In December, 2017, in response to young earth biblical creation being called “Flintstones science,” I wrote an article called “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Science.”1 I made the point that the idea that genetic mutations can make life more advanced and more complex goes against everything we observe.
What we actually observe is that genetic mutations are overwhelmingly negative; and over time cause a loss of genetic information, disease, suffering and death. If anyone questions this, all they need to do is conduct an internet search on “genetic disorders” to see what all comes up.
Now I think I have an even more appropriate term for Darwinian evolution—“X-Men science.” I do not watch a lot of movies. But to spend time with my family, I did watch X-Men on Netflix. I am glad I did.
After finishing the movie, my son and I had a discussion. The whole premise of the movie—as very explicitly stated at the beginning—was Darwinian evolution. The movie begins with a voice over by Patrick Stewart stating: “Mutation—it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow and normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward.”2
In the movie, characters can use their eyes to emit energy beams, morph themselves into the shape of other people, generate storms, walk through walls, control metal though magnetism, absorb powers from others, use their tongue as a super weapon, fight with the characteristics of a cat, and heal almost instantaneously.
While people hopefully understand that this is fiction, unfortunately a lot of people accept Darwinian evolution. This movie is another example of the constant onslaught that entrenches Darwinian evolution into people’s thinking. And I am not so sure that people truly understand that mutations leading to a person having super powers is a fiction.
I was talking to some people at work, making the point to them that a robot, or a computer, is not and cannot be consciously aware of anything. I explained that the idea that a robot or a computer could be consciously aware is based on philosophical materialism—the idea that matter and energy are all that exist—making us nothing more than matter and energy. In that worldview it does make sense that a robot or computer could have a consciousness.
But I went on to explain philosophical materialism is totally inconsistent with the concepts of reason, morality, logic, and even free will and consciousness.
One of the people that I was having this discussion with disagreed with me. He had seen in movies robots and computers having a consciousness and taking over. He stated “There is some truth in every movie.” So that is what he was basing his view on: not on the Bible, but on movies.
I would agree that sometimes things can be learned from movies or television shows. I may refer to them in some of my articles. But I would not use movies as the source for my worldview. I use the Bible.
Interestingly enough, on a 60 Minutes interview, venture capitalist Kai-Fu Lee, who developed facial recognition software, came out and stated:
There’s a lot of hype about artificial intelligence, and it’s important to understand this is not general intelligence like that of a human… A typical AI system can do one thing well, but can’t adapt what it knows to any other task. So for now, it may be that calling this ‘intelligence,’ isn’t very smart.
Explaining the problem of artificial general intelligence (AGI), Lee states:
Because I believe in the sanctity of our soul. I believe there is a lot of things about us that we don’t understand. I believe there’s a lot of love and compassion that is not explainable in terms of neural networks and computation algorithms. And I currently see no way of solving them. Obviously, unsolved problems have been solved in the past. But it would be irresponsible for me to predict that these will be solved by a certain timeframe.
The interviewer, Scott Pelley asks: “We may just be more than our bits?” Lee responds:
In Acts 17, Paul was talking to Epicurean4 and Stoic5 philosophers on Mars’ hill. Stoics can best be described as the Mr. Spock character on Star Trek. Epicureans were philosophical materialists—believing that everything, including thoughts, just consisted of “atoms.”
Their goal in life is to avoid pain. The thought of an afterlife where we would be accountable caused discomfort. So Epicurus philosophized that there is not an afterlife.
This was the challenge that Paul faced
So Paul began by teaching them who the God of the Bible is: “He is the God who made the world and everything in it.” Acts 17:24. Then Paul goes on to say, “From one man He created all the nations throughout the whole earth.” Acts 17:26. And then he drove the point home, “ For in Him we live and move and exist. For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.” Act 17:28.
So here is the challenge we face:
We need to understand and help church leaders understand that people are informing their worldviews with television, movies, magazines, late night comedians, and what they are taught in school. We need find ways to communicate to people why the Bible is consistent with what we actually know and observe; so it should be the basis for our worldview—not movies. We need to communicate that Darwinian evolution is X-Men science; not real science!