, even if evolution were true, it would take so many steps that it would point towards God. If I remember correctly, you kind of had a response like that. 00:45:15 Speaker 3: Yes. 00:45:16 Speaker 1: And I've always wondered, you know, where does Dr. Craig land on some of these evolutionary issues? And this is the first time I've really seen you weigh into some of the biology here. So I'd just be curious, from when you started in your ministry to the time you studied this, and now reading this volume, which must have taken hundreds of hours of just reading biological texts themselves, how have your views of the evolution of life shifted or changed or been solidified over that time? 00:45:50 Speaker 3: Well, I do think that I've become much more open to the thesis of common ancestry. I really am impressed with the evidence of microbiology. And the creationist alternative to common descent, as I say, just seems to me to be incredible, because it would postulate repeated interventions of creation ex nihilo throughout the history of life. And that's not God of the Bible as I see him. Moreover, that would not be a good explanation of the genetic defects that we find in organisms that seem to be the residue of a common ancestor. For example, a mutation that both chimpanzees and human beings share that would be a defect that they inherited from a common ancestor. It seems to be much more plausible to think that this defect would be inherited rather than that God would create independently defective organisms with these sorts of mutations. So I just don't find the creationist alternative to common descent to be very credible. So in writing this, I don't think my views on creation changed very much. They were pretty much settled, although I learned a great deal in the process of writing the book. I think that in terms of changes, most of them would come in the locus on the doctrine of man. 00:47:48 Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. 00:47:48 Speaker 1: Now, we didn't have that conversation here. Do you want to make some comments in that or leave that for another time? 00:47:54 Speaker 3: Well, I think in particular, my views on original sin, I came to be very skeptical that Adam's sin is imputed to every one of his descendants so that you are guilty for what Adam did. or that Adam's sin resulted in a corruption of human nature. When you look at the biblical text, those doctrines are not to be found there. Those are theological doctrines that have developed in the church, but I don't think that the biblical basis for those doctrines is at all persuasive. So I enunciate a doctrine of original sin, or of sin I should say, that affirms the universality of sin and thinks of the propagation of sin in terms of a privation of the original righteousness that Adam and Eve had prior to the fall. So that the view that I enunciate and defend is rather similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, actually. 00:49:10 Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. 00:49:12 Speaker 1: Now, you just raised 18 questions in my mind, but that's a conversation for another time. Like I mentioned, I'm working on updating the book that Dembski and I wrote. 2008 it was, so really researched it 20 years ago. And so I'm definitely going to go back and revisit some of the latest arguments for universal common ancestry and take a look at them as you do in this book. 00:49:37 Speaker 2: But let me ask you this. 00:49:38 Speaker 1: Where

would you like to see discussions regarding the intersection of faith and science like head moving forward? What would your encouragement be to the church and maybe young philosophers and apologists? 00:49:50 Speaker 3: Well, it seems to me, Sean, that brain science is the next frontier. And I suppose that will also connect with AI, but especially the functioning of the brain and how this is to be integrated with the reality of the soul and seems to me to be an area that requires further exploration by Christian philosophers and neurologists. 00:50:15 Speaker 2: That makes a lot of sense. 00:50:16 Speaker 1: Did I miss anything in the section on the evolution of life that you want to emphasize, you want to explain, you want to clarify? Because I'm guessing this is, well, I know this is controversial stuff, which is fine, but you've written it clearly here. You've done your research and you're advancing it. So did I miss anything that you wanted to say? 00:50:35 Speaker 3: No, I don't think so. I would just say that I'm in awe of the history of life on this planet. That is one of the things that doing this book gave me. Life originated on this planet over 4 billion years ago. And for much of that time, it was just single-celled bacteria. just stoking the atmosphere with oxygen until finally, around a little over 500 million years ago, there was this explosion of life. And the great evolutionary change of biological diversity and complexity hasn't happened over 400 billion years. It's basically happened over the last 500, 600 million years. So it's a remarkably short time, relatively speaking, and I'm just in awe of the history of life on this planet and what God has done, I think, to bring about humanity. The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe. And to think that he brought this into existence, starting with single-celled bacteria, I think should just inspire us with awe and worship, frankly. 00:52:15 Speaker 2: I love that. 00:52:16 Speaker 1: Now, part of me wants to mic drop right there, but I realized I didn't ask you one of the questions in the intro that people are going, what did you not ask about, which is the last section in your chapter on the evolution of life. You have a section on the problem of natural evil. Oh. And I realize this could be a whole show in itself, but this is the big one, especially that young earthers will bring up, that God built in predation and death and suffering into this process itself. What kind of God would do this? And it's a theological and maybe somewhat philosophical objection. What's maybe just a few things you would say within your model of how you might respond to that? 00:52:58 Speaker 2: Uh-huh. 00:52:59 Speaker 3: I think that the evolutionary history of this planet is God's setting the scene for the drama of human salvation, and it is justified, all the pain, suffering involved is justified ultimately by his bringing men and women freely into an eternal love relationship with himself, the supreme good. And that is an incommensurable good that outweighs any of the suffering and the pain that was involved in achieving that. But then I think, as you know, I also think that animal suffering is qualitatively different from human suffering. And I've made this point numerous times that animals, even the highest level of them, other than humans, don't have a first-person perspective. And so they cannot think, I am suffering. They feel pain, yes, but they're not aware that I am in pain. And so animal suffering is just qualitatively different than the suffering that you and I experience in And that therefore God has really spared most animals from the sort of intense suffering that you and I experience. 00:54:36 Speaker 2: That's really helpful. 00:54:37 Speaker 1: Now, again, I have so many follow-up questions on that one, but it is interesting when I think about the times I've suffered in my life, the times I start feeling despair and reflecting on it, like magnifies that pain more than the pain itself and the self-awareness. 00:54:52 Speaker 2: And God has spared animals that component of it. All right, we'll let this go. 00:54:57 Speaker 1: I'm guessing people watching have a ton of questions, but as always, it's 578 pages. It's your systematic philosophical theology. Volume three is out. There's evidence for the soul. There's a case for the challenges to the origin of life. So much more in here that even some folks who read this who will probably disagree with some of the things you shared today, it's fine. You document and you always make your case solidly. So I enjoyed it. Enjoyed this conversation as well. Thanks for coming on, Dr. 00:55:26 Speaker 2: Craig. 00:55:26 Speaker 3: Thank you, Sean. All the best. 00:55:28 Speaker 1: All right, friends, before you click away, make sure you hit subscribe and think about joining me in studying here in either the philosophy program or the apologetics program at Talbot on campus or online. 00:55:39 Speaker 2: We'd love to have you. We'll see you soon.