Biology has yet to experience her Newton; her Copernicus.
Biology has not yet come of age. It just doesn’t feel as if it has “arrived” yet.
Darwin will not enjoy his current “Mount Rushmore” status a few centuries from now. He’s just too wrong about some basic concepts. He’ll most likely end up like Galen (the important guy before they figured medicine out)
For a scientific theory (i.e. evolution) to be so controversial well over a century after its “unveiling” begs the question, “What’s wrong with it?” Darwin’s acolytes are still trying to convince us, and generation after generation, it’s not working.
The truth is, we don’t yet understand “life,” and most people are fully aware of the opaque mystery of the topic at hand. All proposed “definitions” of life are hopelessly arbitrary; in the end, life is pretty strange stuff that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I need to lay my cards on the table–I trust the narrative of the Bible and am a committed follower of Jesus. But that’s not why I have trouble with Darwin and his neo-Darwinian offspring. If I had never seen a Bible, I still wouldn’t buy what they are selling.
It’s just too counter-intuitive.
I’m not the sharpest crayon out of the box, but I can tell stuff that happened randomly (i.e. potholes on the 405) from stuff that got designed (i.e. cool Swiss watches). Life seems way more like the latter than the former. Simple as that.
Many “progressive” Christians try to merge evolution and the Bible. They think they have “solved” the problem by saying, “I can believe in evolution and the Bible.” Problem is, no matter what you think of the Bible, spontaneous, undesigned evolution isn’t true. Why staple God onto a system that doesn’t need one?
First of all, “science” about the past is dicey. On a good day!
Truth is, the past doesn’t exist. You can’t go there. Even if you were Bill-Gates-rich, you couldn’t take me there tomorrow. And time travel will never happen because you can’t go somewhere that isn’t there.
The present is simply all we have. Joe’s Crab Shack here in Newport Beach has a sign: Free Crab Tomorrow. There never is a tomorrow. Only a today.
Science, by definition, is organized observation. We can only observe and measure the present, since that is all there is to see. Science must be “repeatable.” You can’t repeat an observation of something you can’t observe in the first place.
Science is a good thing and I am not anti-science. All truth is truth. But science has been running up against limits, in many areas of study, for several generations now. Science has entered a time of diminishing returns. It has never lived up to what we thought was its potential. It’s just created a lot of yucky chemicals we can’t seem to get rid of. Remember when nobel prizes in science were about cool things like beating polio and figuring out electricity? Nowadays the prize winners “achieve” something like figuring out some nuance in a light wavelength. Diminishing returns. Science is losing mojo.
Complex storytelling (scientific or otherwise) about the “past” is fraught with pitfalls. We always tend to read in what we want to see. I want to see a Creator, and I can easily find one; at least I’m honest about my motives–my opponents, on the other hand, pretend to be “objective.” Immanuel Kant described our minds as “waffle irons” which impose our patterns and views on the runny batter of reality “an sich.”
Pick the opposite pre-supposition to mine (i.e. no designer), and you can “find” that too. Your geometry system all depends on the postulates you pick beforehand; same goes for me.
This is why history is such an “odd” discipline. It is a detailed description of something that isn’t actually there. Add science to the mix, and it gets even stranger. History is written by the victors in life and all storytelling about the past is deeply influenced by our current biases. Our historical interpretation of the past far outweighs any actual evidence; we can write volumes and volumes on Greco-Roman society and we only have a few flimsy pages of actual primary sources from that era (Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.), and most of those earliest manuscripts date from almost a millennium after they were written.
Susan Sontag wrote a magnificent essay “On Photography” which talks, among other things, about how it gives us the illusion that we can know the past. Interesting how Darwin’s theory and photography developed (no pun intended) around the same time.
Before this gets too serious, click on this Friends episode that deals with evolution. It’s actually quite profound.
Let’s just come right out and say that all story-telling (including mine) about the past is deeply agenda-driven. This includes secular, mechanistic evolution theories.
We simply have no consensus, in the USA, as to the place of spiritual/supernatural discourse, if any, in the public marketplace. Big agendas are pushing big ideas, but we haven’t even agreed on how to chalk the lines on the football field.
Most of the reasoning on both sides is totally circular. Pre-define science as having no spiritual content, and voila!, you relegate talking about a Creator to the realm of “feelings” and “opinions,” claiming the turf of “fact” for your side. (Theologians do the same thing, BTW)
Who says science can’t entertain supernatural/spiritual/design components? Some grand scientific world congress that imposes this definition on the rest of us? Who gets to decide what science is? Only those who a priori exclude all spiritual content?
Science is nothing more and nothing less than an organized, inductive, collective search for truth by observation, publication, repetition, and consensus. Pre-defining the rules (most narrowly) to ensure your preferred outcome is no longer science.
Pre-defined in non-Designer mechanistic terms, science is no longer worthy of the name “science.” It no longer has the muscle to seek truthful answers to the (big) question: “What are we doing here?”
Getting back to biology–I simply don’t find the argument for evolution convincing. Neither “mircro (within a species)” nor “macro” evolution.
You can separate out traits (dog breeding, agriculture, etc.), but these are artificially isolated trait groups. Put all the dogs in the world on one of the Hawaiian Islands and in a few generations they’d all look just like their proto-ancestors. There is remarkable consistency within a species.
It seems, from whatever incomplete evidence that we have, that species appear out of nowhere, enjoy a long period of “stasis” where virtually nothing happens, and they they go extinct. These mass “flowerings” of species seem to have happened in a handful of mega-waves over time.
And no one has ever convinced me that one species can become another one. Clearly, it didn’t happen gradually (lizards growing wings ever so slowly over millennia), and if it was a new-species mutation, then it wouldn’t have the right number of chromosomes to mate with anything else (why dogs and cats can’t mate with each other producing any offspring)–it would be a mule at best. And the chances of two identical (male and female) mutations who can mate and be the Adam and Eve of a new species? Please.
Let’s go back to the wings. It would take a bazillion years for wings to evolve to the point where an animal could actually fly (try designing a wing that will lift solid matter off the ground–go ahead). All during that time, the non-flying wings would be a serious liability in terms of survival. And during that bazillion years, the genetics of the animal would be screaming to the offspring not to change anything. Our genes are deeply conservative by temperament.
Real Darwinists have given up on the “gradual change” story and the neo-Darwinists don’t have anything to convince me that mutations (as opposed to gradual natural selection which they have given up) could produce new species. Apparently, species just start, go on for a long time, and die out (looking much the same as when they started).
And micro-evolution going on with humans today? If that were the case, then people in harsh environments (more improvements because of forced adaptation) would be superior to those who have spent thousands of years in “resort” climates. Let the racism begin…
I’m not saying that we’ll never figure this out. I just think that we are all (myself included) missing a really big insight; as big as Copernicus shifting the sun to the middle of the solar system.
I don’t have an answer for the “What are we doing here?” question. I believe God was and is deeply involved. Not because of some old, dusty dogma, but because I encounter supernatural reality on a regular basis, and this reality seems to have focus, personality, and intention. I can’t conceive of this Being having nothing to do with why we are here. And I am not alone. A majority of humans in every time and place (whatever their faith system) relate to what I have just written about spiritual things. They will continue to reject a spiritually-sanitized story about our origins.
Perhaps some truly fresh-thinking person reading this will set aside the tired Creation/Evolution debate and think a truly original thought about what life actually is and how some forms of life relate to other forms of life on earth.
Secular evolution theory, after generations of teaching, has never reached true consensus in our society. It never will. Which begs the question: What’s wrong with it?
Time for some new thinking.
Time for a Newton.
Time for a Copernicus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please forward the link to this essay to everyone you know using this URL link: http://wp.me/pGQxY-4z
Follow me on Twitter @LibertyHous
Follow me on Facebook “David Housholder”
Read my latest book on experiencing the Holy Spirit ; order it on Amazon or read it on Kindle
Come on a Spiritual Treasure Hunt
David Housholder Essays 
264 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Phil Wala
I find the wonders of the universe and the mystery of life too amazing and purpose-driven to believe that it all “just happened”. I see evidence of a Creator everywhere I look.
And I also agree that evolution, as an explanation for why we are here, falls far short of a complete explanation. Even those of us who are scientists would agree with the “counter-intuitive” aspect.
Unfortunately, our “intuition” is a notoriously bad guide when it comes to both faith and science. Everyone’s “intuition” is different. Many people reject the gospel because they find it counter-intuitive. That’s why you have to set your intuition aside, and look at evidence. There are many times when, as a follower of Jesus, I have to set intuition aside and look at the evidence of Scripture to decide the right path to follow. And there are many times when, as a scientist, I have to set intuition aside and follow scientific evidence wherever it leads. I’ve written more on this topic at http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2009/10/but-its-counterintuitive.html
Yes, those who try to push evolution as a comprehensive explanation for all of Creation are grasping at straws. In doing so, they go far beyond what evolution really is. Evolution, if taken as a scientific explanation, and not a comprehensive world view, is nothing more than a description of what scientific evidence counterintuitively tells us, through the fossil record, and more convincingly, through the mathematically incontestable phylogenetic record. It never purports to tell how life began (that’s abiogenesis), just how it developed. It doesn’t tell us the “who” or the “why”.
One other point. If you really are separating the faith and science as you claim, then why label those who make independent decisions about each as “progressive” (where the quotation marks imply a questioning of their faith)? I’m a Spirit-filled Pentecostal Bible-preaching evangelical believer. I also find evidence for evolution as an answer to the “how” question (not the “who” or “why”) overwhelming. My faith is strengthened (not compromised, as you seem to imply) by my deeper knowledge of the counterintuitive “hows” built into my Savior’s creation.
January 12, 2010 at 6:12 am
Lora
This is the most intelligent response I have seen from a Christian yet. Thank you for not belittling scientific inquiry and simply stating it’s not Christian to understand how evolution works. I search for an intelligent understanding of both the world and my spirituality and I believe the two must be able to work together.
December 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Wendy Housholder
I believe that the truth lies within God’s creative power and that science comes from the truth of his creation – there does not need to be a conflict in that. Not that we can measure all that God has done, but maybe some portion of it? Intelligent Design seems the only logical answer here. Randomness does not prove anything, does it?
December 7, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Phil Wala
I believe that evidence of the Creator’s intelligent design pervades everything, right down to the very laws of physics themselves. By the way, many in the “intelligent design” movement (Michael Behe, for example) fully accept the phylogenetic evidence for evolution — they simply maintain that God had to intervene and “tinker” with the process along the way.
Personally, I find a God who is able to speak into existence, at the moment of creation, all the laws of nature necessary for a universe “pregnant” with life, to be far more intelligent than one who is forced to “tinker” with the process along the way. (But maybe that’s because I’m an engineer for whom tinkering with faulty designs is a way of life, and I realize what a low view of God that is!)
There is some randomness in creation. Anyone who has studied quantum physics knows that there is randomness built into the very laws of physics at a subatomic level. But randomness is NOT the same as purposelessness. A creation with elements of randomness can still be driving towards it’s Creator’s purpose, which is how I see it.
In fact, I go further in seeing some element of randomness being NECESSARY to God’s purpose. A fully deterministic creation has no free will. The only way for a creation to be something other than a predetermined extension of the creator himself, is to relinquish control of some elements of that creation. It’s a way of seeing how God, in the act of creation, willingly emptied Himself (kenosis) of total control in order to give His creation the opportunity to choose.
I would say, though, that even the randomness is under God’s sovereign limitation. A totally random creation would be nothing but chaos. A totally ordered creation would be exceedingly boring. But put together the perfect balance of randomness (free will) and order (God’s sovereign purpose), and you get the exceedingly varied, beautiful and interesting world that best tells us what God is like.
December 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm
David
This whole entry strikes me as an example of someone from the world of faith trying, but failing, to make sense of science. I really don’t understand why you would want to put your credibility on the line in this area. You clearly know a lot about theology and very little about biology, in particular, and science in general. Try this: http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/, if you want to get started on evolution.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that evolution is the core theory for modern biological sciences. It works not just as theory, but as a pragmatic tool for understanding things like viruses. And it is as well established among scientists as gravity.
You raise a lot of irrelevant issues regarding evolution, from the search for a scientific hero, to the idea of the need for some kind of democratic consensus. But the bottom line is that it is real and it works.
I don’t see why that fills you with such anxiety and fear. And I don’t understand why you want to be an advocate for ignorance. What does that have to do with your faith?
December 7, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Daniel Pettit
David B. so just what is your definition of science? I thought David H’s definition was right one. Without repeatability all you have is faith.
A couple simple thoughts against evolution.
Evolution is contrary to the law of entropy…. See More
Where are all the intermediary species in the fossil record?
Why are trees still just trees? Don’t you think by now they would have at least decided to sprout legs so they could see if the grass really is greener?
Why don’t humans have any competition? Or are the Dolphins just bidding their time to make their move.
Sorry, the “evidence” for evolution is actually underwhelming. The only thing evolution overwhelms is the science of man-made catastrophic Global Warming.
I challenge you to watch The Case for a Creator http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Case_for_a_Creator/70056708 and not come away with a V8 moment for ever thinking that the complex biochemical machinery of man is just a happy confluence of a trillion lucky chance mutations.
December 7, 2009 at 7:49 pm
David Housholder
FROM WIKIPEDIA–Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
April 1, 2010 at 5:43 am
Lou
I wouldn’t quote from WIKIPEDIA, it’s not a very credible source.
May 8, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Mrs. Hume
David is citing common knowledge not obscure research. Wiki is fine for simply using as an encyclopedic shortcut. Every science textbook on the planet contains virtually the same definition.
June 1, 2010 at 4:47 pm
schneiderama
My recent biology class was a real eye- opener. I am not a “literal creationist” but I found the one-sided presentation of the several layers of evo development (for instance, the formation of the first cells, in which the very vapid example of bubbles coalescing in certain mineral/ water combinations was propounded as an example of how this problematic and not-successfully tested hypothetical point was passed off) spurred me to research more for myself. (the great goal of higher ed., no?)
Our text was rabidly pro-evolution and made no effort to balance the examination of this theory (with many strong evidences that do not all up to the ‘Fact” of evolution in it’s many facets of definition) by introducing problems that I have discovered since reading “Darwin on Trial” by law prof. Johnson.
To cite one “problem” area, the above mentioned “gaps in fossil record” problem that has given birth (mutant?) to the neo-Darwinian term “Punctuated Equilibrium” that is essentially an oxymoron. Darwin had hoped that new research past his time would provide for a greater filling-in of the record. While some connections have been made, for the most part, many new, unaccounted for plants and animals simply “appeared” in the so-called “Cambrian Explosion.” In reference to chaos, entropy and chance one will note that the arch-typical explosion does not create, design or manufacture order.
As in the comment above- our theory and its underlying hypothesis were never challenged; let me say “tested.”
Our society is muddled and confused in so many respects, the recent Gulf Oil Disaster is merely a symptom of its dysfunction. Without seeming to sound simplistic, both the staunch “believers” need to alter beliefs in light of the sacred cow paradigm of reason (sorry though, it was early Western Judeo-Christianity that kicked out the “experiential” Gnostics and insisted Reason with its High Priests of Words and Concepts would be the arena in which we would operate) in light of the obvious problem of the 7 day creation myth that was easily accepted in the past. Those who worship at the altar of science; sorry again, belief in the principals of science and those of religion are certainly not mutually exclusive – as our textbook claimed.
What if we use the idea of the needful recognition of physics and metaphysics, the latter being the area of study that addresses questions that science admits it is powerless to contend with given it’s laws of operation? The physics expert may indeed admit to a grand organizational scheme, such as the quantum field ( as opposed to what one might expect in a totally random universe – a spatial chaos) and the very complex yet Unified order of atoms (hard to imagine the total accident of our microcosmic level of atomic existence. If one begins with the basics then, without having to subscribe to an absolute mythical/religious dogma to explain our universe it might be granted, in a more evolved society, that the great polar dualities (always underlying Unity) of negative and positive, creation and destruction, and physics and metaphysics are realms that should be accepted and studied to find the syncronosity (sic) of the two that may result in a harmony that our Fumbling World Order so far lacks.
December 7, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Phil Wala
Hous,
If doubts about evolution have, as you claim, nothing to do with your interpretation of the Bible, then why debate it with such religious zeal? And why attack those of us who are both scientifically and theologically grounded by calling us an “embarassment”? Billy Graham has gone on record as saying there is no conflict between scripture and the science of evolution. Jack Hayford and Philip Yancey are charter signatories of the statement on faith and science put out by Francis Collins’ Biologos Foundation, which seeks to build bridges between mainstream science (including biology of origins) and evangelical Christian faith. I assume you consider Billy Graham, Jack Hayford and Philip Yancey to be embarassments as well?
I enjoy dialog on both the science and faith aspects of origins. But I am hurt when a fellow Christian calls me an “embarassment” just because we disagree about a scientific issue that really has very little to do with my theology.
December 8, 2009 at 4:20 am
Phil Wala
Now I’m embarrassed because I misspelled “embarrassment”. Three times. And further up I used “it’s” instead of “its”. I’m not just embarrassed — I’m humiliated.
December 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm
David Housholder
Humiliated is easier to spell 🙂
I’ll edit my post; embarrassment is not appropriate. Please accept my apology.
December 8, 2009 at 5:27 am
Bryn Knatterud
Sites like http://www.answersingenesis.org/ provide a great scientific resource for a young earth and the HOW of how we got here…
Also, Darwin is not the first to say that things evolve over time. Lucretius wrote that all things like plants, animals, and man evolved out of a primeval slime. And he wrote it in the first century BC. I don’t buy his theory, but it’s more convincing then Darwin’s if you ask me.
December 8, 2009 at 10:55 am
Phil Wala
Unfortunately, “Answers in Genesis” tends to replay “creation science” scripts from the 1960s and tends to ignore most legitimate discoveries of the last 40 years.
For those who aren’t afraid to look deeper into the latest scientific discoveries from an evangelical Christian perspective, I’d recommend the sites listed below. I don’t necessarily agree with every conclusion (and you don’t have to, either), but I do respect them, because they at least stay up to date with current issues while maintaining both scientific and theological integrity. These sites are a better representation of evangelical Christians who work full time in scientific fields, and of how science is taught in most evangelical Christian universities.
American Scientific Affiliation: http://www.asa3.org/
Reasons to Believe: http://www.reasons.org/
The BioLogos Foundation: http://www.reasons.org/
Beyond the Firmament: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/
Faith for Thinkers: http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/
Religion and Science: Pathways to Truth: http://www.wesleyministrynetwork.com/ptinfo.html
December 8, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Tom H
The final proof of biological evolution would not threaten my faith. Even so, evolution, as it now stands, is a threat, not to the Christian Faith, but rather to deeper knowledge.
To Phil and the other David, let me acknowledge clearly: evolution is indeed based upon facts, makes successful predictions, and serves as a valid theoretical framework. The stunning thing is, that does not necessarily make it true.
As an exercise, I once developed a logically valid theoretical framework to account for the existence of log steps in part of the Appalachian trail. My theory was based on facts and made successful predictions, and in fact, could very well have been the true explanation for the steps. But because my a priori assumption for the lesson was that there was no such thing as the National Park Service, my theory, which was both logical and factual, was also completely wrong. And the amazing thing is, it did not fool my seven year old daughter for a moment.
The problem with evolution is not a lack of evidence, nor logic (although many parts of the framework are logically shaky at best). The basic problem is the starting assumption that we can explain life as it exists today without “resorting” to God.
Yes, I know there are Christian evolutionists. But the science itself begins with the assumption that God is not involved. For instance, just try and get a grant to study the catastrophic geography of Eastern Washington State, with an opening theory that it was caused by the worldwide flood of Genesis 9. You will not get your funding.
Although many Christians are scientists, on the whole scientists tend to be atheists twice as often as the general population. It may be, because the evidence leads them that way. However, it may also be, because the scientific community is built upon a culture of disbelief in God. Certainly, God cannot enter into the professional work of a research scientist, if that scientist wants to be taken seriously by his or her colleagues.
Christian evolutionist Francis Collins has debated noted atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins. Collins failed miserably, in part because in the end, as a committed evolutionist, he was unwilling to admit any scientific evidence for the existence of God.
I suppose this comment is long enough!!
December 9, 2009 at 5:46 am
David F
What reading! Lets get one thing straight before I go anywhere else. You either A) believe the Bible is the written word of God, completely reliable and without fault or B) the Bible has errors at best and is complete fiction at worst. If you choose A then you have no room for ANY kind of creation thru any kind of evolutionary process ( theistic or otherwise). If you choose B then I personaly belive that you are not a true Christian because you REJECT what God has said. ( Be it creation, the flood, Christ’s resurection or otherwise.)
Genesis Chapter 1 gives a detailed account of the begining of begining. The begining of time, space, mater and all the wonderfull things that God has chosen to give to us. It is logical to read into the text that it was at some point durring “creation week” that Heaven was created as well as all the angels, including thoes who at some point followed Lucifer in rejecting God and became demons. ( The Bible does not seem to put a specific “time stamp” on this event.)
Getting back to basics you either believe God (The Bible) or man. God is perfect in every way, man is by comparison ignorant and prone to sin in every concievable way. Who am I gonna believe when it comes to origins? God or man? Thats easy……GOD!
http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.icr.com (Institute of Creation Research) These are the websites that I frequent, people with P.H.D.’s and all kinds of letters before and after their names in nearly any science you can think of. Ken Ham is the front man for A.I.G. and Dr. Morris is the head if I.C.R. Look at the websites. These men and women of God explain true science with the word of God as guide #1.
December 9, 2009 at 6:02 am
Phil Wala
It must break God’s heart when He sees His church more interested in winning debates than winning the lost.
God has placed a call on my life to minister the love of Christ to the educated scientific community. Frankly, it’s an uphill battle, when so much of the church, by wanting to debate, rather than love, pushes them away. If there are twice as many atheists among scientists (one survey indicates that may be true in America, at about 30% of scientists vs. 16% of the general population), we need to look at how WE the Church may be to blame.
I speak up about these issues, not to argue about science, but as a warning to us in the church that we will have to answer to God for every person we push away from the kingdom. I don’t really care what anyone’s personal scientific beliefs are. But I do care when ones scientific opinion becomes a barrier that prevents people from coming to Christ.
Here’s what the church can do to tear down those barriers and build bridges to the scientific community:
For those in the church who are scientifically knowledgeable, do what I do and reach out to the scientifically educated by dialoging, not debating. Find out what the latest discoveries are, and discuss what they may say about who God is. You don’t have to understand or accept a theory in order to engage the mind of a scientist by asking questions like: What does randomness say about free will? What does string theory and quantum entanglement say about a God who operates outside of time and space? Could God be God over multiple populated planets throughout the universe? Or even over multiple universes? These are the kinds of discussions I enjoy, and the kinds of discussions that draw scientists to Christ, rather than push them away.
But for Heaven’s sakes, don’t debate. In fact, if you’re not scientifically knowledgeable, then to avoid doing more harm than good, the less said, the better. In that case, the first sentence of the last comment is probably all you need to say. Instead of abruptly cutting off discussion by saying “Evolution just isn’t true,” how much better to say, “I don’t know if it’s true or not, but if it is true, it doesn’t threaten my Christian faith.” That’s the kind of statement the shows respect to the scientist, displays Christ-like humility, and keeps open a door to the heart of someone who needs to experience God’s love.
December 9, 2009 at 2:00 pm
David Housholder
Phil, as always, a great post. I appreciate your concern for how we come across.
I want to help you see, however, that it sounds patronizing.
I was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Bonn. Was a chemistry major and got an A+ in Organic Chemistry. Had a bumper sticker that read “Honk if you passed P-Chem” (Phyiscal Chemistry). I also studied (formally and informally) the philosophy of science (a whole discipline unto itself) on the way to a degree in philosophy. I have rarely met a scientist who has ever explored the a priori assumptions they are making or who could get a “B” on a logic exam.
I keep getting told that I don’t understand science. How elitist is that? If only a tiny minority of the population (which excludes me, apparently) is qualified to have an opinion on this topic, then no wonder that evolutionists haven’t convinced the public.
And the “fear” argument is also wearing thin. I am not afraid of anything –just want to know the truth. Ascribing fear as the motive of a debate opponent needs to be substaintiated or it looks weak and defensive.
Basically, in a nutshell, I am not convinced that evolution is true. And telling me I’m not qualified to have opionions on the topic is not helpful.
And if evolution is not true (which I suspect it is not), then it does no one a favor to “wink” at it just so we Christians can appear nicer. If it’s wrong, the sooner we establish that, the better. Truth is good.
Propping up falsehood, for whatever reason (yes, kids, there really IS a Santa–even when they start to suspect there isn’t) has a cost.
If evolution were true, it would simply be more convincing. I love the quote: “If you can’t explain it to your intelligent but unschooled grandmother, it probably isn’t true.” Occam’s Razor is not kind to evolutionary reasoning.
Evolutionary scientists use every bad debate strategy in the book (ad hominem, exclusionary tactics, patronizing language, anti-religious bigotry, a priori appearing as a posteriori, defensiveness, false claims to consensus, etc.) and it’s getting old after 100+ years. Anything to deflect a real debate. They are not above logical critique.
Evolution needs a better “closer” to convince us or it needs a new theory.
Evolutionary science has failed to convince many of us. And it’s not because we’re stupid.
December 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm
David Housholder
I also like your comment about it “not threatening my Christian faith.”
Once again, my objections to evolution are not because of my biblical literalism.
The theory simply doesn’t make sense to me; it seems forced and defensive. And there are tens of millions like me.
Either:
1) Convince us (and please use a fresher approach)
or
2) Live with the fact that many/most of us won’t be convinced
The Design Argument, going all the way back to Aristotle (who did not believe it for biblical reasons, obviously), continues to ring true with throngs of people. In my mind, it’s by far the best explanation for life on earth.
December 9, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Tom H
I have a great deal of sympathy for Phil’s approach. I cringe inwardly when Christians trot out poorly thought out, inadequately researched “proofs” against evolution. I’m not a big fan of unnecessary combativeness either. I admire you Phil, for your sense of call, and your desire to lead folks into God’s kingdom.
However, like House, I think it is somewhat patronizing to suggest that only “experts” have a right to engage the scientific community, particularly when high profile members of that community, who are not *theological* experts, regularly make theological claims.
In addition, like House, I have found that logic is not a strong suit for most scientists. As I said before, evolutionists have facts on their side, and a valid theoretical framework. But the a priori assumptions are made without acknowledgment, and sometimes even without awareness.
One of the unacknowledged causes of the schism between faith and science, is, quite simply, the arrogance of the scientific community. Francis Collins, who is a Christian and an Evolutionist, claims that science is “self correcting.” In fact, in “The Language of God” he wrote (and yes, this is a direct quote):
“Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long…”
Imagine if we said this about theologians, or any other group of people! We would be a laughingstock. But Collins obviously believes it. The same attitude is revealed (albeit less directly) in the writings of scientists Hugh Ross, Paul Davies, Richard Dawkins and others.
Since human fallibility is one of the fundamental tenets of Biblical Christianity, it is no wonder that Christians are suspicious of scientists who claim to have overcome it. In fact, this belief that science will always lead us into truth is a lot like a religious belief.
I think in the final analysis, we are looking for a little honesty and humility.
As to debate or dialogue: What if we are interested in getting at the truth of how God brought this world into being? Are we not allowed to contribute to that process by raising logically and factually valid questions about the prevailing theories? I don’t debate in order to convince others of my side. I debate because I am interested in hearing what others have to say about the questions I have considered.
December 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Tom H
…And it does not reassure me when the response to my questions seeks to shut me down and keep me out of the debate because I am not an expert.
Without arrogance, I can say that I know the Bible better than most folks I have met. I have read it so many times, I’ve lost count. I have a working knowledge of koine Greek, and the ability to analyze Hebrew words. For the past 15 years I’ve spent between 15 and 30 hours a week studying the Bible. I am familiar with the work of many other theologians.
When someone wants to raise questions about the Bible, I WELCOME it! I DON’T say, “You’re not an expert. Ask me to explain things to you, but don’t you dare question me!”
No, I love talking about the Bible with folks, especially folks who don’t believe it.
I wish scientists would take a similar approach. Defensiveness on the part of an “expert” makes me suspicious.
December 9, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Phil Wala
David,
Thanks for your response (ant to Tom H as well). It helps the dialog. You’ve pointed out ways in which I come across as patronizing. I accept that, apologize, and will be more aware of that in the future. And I’ve pointed out ways in which you come across as argumentative and disrespectful. Thank you for accepting that and retracting the inappropriate “embarrassment” label. Apology accepted.
I also need to ask forgiveness if some of the comments I made about attitudes within the church came across as personal comments directed towards you. I tried to use the impersonal third person wherever possible, but may not always have succeeded. I have nothing but respect for you as a fellow Christian and gifted teacher. I’m new to the Twin Cities, so have only been part of Hosanna a few months, but I already know that every time you come to Minnesota to share God’s wisdom with us, I’m going to be blessed and challenged.
If you’ll look back at my comments, you’ll see that we don’t disagree on the “Design Argument”. As I said, I see evidence of design everywhere. I’m just very cautious about pointing to specific examples of things that science doesn’t yet understand as “proof” of design. This seems to imply that God can only makes Himself known by violating physical laws. I tend to see evidence of design more deeply embedded in the physical laws themselves. But it’s still design.
As to the philosophy of science, I find that a lot of the misunderstanding is cleared up when we make a distinction between “description” and “explanation”. Pure science should offer only descriptions. When my wife was completely and instantly healed of crippling multiple sclerosis (at 10pm on June 8, 2003), I have no doubt that if an electron microscope could have been directed at her spinal column at the moment the healing took place, science could have *described* the chemical processes taking place as the damaged nerves reformed. But that’s not an explanation. Again, it’s a perspective that build bridges and opens dialog. Scientists can be challenged to look outside of science for the explanations behind the things they’ve described. And believers can be challenged to offer alternative explanations without thinking they have to first disprove the description. (Now that I think of it, I could have labeled the Etch-a-Sketch knobs in my PEASOUP model “description” and “explanation” instead of “science” and “faith” (http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2009/11/phils-etch-sketch-of-understanding.html )
I hope you understand I’m not out to “convince” anyone of the science, as much as to get believers to the point of recognizing that science is NOT a threat to faith — and scientists to recognize that faith is NOT a threat to science. But if you really mean it when you say you are open to being convinced, I can recommend one of the books that opened me up to a better understanding, from a Christian perspective, of the evidence for evolution — in particular, the world of DNA evidence uncovered just the last ten years or so. It is Darrell Falk’s “Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology” (InterVarsity Press 2004). It may not be what you consider a “fresh” approach, but if you can set aside your bias against theistic evolution (as I had to when I read it), I think you’ll at least find a good treatment, by a compassionate, tender-hearted, Christian biology professor, of the current body of evidence pointing to evolution as an accurate description of biological origins. You may not end up agreeing with him on whether or not this constitutes a correct description of the evidence – but I think we would both agree with him that the *explanation* is all about God.
And I have no problem recognizing that not everyone will be convinced one way or the other. As long as the discussions of our differences consist of dialog that builds one another up, rather than debate that tears one another down, we’ll all grow in the process.
Sorry if my “comments” all seem to turn into essays. The wheels start turning, and I have to get these thoughts recorded before they evanesce. And it gives me material for my own blog. In fact, my next topic may deal with the advice I gave earlier on how to draw people to God through dialog, rather than drive them away with debate. In spite of having to shovel three-foot drifts out of my driveway this morning, I started the day with a laugh when God woke me with the perfect title:
“TO FISH FOR MEN, CUT DEBATE”
God bless,
Phil
December 9, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Phil Wala
“and”, not “ant” (fingers tired from shoveling is my excuse)
December 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm
David Housholder
Great post Phil, and one of the most constructive in this “thread.” I’m going to think about it for a while before responding. And likewise, apology accepted. Bless you.
December 9, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Tom H
Phil, I don’t know you, but that was an outstanding post. Your humility, intellect and grace are very evident! Thank you!
December 10, 2009 at 1:09 am
David F
I gotta make a 2nd post here. There does not seem to be a single individual here making a post (including House) that is proclaiming The Holy Bible as we have it in the english language as the AUTHORITY on creation. The Bible says it, I believe it, end of story!
Genesis chapter 1 explains creation. Someone wrote thoes words down some 5,000 years ago (maybe Moses?) and they were inspired by God to use the exact language that they did. Believe it or not, it’s your choice.
The bottom line is that we all have a choice to make. Believe the creator of everything (GOD) or believe man. I choose God! One’s views on any “science” will depend on wether you hold a Biblical world view or a secular world view. There is no in-between.3
Evolution is a sick joke perpetrated by Satan himself! Christians all over the world have been sucked into buying this garbage. If you go the theistic evolutionary route you have even more problems. Seriously, would the God of the Bible be so inept as to create a world that he would have to go and “fix” every few million or billion years just so he could “get it right”? My God is not stupid or inept, he made it right the first time. How could God say “and it was good” no less than 5 times in Genesis chapter 1 if it were not so? If the deffinition is….”no one is good but God” then what was this earth like prior to sin entering? The earth was a perfect habitat for man, beasts, birds, the fish of the sea and everything else in it. That means NO DEATH. No death of anyhting that God would consider as having life. Plants and trees do not count.
I could go on this rant for pages and pages but I’m going to stop. As I have posted several times now the issue is simple. Believe God or believe man.
December 10, 2009 at 1:29 am
David Housholder
Well said. The reason I have not said what you said, although I believe it’s true, is that I believe this argument can be won without a Bible (even though I’m one of those guys who believes that the whole Bible is true.).
“The Bible says so” is never going to convince people who don’t trust the Bible. If what the Bible says about creation is true, then it should be readily apparent to those who have never seen the Bible.
I don’t want to frame the discussion as “Bible vs. Science.”
We keep losing in our culture because we can’t play an “away game.” Paul did, on Mars Hill. I think we can too.
Convincing people in your church (who trust the Bible) is one thing. I want to convince secular scientiests that what they are teaching is simply not true. For that to happen, I have to be willing to win on their assumptions, not mine.
If evolution never happened, we shouldn’t need Bible verses to prove it.
I believe it can be disproven with plain reason.
December 10, 2009 at 3:04 am
Jeff W
This is turning personal again, and with that comes the barrier. I would be horrified if any of my friends in science fell upon this, regardless of whether anyone here is right or wrong.
“If what the Bible says about creation is true, then it should be readily apparent to those who have never seen the Bible.”
Scientist: As an extensively trained biologist, Creationism is not readily apparent to me. Since it must be for me to believe in God, it is clear that I cannot. Or perhaps you think I am intellectually incapable of seeing the truth that you believe is so trivial?
“Evolution is a sick joke perpetrated by Satan himself!”
Scientist: As a biologist, I am a satanist? With a label like that, sounds like a church is the last place I’d want to step into.
December 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Phil
I may be misunderstanding what I hear you say, so maybe you can help clarify. Please consider my observations carefully, because it may be key to clearing up differences in our approaches. So please tell me if I’m wrong.
What I’m hearing you say in the above comment is that you want to prove to scientists that they are wrong, without resorting to the Bible.
I see my approach as being the exact opposite. I want to introduce scientists to the Bible and lead them to faith in Christ without resorting to making them abandon their interpretation of scientific evidence a precondition or barrier.
I’m having a hard time understanding how your approach helps the Kingdom of God. My experience is that the “I’m right, you’re wrong” approach on science shuts the door to further dialog, shows disrespect, and is why many scientists won’t even consider listening to our faith claims. It’s also the reason some scientists I know, who are among the two-thirds of scientists who already believe in God (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/) have walked away from the church.
Paul at the Areopagus is precisely the model I try to follow in my ministry. Instead of proving them wrong for erecting idols to the “unknown god”, he showed respect, and used it as a springboard to dialog about who that “unknown god” might be.
If Paul were alive today, how would he approach scientists? I doubt he would begin by telling them their science was wrong. I’m guessing he’d take each one of their scientific discoveries, and instead of questioning it, he’d just start talking about what that discovery might say about the God who created the very laws of nature in the first place.
December 10, 2009 at 2:45 am
Jeff W
Let me try my hand at some meta-debate analysis.
Despite some clear tension at points, this thread’s debate has been among the most civil and intelligent on this topic I have read in an internet setting. This is clearly due to the intelligence and refreshing thoughtfulness of the posters involved. It is also wonderful to see Christian leaders broach the subject; it is undoubtedly an important one.
But aside from the unusual civility, much of this debate as marched along pretty much on cue: the case for or against a scientific theory is framed (I won’t say correctly or incorrectly) as the key battle in a much larger struggle between science and faith. Inevitably, the opposing community responds with the usual set of scientific or theological arguments. And unfortunately, due to the sometimes personal (albeit subtle) nature of the initial argument– evolution and it’s supporters are inherently anti-God, or Christians are inherently scientifically undereducated– things get dicey quickly. I’m glad that this time, the tension ended with apologies all around, and everyone and myself learned just what phrasing to avoid. I’d be interested to hear what irks people about what follows.
And so after reading this debate, I just knew I had to opine for myself– the question then arose as to “how?” Certainly there were numerous scientific, philosophical, and theological points I strongly agreed/disagreed with. I could spend my soap-box going after them with all my vim and vigor. Maybe I could even be the one to win this argument for my side. What a victory that would be!
That’s not what would happen, though. A virtually endless stack of similarly educated scientists/philosophers/theologians (or all 3 in 1!) would be able to supply their logical and surely well-constructed responses to counter mine. Since neither of us would be interested in writing the dissertation required to defend such grand remarks, both arguments would be incomplete (whether or not they were correct), and the back-and-forth would continue ad infinitum. When the dust settles, did anyone ever give or take an inch of ground on the scientific/philosophical points of the initial argument? Did anyone switch sides? Probably not.
To be clear, I am not skeptical about debate itself. In fact, I find it quite fun, which is why a reading of Dawkins, Collins or Dembsky would provide a quite enjoyable weekend, and an even more enjoyable discussion amongst friends. Furthermore, I don’t want to imply that the “tired” arguments are necessarily invalid and useless. Naturally, many are truly tired because they are part of a standard but mistaken arsenal, borne by yesterday’s knowledge. Others are unfortunately labeled as “tired” despite their astoundingly good merit, simply because every time the debate is hashed, they are brought up (and of course they are, since they are sound). But no matter the reason for the weariness, everyone recognizes it. It seems reasonable to conclude then that since everyone by now is so adept at recognizing such faults on either side, everyone’s entrenchment only becomes deeper and deeper, until a world’s supply of logic, reason and fact would have a similarly profound effect as my foot applied to Kilimanjaro.
In response then to the initial argument, I don’t want to agree or disagree with whether I support natural selection or not. Instead, I want to spend my mic time considering where the creation/evolution debate leaves us. For scientists on the fence about Christianity, at least their choice becomes easy: they’re out. It doesn’t really matter if they SHOULD be hung up on this, or whether they are right or wrong about their scientific beliefs. If they see rejecting what they consider to be sound science as a requirement to becoming a Christian, it’ll be hard to convince them to believe anything else in the Bible.
Would this requirement be tough for the mechanic, sailor or english teacher? Probably not. For the biologist, physicist, or paleontologist? Absolutely. Whether it SHOULD be a major part of a belief in Christ isn’t really relevant. Should someone’s use of life-saving medicine built by biologists be contingent upon one’s rejection of Creationism? If so, I think the nature of the debate would quickly turn from who’s right or wrong into, Why does it matter?!
But for those scientists on the fence, it seems the church is holding back the life-saving medicine. I doubt any evangelist would patently refuse to pray a prayer of salvation with a biologist, simply on the grounds that they considered evolution to be true. But with that restriction implicitly out there, the church needs to realize how many scientists they just turned away from ever asking for that prayer in the first place.
So, whether evolution SHOULD be called science, whether it’s right or wrong, or whether science has gone astray, doesn’t seem relevant to the evangelizing church. It’s an interesting debate for Div Schools, philosophy clubs, and NSF meetings (whether it comes up or not is another matter), but when applied to the evangelism, it’s a barrier. I hope that the church will re-focus the discussion from who’s fault it is that the barrier is there into, How do we tear it down? Even if one believes that the theistic evolutionist has as much grasp on scientific truth as a squid does on quantum mechanics, isn’t it better that they’re a believer? Naturally, the fear is that a belief in evolution precludes a belief in God. But if this is the concern, then why nitpick when they DO believe in God. Of course their scientific beliefs could range from spot-on to complete non-sense. But God’s the one with the answer key in the sealed envelope, not any of us.
The debate over Creationism/Evolution will probably continue long after we are gone. It would seem a shame to hold the door closed for an entire community, waiting to open it until the scientific argument is won.
NOTE: An equal, if not more severe, admonishment is due the scientific community for implying that God is hereby disproved. Considering my audience, I felt I would be preaching to the choir on that point.
December 10, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Phil Wala
Jeff W,
Thank you for adding your gentle and thoughtful voice to the discussion. Your comments are absolutely on target, and what the church needs to hear. If you’d be willing to check out my blog (http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/) or send me your contact information (phil.wala@gmail.com), I’d enjoy continuing this discussion.
Phil
December 10, 2009 at 4:25 am
Phil Wala
Wow, what a day it’s been. This morning I was an embarrassment. This afternoon I was being admired for my “outstanding” and “constructive” post, and for displaying humility, grace, intellect, and God’s call on my life. This evening I’m a participant in Satan’s sick joke, and probably not even a Christian. I can’t wait to find out who I’m going to be tomorrow.
I’m glad my identity is in Christ. If I got it from fellow Christians they’d have to carry me away in a straightjacket. And we wonder why more people aren’t attracted to the church? Lord, help us.
I enjoy these discussions as long as they stay on the path of respectful dialog, rather than arguments to be won, or ad hominem attacks — but that kind of dialog may be difficult in a forum like this. Individual dialogs via email (phil.wala@gmail.com) may work better.
David H, I think that at least you and I agree on a number of things, especially that science is not something to fear, and is not a threat to our faith. If that’s true, and if you meant it when you opened yourself up to being convinced by a “fresher” approach, then check out the Darrell Falk book I recommended. Although I find the “something isn’t true unless you can explain it to your grandmother” argument to be full of fallacies, I think in this case Falk actually achieves that goal. The illustrations he uses to describe tracking of genetic ancestry through DNA analysis are simple and compelling. At the same time, his love for the Lord, coming through in the sensitive way he addresses the church about this “hot button” topic, leave no doubt about the genuineness of his relationship with Jesus Christ. I look forward to discussing the book with you after you’ve had a chance to read it.
God bless,
Phil
December 10, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Tom H
Jeff W., Join Phil and the others in recognition for an outstanding post, with grace and intellect evident to all.
Maybe an equivalent example sheds light on the issue. I had a neighbor who was a radical feminist agnostic Wiccan (really!). After a few years of prayer and neighborly living, we had the privilege of introducing her to Jesus. A few weeks later, she said something that showed me she still believed in abortion. Not long after that, she made some comments that showed she saw nothing wrong with Lesbianism.
Over time, as she walked with Jesus, and learned more of the Bible, her views on abortion and homosexuality changed. But the horse came before the cart. The first thing, was for her to meet Jesus. Once that happened, the Holy Spirit was able to work to change her mind on the other things.
I think what I’m hearing Jeff W (and Phil too?) saying is that let’s get first things first. Can we lead scientist to Jesus — and if the Holy Spirit wants to change their minds about evolution, then fine.
I happen to see all sorts of logical problems with Darwinism. At the same time, the Lord does not demand that we first become young-earth Creationists before we can receive Jesus.
December 10, 2009 at 9:20 pm
David F
Hous,
While I aggree with the idea that we can (and should) use science in the debate of special creation/inteligent design/evolution, using these arguements without the use of the Holy Scriptures would be very unwise. Would you play baseball without a bat? Would you play tennis without a raquet? The same line of reasoning applies to the discussion here. If I can not use God (the Bible) in my stand vs. evolution I am ultimatly going to fail!
The men and women at Answers in Genesis and The Institute of Creation Research do this job wonderfuly. I encourage everone (Christian, agnostic or otherwise) to look at the volumes and volumes of data that they have aquired thru sound interpetation of the Bible and all the hard work they have done thru the use of every science imaginable.
Jeff W,
I don’t know how I can be more clear. I guess my question to you is Is The King James Bible as we have it today the 100% truthfull word of God or not? It seems to me that due to your world view that man knows more than God that your answer is “No”. Nothing I can say in this space is going to change your heart. Only God can do that. I don’t feel that I am being mean or antagonistic here but if I don’t call it the way I see it then I am not being true to The Word of God. I will NOT back down from my statement that the LIE of evolution is one of if not the greatest hoax that Satan has been able to perpetuate accross this earth!
Evolution played a huge part in Hitler’s reasoning of exterminating the Jews! He truly believed that they were a lower class of life form. Stalin, Mao and so many others have used the LIE of evolution to further their respective agendas, to degrade and kill millions of people. Evolution is just sick!
I will offer up one idea to all. Go out and find the movie “The Privilaged Planet”. It is a non”God” move of about an hour in length. It shows that from the smallest things on earth to our specific place in the Milky Way Galaxy and beyond just how special our home is. And how it is almost near impossible that evolution could have had any kind of hand in it.
Who do you believe? God or man? I’ve made my choice.
December 11, 2009 at 12:56 am
David Housholder
Several comments:
1) Where in the Bible does it say that the King James Version is the central authoritative version? Did God mumble until 1611? Personally, and many would agree, I find that Martin Luther’s (revised) German version is the most accurate. Certainly you wouldn’t put the KJV above the original Greek and Hebrew? To choose one version arbitrarily makes us Christians sound like wing nuts 🙂
2) If you are going to try to have a meanginful contest or game, you have to agree on the ground rules. We can’t debate the “Where did we come from” argument until everyone (Christian, Atheist, Other-religionist, and whatever), agrees where the lines are chalked and who the umpires are.
3) If you don’t achieve #2, the arugment is meaningless and we polarize and talk only to “like minded people.” Meanwhile, civilization suffers from lack of clarity, meaning, and teaching.
4) There are choices for agreed-upon a priori ground rules.
-Bible is the only authority that trumps everything.
-Truth can only be found with a secular version of the scientific method which precludes any design argument.
-Find a third way.
5) The first two of the above three are meaningless in a broader context (a public debate where not everyone is a Christian or a secularist). The discussion never even starts. And we go back to our “home huddles” and complain about the other side.
6) Although I belive the Bible as much as anyone on this list (you can’t be to the right of me on that one), I vote for door number three.
Can we find a mutually acceptable way of finding truth together than doesn’t disqualify the whole other team?
Insisting that “you can’t bring faith into it” or “the Bible or hell” are the ground rules will result in what we have been getting for 150 years–zero consensus.
Fundamentalist “science-ists” and fundtamentalist Christians shooting mortar fire at each other over a wall is not helpful.
Science has to be able to entertain design as one of the serious options, and believers have to believe that what they believe about creation can still be shown to be true without quoting the Bible to people who don’t believe it.
There is a truth, and it is out there.
And we can find it together.
December 11, 2009 at 1:22 am
David F
I found the Truth. Genesis, Chapter 1.
December 11, 2009 at 5:03 am
Jeff W
Excellent post David H, and thanks for the constructive comments Phil and Tom! The analogy of the ground rules is exactly why we never seem to get anywhere. Well-said and I think you hit the nail on the head. Now for a new question: Where do we play the game?
I would like to propose that the church is perhaps the least ideal place for this debate game (too many beautiful, breakable windows maybe). Here’s why:
Unfortunately, the church has an awful track record on deciding just what is and isn’t good science, despite the tremendous good it has done in most everything else; we all know the blunders. Of course, a logical, well-constructed, scientific argument should trump any historical extrapolation of fault, so I don’t mean to say the track record nixes creationism off-hand. Instead, I am supposing that it would be hard to convince me to buy a Kia if my last five all broke; this is just the observation that creationists (who are nearly universally associated with the church, whether they should be or not) will have a handicap in our game. Empirical observation only.
Of course, we all feel that despite the church’s earlier missteps, evolution is fundamentally different. It is much harder to reinterpret Genesis than it is the few poetic verses in Psalms that “proved” the world was flat, or that the Sun went around the Earth. We all feel that the concept of origins of life is just fundamentally more important and personal than the position of one big rock to another, and it is all the more likely to involve the Creator. The handicap of the historical record is tricky, but for the above reasons, this is easy enough to overcome. Game on.
We can then acknowledge that there may exist a logic against evolution that is so sound, that no matter WHO purports it, it must be accepted. And based on the authority of the Bible, and the apparent clarity that some purport this time around of the Bible’s explanation of origins, the church has got it on this one. Game. Set. Match?
David H’s point, however, is that the authority of the Bible wouldn’t be an agreed upon rule, and we’re all back to square one. BUT, since truth is truth, there must be logical, observational evidence of creation. Maybe then finding and delivering this irrefutable truth to the world is the best way to counter the untruths of evolution– the game would be won on a fair court. In fact, we might suppose the church actually has a scientific advantage this time; if science is framed in such a way that God is necessarily out, then science’s explanation for origins is bound to be at fault if God were indeed a necessary component of evolution. This again is fundamentally different from the mistakes of flat, geocentric earths: we ALL accept the rules of gravity, and thus God wouldn’t need to be included in the mathematical theory of round, heliocentric earths. But the rules describing the origins of man aren’t as clear as gravity, and this time, the science might be dead in the water without the God variable. I believe David H’s point is that Creation scientists are the only ones playing with a full deck, and the game would be won when this is hereby logically proved.
And so, the game is on. With our ground rules, one’s were logic and observation are the only fair play in the argument between creationists, evolutionists, and everyone in-between, we could indeed hold a promising and productive discussion on the truthfulness or lack-thereof of evolution.
Here is where I see it getting tricky: the teams aren’t even remotely even.
Now, before the flood-gates open upon me for this point, I want to carefully clarify. A quick perusal of Dembski’s CV should grant him profound respect from even the most well-educated academics. And given what I just read about David H’s education, I’d certainly wouldn’t want to battle him in Jeopardy or physical chemistry. I even have no doubt the list of intellectual powerhouses supporting creationism is larger than almost anyone would imagine.
No matter the support though, for every example someone could provide of a well-educated creation scientist, someone else could respond with ten equally accredited scientists who would go to bat for evolution. Whether it SHOULD be or not, scientific consensus seems to have been nearly achieved. We can argue whether consensus means 90% or 99%, but we can certainly agree that it wouldn’t even come close.
I liked David H’s alternative explanation to why this is (rather than creation is wrong). I believe the point was that science is inherently exclusionary towards creation, and it’s no wonder we get the margins we do.
However, that’s not a obviously factual point that ALL players in our game will agree upon. It seems that for every sociological or philosophical explanation for this phenomenon (no matter how valid), the other team wouldn’t agree. And why should they, since it undermines their position. But as per David H’s point, no matter how much we may think the game isn’t even, we’re still out to win by the completely irrefutable rules of logic, pure fact, observation and explanation. Those rules are universally solid.
But given the margins, if I were a betting man, it just doesn’t look good for the creationists, even if they are right. This doesn’t mean that they can’t win any points, but to save the church from this sticky situation purely by achieving consensus against evolution in the secular forum doesn’t appear to be the best allocation of resources. Remember that the rules of the game are hard. They’re really hard. Not only does evolution’s scientific opponent have to be self-consistent, it has to explain everything BETTER than evolution. Now, I never said that it COULDN’T, but the thousands of academic departments, millions of consenting scientists, and billions of dollars in funding for evolution-based research studies just aren’t going to fall easily. Even if dinosaurs CAN’T grow wings, or DNA CAN’T randomly recombine, proving this against the swarms of papers explaining these events would be more difficult than our players could imagine. Remember, even if they’re dead wrong, scientists are no dummies. Evolution is undoubtedly counter-intuitive to EVERYONE. But after 100 years of research, the explanations that do exist are certainly strong enough to convince an overwhelming majority of the brightest scientists to somehow believe in evolution, even if it’s complete poppycock. If we’re playing by agreed upon rules, any takers on when the church’s science department is going to have found trump on this behemoth?
And so, even if it’s the spawn of Satan, the church must NOT assume that eventually creationism (even if it’s spot-on), will find it’s rightful place in science, and carry throngs of new believers with it. If this is where we are placing our chips, I’m afraid the house will likely win.
Certainly this doesn’t mean anyone should stop objectively exploring ideas they believe to be true. Both evolution and creation scientists have a right to explore the truth: everyone has that right. If you believe creation to be evident and true, then perhaps the evolutionists will discover it themselves. And when evidence for design that plays by our rules is presented at a scientific conference, that argument SHOULD get a fair shake (yes, yes, I know it won’t). I find no objection to the game itself.
Here’s my objection:
If the church itself is staking winning the lost on winning the game, educated people are going to continue to run for the hills. Even if they are educated in non-sense, this is the state we undoubtedly find ourselves in. Isn’t there some way we can reach out to ALL people, regardless of their different views on 0.1% of the Bible
Again, I understand the worry: if they believe in evolution, how can they trust God? Consider these cases:
If as a God-fearing Christian the two are mutually exclusive to you, fantastic! You are in relationship with God.
If as a God-fearing Christian, evolution appears to reflect God’s even more incredible design prowess (as is Phil Wala’s take), fantastic! You are in relationship with God.
If becoming a Christian means facing a gauntlet of arguing and ridicule from your different interpretation of God’s mechanism of creation, well, who wants to deal with that? Maybe they’ll try Buddhism. But hey, at least the church made sure everyone knew they were right!
If believing in evolution is your excuse not to be a Christian, you’ve misunderstood both science and theology. Church: How may we help you better understand who God is? (different offer than: How may we prove you and your entire movement wrong?)
If this church must win this battle, millions will be lost. The game is fun, but please save it for non-evangelizing institutions.
Final thought: Wouldn’t it be a bummer if admission to heaven was based on getting 75% right on a theology, eschatology, phylogeny and geology quiz?
DISCLAIMER: As the rules of the internet go, you don’t even know my last name (or my first? who knows…), let alone my position on whether evolution is the cat’s meow or the musings of nincompoops. Am I a new Christian, a Ph.D. biologist, a pastor, or your Chinese delivery boy? Fortunately, most of the comments on this thread have been wisely a-personal. But for future comments from some here, remember that personal assumptions on the internet are usually quite laughable given their nearly complete lack of basis.
NOTE: I had a totally different response planned until I saw your points, David H, which were wonderful. I hope I didn’t mash up your game analogy too much.
December 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Phil Wala
Well said, Jeff W. You’re right, we don’t know your last name. But in case anyone is suspecting a conspiracy, I’m pretty sure, given the rarity of the name, that it’s NOT “Wala”. (By the way, you shorted us one egg roll last time you delivered our Moo Goo Gai Pan!)
I think we’re witnessing something of a miracle here: a conversation on a “hot button” topic, with disagreeing participants, that is actually turning in the direction of constructive dialog. On the Internet, no less!
Bravo!
December 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Phil Wala
This is one of those cases where I’m having a hard time differentiating establishment of “rules of the game” from the “game” itself. I don’t know where one stops and the other begins. Is establishing the rules itself a game? How do we establish the rules for how we establish rules?
In fact, don’t like the “game” analogy at all. It reflects a presupposition that I think is part of the problem. Games involve two opposing sides. The goal of each side is to win, and by default, to make the other side lose. It perpetuates the “I win, you lose” mentality that got us where we are today.
So maybe the first rule among participants has to be that this is a collaborative effort, with a common goal: ultimate truth. If we can agree on that, then we’re ready, not for a game, but a journey.
Of course, even a journey needs rules (even if, like the “pirate code” they’re more what you’d call “guidelines”). But if we expect agreement on whether “authority of the Bible” or “authority of science” deserve to be part of those guidelines, we’ll never get started. Those issues are part of the discussion, and the actual rules are more basic. Something along the lines of seeking common ground, avoiding argumentative or inflammatory comments, showing respect, not turning opinions into statements of absolute fact, and a humble recognition that none of us has arrived at the goal (nor will we ever in this life time).
It’s a journey I’ve been on for years, and I’m glad I don’t make the journey alone.¹ As fellow travellers, we help one another, remove barriers in the path, or suggest alternate routes. When necessary, we apply course corrections, or even backtrack when we recognize we’ve made a wrong turn. And we invite to join our expedition.
But it’s a collaborative effort, not a game.
And it’s a journey, not a race.
__________
¹That’s why I’ve always hated the song “The Jericho Road”. It is NOT “just Jesus and you”.
December 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Jeff W
Phil, Tom, and David H, you really are getting my wheels turning! I love both replies so far, but in the interest of time, I’ll comment on Phil’s first.
I think you’re absolutely right in your analysis of why no one should look at this as a game at all, and I now agree with Phil that “having no problem with the game itself” is perhaps too conciliatory to our players. I think the point I wish I would have made better is that, given that there are creation and evolution scientists, there is bound to be debate where one side is out to prove their position over the other: this is how secular science works. Certainly young-earth creationism and stock evolution are in most ways mutually exclusive in their explanation of the mechanisms of origins. I still believe that if we take as a premise that some desire to have their origins theory gain on secular ground, then there will be the type of yes/no debate that I referred to as “the game.”
I think Phil’s point is more profound, though, and I have to agree with it fully. I feel that Christians, the church, scientists and non, should be concerned with working together to better understand truth. If the scientific debate wants to continue, yes it will have points of serious contention, and I do think that any healthy debate will have our rules, and both sides trying to better explain/observe than the other. That IS science. But this should take place far far away from the church anyway, since science debates are perhaps the lousiest evangelism tool I can think of. This is all in theory. In practice, a fair debate seems almost impossible, with such animosity on both sides. So it seems that unless you are part of a ridiculously small number of career creation scientists seeking fair debate, or are doing some armchair philosophy with close friends, I’d go with Phil and find some other way to think of this, besides a win/lose debate.
And of course, the rules of “avoiding argumentative or inflammatory comments, showing respect, not turning opinions into statements of absolute fact, and a humble recognition that none of us has arrived at the goal (nor will we ever in this life time),” are probably fair rules for all moments in life.
December 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Tom H
I am also impressed with the intelligence and graciousness, and lack of ad hominem attacks here.
It seems to me that we have clarified two separate issues.
1. The presenting issue, which is more or less what House wrote about: is Evolution a true and convincing way to look at the origins of life? Though House brought God into it, I think the main point here is really a hunger for true knowledge. As an intellectual (much more than as a Christian), I have logical issues with evolution. I also see that because of how research is funded and careers are made, the deck is stacked highly in favor of evolution, and against any alternative. Merely for the sake of intellectual inquiry, I would like to see a genuine “Copernicus” (as House says) or at least a Copernican movement, that would consider the alternatives.
2. The second issue regards Evangelism. This is where Jeff W (could I have the Mongolian beef please? ;->) and Phil W have convinced me. In the matter of Evangelism, it is hard to argue that we will get anywhere by disproving evolution, or proving young-earth creationism. I do have to stipulate, however, that Evangelism does involve leading people to faith in a Creator. I agree with Phil and Jeff (and House too, I think) that it is not necessary for Christian salvation that you disbelieve evolution. But it is necessary that you believe that God is the Creator, however he might have done it.
My personal conundrum, is that I am deeply interested in both issues. I cannot stop my mind, and it drives me crazy to leave a logically unsound position unchallenged, particularly when it is as arrogantly held as atheistic evolution. I read astrophysics for the fun of it. My issue with evolution doesn’t have as much to do with being a Christian as it does with being a thinker. I’ve read the arguments, presented by both Christians and non Christians in favor of Evolution. Like House, I’m simply not convinced, and it irks me to let it go without asking legitimate intellectual questions. The fact that my questions are usually dismissed as arising from ignorant religious bias, tends to make me more tenacious (By the way, I have not felt that anyone on this forum has treated the questions this disrespectful way. Kudos to everyone for an uncommonly civil discussion).
On the other hand, I am compelled by my love and friendship with Jesus to not let unnecessary barriers stand between him, and those he is reaching out to. I see clearly the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in Phil and Jeff when they point out the lack of value in this debate in regard specifically to evangelism.
So, where do we go from here? It is wrong to continue to press legitimate intellectual inquiry? In my reading, no one has answered the problem of a priori assumptions. No one answers the problem of time. No one answers about the reasons for physical constants (laws like gravity, etc). Even Francis Collins’ attempt to answer the old watchmaker argument was (with all due respect to him) woefully inadequate. Particularly, no one addresses the reason that logic and reason are valid in and of themselves, when the the foundation of evolution ought to randomize human thought.
But how can we press our inquiries without creating barriers to faith for scientists?
December 11, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Jeff W
Tom H, I couldn’t agree more fully. The questions you raise about your personal conundrums are indeed profound and there is no easy answer. It does seem an awful Catch-22, doesn’t it?
In particular though, I like the point on requiring Christians to believe in a Creator. When I say that those who believe in evolution can also be Christians, I of course mean that particular brand of science that says, as Phil describes, “how” but not “why.” Atheistic evolution is a dangerous mix of religion and science, and most all scientists will agree on this point. Unfortunately Dawkins shouts pretty loudly, so it’s hard to hear over all the noise. Clearly, those who believe in atheistic evolution and God would promptly vanish in a puff of logic. But again, I think a vast majority of scientists, although not creationists in our young-earth sense, would agree that evolution does not prove, nor should even correlate with, atheism. It’s just that SOME unfortunately have framed the issue this way.
December 11, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Louis H.
Wow! I don’t even know where to start. This is way above my pay grade. And I don’t make that much. Great posts all around. Almost too great. Makes it tough for simpletons to get a word in.
I appreciate where everyone is going. I just wanted to point out that the bottom line is the difference between the saved and the unsaved. This point was made and I wanted to go with that. Arguing about the big things is for really smart people. The bottom line is get to the meat and potatoes of the point and let God/Holy Spirit do the rest. Nothing else matters.
The point should not be where life began, but what happens when life ends? Scientists don’t have a real good answer for this. My mentor once explained it to me like this: When speaking with a non believer don’t try and shove everything down their throat. No one ever converted someone to Christianity by winning an argument. I have never seen someone say “I lost this argument with a Christian person and now I need to be saved”.
When talking with someone that has different views, be respectful and polite. We have established that on this thread. Try to look at them has having a set of bowling pins. Your goal is to maybe, and I mean maybe, knock down one or two of them. Telling a non-believer that they are going to hell unless they repent for their sins right now does not work. That would be like telling a scientist that their theories are all wrong because the bible says so. No one person will knock down all of the pins. But someone else will come along and knock a few over. And after a while, the last pin will fall and Jesus and all of Heaven will be rejoicing.
As a Christian I believe the Bible to be true fact and nothing will change that. I know I am saved. Do you? Our goal as a follower of Jesus Christ is to represent him always. A lot easier said than done. Try and knock a pin down and let God take care of the rest. Someday you might be the one that knocks the last pin down.
December 11, 2009 at 9:53 pm
David F
…..”that evolution does not prove, nor should even correlate with, atheism.” If you belive that the Holy Bible as we have it today is 100% TRUTH and contains NO FICTION, yet can make the above statement then sir forgive me for being blunt but you are indeed ignorant. I aggree that evolution does not prove anything. Evolution can not be proven in any labratory. Evolution does lead to the conclusion that there in no need for a god tho.
This whole debate is quite silly. You can not have it both ways! Take a side! Do you believe a perfet God or do you believe a very screwed up man? Why would God give us “science” if he thought that it would prove him to be nothing more than a joke at best?
Three tools I believe all “Christians” should look at ,
1) a movie called The Privilaged Planet. There is no “god” spoken of in this roughly 1 hour video yet it shows just how perfectly our world is from the smallest level to the grandest.
2) Answers In Genesis & 3) The Institute of Creation Research. These two organizations (A.I.G. in western Kentucky & I.C.R. in the Dallas area) are what I think of as the front runners in the creation/evolution debate. Both of them have a slew of scientists in virtually every category you can think of. Geology, astro-physics…you name the science and these people have someone on staff with that degree.
I chalenge all of you to look at their data with an open heart, to let the Holy Spirit work inside of you. Ken Ham & John Morris are truly men of God who have created these organizations to help people understand and chalenge the Devil’s lie of evolution.
Guys this is theology 101. If for whatever reason you choose to not believe Genesis chaper 1 why believe John 4:26? or John chapter 20? Or the book of Revelation for that mater?
I’ll say it one last time……Biblical world view or secular world view. Take your pick. But if you fail to choose the Biblical then you by default have made your choice.
December 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm
David Housholder
>I’ll say it one last time……Biblical world view or secular world view. Take your pick. <<
David F:
Good points; but I would suggest that perhaps you don't get to decide which possibilities exist and then limit them.
Arbitrarily to pick two points of view (among many) and insist that all of us exclude any other choices–well, you simply don't have the intellectual authority to chalk the lines like that. Nor the biblical authority. Of course, the Bible says (and encourages you) to prophesy (i.e. speak for God), but then we believers all have to weigh as to whether or not it comes from God.
The truth is simple.
"Getting to simple is really hard" -Mark Twain
It simply isn't as simple as you say it is to get to the truth, which is…simple 🙂
I am trying to create a "big tent" where everyone with "third views" is welcome. Especially views like Phil's, and other creative answers.
In this big tent, where everyone with any view on the:
"How did we get here?"
question is welcomed and respected.
We are going to search for truth together. If we find it together, then we can present, together, a new and fresh way of thinking about our origins to our society. If not–no harm, no foul.
If you don't want to be in a tent with anyone who disagrees with you, then self select out. That's fine.
But this is my essay, and I want a big tent. And you don’t get to vote on that :-).
If Paul saw a big tent (e.g. Mars Hill), he would go in.
He would build common ground (I see you are very religious!).
He would quote to them from their own philosophers (and not the Bible), because he would build on their a priori knowledge and not make a deal breaker over their accepting his a priori assumptions right off the bat.
He would give people a chance to think and return.
We hope you will stay with us.
December 11, 2009 at 10:55 pm
David Housholder
I’d like this whole discussion to be an unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly.
December 11, 2009 at 10:59 pm
bryanmc
Ok, so I’ll admit I couldn’t find the time to read all of the posts and comments. I suppose my credibility is ruined from the outset. But since I simply want to make a very small (and perhaps inconsequential) point that, as I scanned through the many responses seems to not have been mentioned:
In Genesis 1, the Hebrew does not necessitate (or even suggest) that the “days” of creation were actually six consecutive days. If Moses (who I believe is the author of the Pentateuch (aside from Deut. 34, because he dies) were meaning to convey six consecutive days, he would have used the definite article “the” in front of each day. Your Bible probably has it translated “the third day” but this is a mistranslation. Instead, Genesis 1:13 (for example) should read, “And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
My point? I think it’s unnecessary to hang our hats on a literal six (consecutive) day creation. The Bible doesn’t. Do I think God created everything out of nothing. Yes. Do I think that Darwin was wrong. Yes. Do I think that God created everything in six consecutive days. No. The Bible doesn’t even think that.
Just my two cents.
December 11, 2009 at 11:04 pm
David Housholder
Good point, Bryan.
There are Christians who are old-earth proponents and those who are young-earth proponents.
Young earth proponents tend to be less tolerant of the other side than old-earth folks.
All of them believe in direct creation by God. Evolution may play a part in old-earth thought, although it is not necessary.
Most all young earth folks are inerrancy believers. Many, but not all, old-earth proponents are also inerrantists.
December 11, 2009 at 11:12 pm
bryanmc
Dave,
As I understand it, the inerrancy of Scripture hinges on reliability of the original texts (i.e. Greek and Hebrew) and not necessarily the translations. Right?
December 11, 2009 at 11:15 pm
David Housholder
Verbal Plenary inspiration (in English) is: Without Error in the Original Manuscripts.
December 12, 2009 at 12:27 am
:ope
I think that evolution has some plausible theories but not to the extent that we have come from monkeys. That has almost been proven to be untrue but many scientist as afraid to think outside the box. However I think it is foolish to completely believe in the bible as an accurate historical account of the creation of the world.
For example, the account of the creation story, as the bible tells it was not written first by the hebrews. It was written by the Summerians but in their creation story a snake god of wisdom created their world and placed man and woman into the garden. This story gives us the key elements of the snake, tree of life, banishment from the garden because man was tricked and in another summerian story a goddess creates children from her ribs bones. Doesn’t historical criticism account that an older version of the same story should be more accurate? The hebrews must have heard the Summerian story and adapted it for themselves. What better way to adapt a story than to turn their god into your villian?
The Egyptians creation story also predates the bible and tells of a sun god who was alone so he spoke and the air was formed, he created the sky and the earth and separated them, he made day and night. Eqyptian mythology also tells a story of two brothers gods at odds with one another. One was the god of winter(when livestock were needed) one was the god of summer(when crops are grown) the god of winter was jealous of his brother so he murdered him.
How can the bible be the definitive truth when the Hebrews stories weren’t even their own stories to begin with! They borrowed their creation stories from the two largest cultures around them.
I do believe the answers to where we come from are out there, but humans need to look back into the creation myths of all cultures and find the truth that lies somewhere in all of them, not one or the other.
December 12, 2009 at 1:18 am
Tom H
David F:
I hear where you are coming from. The truth is, I believe that the Bible, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is authoritative, infallible and inerrant. I also happen think that evolution is most likely NOT the way that God used to create the world.
What you seem to be upset about, however, is about differences of biblical *interpretation* We agree that the Bible is truth, no ifs ands or buts. However, we fallible humans have different ways of interpreting it. Good Christians throughout hundreds of years (pre-dating Darwin) have disagreed about how old the earth is. They have disagreed about the exact details of HOW God created. Believing in evolution does not make someone an unbeliever. It makes someone a person with a different interpretation of the Bible than I have.
December 12, 2009 at 1:23 am
David Housholder
Bible inerrancy?
Let me give you a fresh view.
1) The present is all we have
2) The past does not exist
3) History (any narrative, scientific or otherwise) about the past has an agenda.
4) What we are looking for is a the truest explanation of why we are here in the present, not what happened in the past, which does not exist.
5) The Bible, as a narrative, brings much truth to our present situation. It is impossible to prove or disprove much of anything about the past.
6) The truest narrative is the one that best explains the present.
7) Nothing comes close to the Bible on this count. It has amazing staying power. Half of what we now teach in science now will be hooey in two generations, but Bible studies will still be meeting in University dorms; and hundreds of millions of people will find it true and useful.
8- My big question is: What is the best narrative that most accurately accounts for human reflective consciousness and existence?
9) I find the secular evolution narrative deeply lacking in fact and coherence (only believed strongly with those who a priori by into the agenda), and deeply damaging to the souls of young people. If I am here as a result of random, non-purposed, non-designed actions and reactions, then….
10) The “then” in #9 is a big “then.”
11) The French lit crit folks taught us how to respect the (any) ancient narrative rather than imposing our modernistic view on it. We learn more that way.
12) What is the best meta-narrative to explain the fact that we are even having this conversation.
Had I never seen a Bible and never gone to church, I would believe that we are here by design.
I was up at 11,000 feet in the San Bernardino Mountains for the last three days, doing amazing things off of snowboard jumps, and I’m pushing 50. The ability of my brain to calculate these “launches” is so amazing. My brain actually freezes as I take off (too much input for any calculations) and yet I land perfectly. I drop into waves on my surfboard at the Huntington Beach Pier–saltwater waves that are too complex for any mathematical model to describe or predict, with the power of a sideways freight train. I let go and thread the needle. It is sublime.
We are fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:14
December 12, 2009 at 1:29 am
Tom H
@ :ope. I’m curious as to how it can be determined which story is oldest. The fact is, the Hebrew Pentateuch was first formed as oral history — passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. This does not make it less accurate — in those times oral history was taken very seriously, and many “tricks of the trade” were used to keep the memorization accurate. In my first-year Hebrew class years ago, our professor guided us into discovering some of the mnemonic devices of the oral history that are still preserved in the written version of the texts.
So if Genesis began as oral history, there is really no way to tell how old the stories are before physical textual evidence comes in. And when it comes to literary criticism (deciding which text came first based upon words and story elements), the discipline is so corrupted and unscientific, that it is untrustworthy.
In addition, if you have several similar version of a story, this only argue for their being some truth to it. For instance, the flood narrative is found in dozens of cultures, all over the globe, including native cultures in South America.
Where it is verifiable, the Old Testament has proven time and time again to be historically accurate. So much so, that there is no ancient document that even compares to it.
I’d put my money on the document that we know more about than any other document in history, one that has a proven track record of recording history accurately, and one that has been exhaustively attacked by critics, and yet remains standing alone among all ancient records.
Of course, it does came back to faith — but there are very good reasons to trust the Biblical record.
December 12, 2009 at 1:42 am
David Housholder
What stories are the oldest is not relevant.
You could write a story right now that better explains the truth than anything that has gone before it.
As a believer, I would add: As God chooses to give you light.
We call that inspiration.
December 12, 2009 at 1:56 am
Tom H
— sorry, my above comments (on age of the stories) were directed at poster :ope, who was talking about creation stories, but his name came out as some sort of emoticon…
December 12, 2009 at 3:36 am
Phil Wala
It’s a mystery. You mix together a primordial soup of random characters, and out pops an emoticon. If we could somehow obtain a DNA sample from the emoticon, maybe we could figure out where it came from. 😮
December 12, 2009 at 2:25 am
Phil Wala
If I could, I’d like to add a different perspective that may be helpful. To the concepts of “verbal plenary inspiration”, “infallibility” and “inerrancy”, let’s add one more: “intent”.
Let me illustrate. Based upon today’s date, and where I live, I’m going to make the following statement: “The sun rose at 7:40am today.”
Now let’s interpret this statement in light of the fact that we all know, from 3rd grade science, that the sun doesn’t actually “rise”; the earth rotates. Is my statement inerrant? Is it literal?
I contend that it is both. There are multiple ways to confirm that the information I conveyed about the timing of the event was correct and inerrant.
I also contend that “the sun rose” is literally what I meant, and my words were recorded literally and accurately. When I made the statement, I wasn’t thinking “I want to make a statement about the earth rotating in the direction of the sun, but I’m going to do it figuratively by talking about the sun rising.” In fact, the perspective of a rotating earth didn’t even enter my mind at that moment. “The sun rose” is literally what I was thinking, and what I said.
Now, given the fact that I know something about how the solar system is arranged, was my statement erroneous? Or was I being deceptive by perpetuating this false perception about a sun that rises, instead of an earth that rotates?
Not if you consider my intent. When I said “the sun rose,” my intent was neither to deceive nor to perpetuate an incorrect world view. In fact, concern about full scientific accuracy didn’t even enter my mind when I said it, because teaching astronomy was never my *intent*. My intent was much more basic – to answer the question “when is sunrise?”
Now you may find it silly to think that anyone would quibble about this. Isn’t “sunrise” just a figure of speech? Not to the church of the early 1600s. They contended that the Bible’s position on an earth that “cannot be moved” was authoritative and inerrant. Therefore, the only possible conclusion was that Copernicus and Galileo were very wrong about their science, and quite probably falling for a lie of Satan himself.
400 years later, we can look back incredulously and wonder how they could have thought that God’s intent was to make absolute statements about astronomy whenever the Bible mentions a “rising sun”. Yet that is religious leaders were doing in the early 1600s.
Perhaps we can learn from this. Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture? Fine. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. Great. Do you believe it to be literal? Sure, go ahead and agree to the fact that in Genesis 1, “day” literally means 24 hours, and “firmament” literally means a hard dome. I used to interpret these passages figuratively, but I’m now starting to see the merit in agreeing with the simplest and most literal meaning of those words. Those are the words God meant to use, and are therefore as literal as my “the sun rose” statement.
But we have to be careful if we draw conclusions about astronomy from these passages, if communicating astronomical models was never God’s *intent*.
December 12, 2009 at 3:07 am
David Housholder
“All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen” – Emerson
December 12, 2009 at 4:45 am
Jeff W
What a brilliant illustration, perhaps my favorite yet!
December 12, 2009 at 5:12 am
Lori Willey
I do not share the depth of knowledge that many of you have in this field. My knowledge and belief comes through my father’s eyes. He is a retired research physicist with 27 patents for his 35 years of research. Much of his work was done in magnetisim, vaccuum systems and lasers for the armed forces and Nasa. Some devices are used in daily civilian use at airport security and a specific component for locating far below the surface of the earth lost civilizations and archeology. I was thrilled while watching a PBS program that they said the name of his device that they were using.
He has said that in his years of science and research it gave him the absolute belief in a Creator because of the perfection, depth and organization of those things he discovered in science. He never had room for the belief of evolution for humans. My father points to The Father.
My daughter that has a degree in food science and nutrition is furthering her degree. She has said that in her science, food, its sources, origination and make up, nutrition, chemical components, its break downs to run our bodies is so complex, organized and precise that she says the science professors in her nutrition courses and other students are in agreement that it comes from a creator. Its too perfect and could not be recreated. I was reviewing one of her charts one day of a nutrition chart from start to finish within the body. I said, “You’d have to believe in God when you see this!” Her youthful 23 year old response was, “Well, duh!”
December 12, 2009 at 8:35 am
David Housholder
Beautifully written. Clear and with a lot of heart.
December 12, 2009 at 5:45 am
David
Wow, this is a funny conversation.
Let me add a few points. This is comment is really too long, so I imagine you won’t read it all. So be it.
1) Many of you write as if there really was a debate between religion and science. In the U.S., a large number of people are skeptical about evolution. This is not true in most other developed countries. And, of course, it is not true among the vast majority of scientists. Just because of this nice little debate, don’t delude yourselves. The religious viewpoint lost this one a long time ago. (Quick reminder: I am an anthropologist – evolution is something I teach about, but my specialty is in socio-cultural anthropology.)
2) Most of the objections to evolution, as illustrated here, have to do with the idea that it is a story of origins. Mostly, it is not, although it does have implications in a wide range of sciences, not just in biology. Evolution is about how species change and adapt. The processes it describes can and have been observed in nature. We are constantly discovering new aspects of these processes, but the basics are as well accepted and demonstrated as gravity. I am pretty sure the Book of Genesis has very little to say on this subject.
3) The Bible does have something to say about origins. If you choose to believe it, then you can choose to say that it fits with evolution or not. But this is a matter of religious faith, not science.
4) I think that many of you would like to be able to prove that your faith is “scientific” precisely because you know that science has won this battle. Science has, in other words, won the discursive battle – it defines the way we as a society seek and understand truth. Unless faith can compete on science’s terrain, you seem to believe, it will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Otherwise, why would you want to compete in this area? (David H. seems to want to assert that there is no such thing as truth – I come back to this below.)
5) One person noted that there are other origin stories, a point the rest of you mostly chose to ignore. Actually, there are many such stories. We collect them in anthropology. The assumption in this group is that the one in the Book of Genesis is the correct one, but that is a narrow point of view. Your story is just one of many. Take a number.
6) David H. takes a nicely postmodern view on the Bible vs. science and seems to believe that the Bible will remain standing as science changes. The Bible will no doubt continue to be a popular book. However, neither the Bible nor science have ever stood still. Just as David H. points out that any narrative about the past has an agenda, any narrative about the Bible has an agenda. In fact, there is no one Bible – there are many bibles, all of which depend on the reader. There are many readers. As their interests change, so does the bible.
7) Full disclosure, just to make sure you know where I am coming from: I am Jewish. I don’t read the same versions of the Old Testament than you do and I sure none of it refers to your friend Jesus, even if he was Jewish. So we approach it in fundamentally different ways. And I don’t read your sequel to the Bible at all, generally speaking (although I am, thanks to an amusing youth surrounded by Christians and a considerable part of my dissertation work spent with 7th Day Adventists, relatively familiar with a lot of the New Testament anyhow).
8) David H. would like to invoke Derrida, Deleuze and others to use deconstruction on historical narratives. Be careful, my friend, because you seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as truth. Post modern theory asserts that grand authoritative narratives are done. That would include yours. If you invoke those theories, then your religion and your god are partial discourses, probably motivated by a will to dominate. Logically, it looks to me like you are sitting on the wrong end of the branch that you are sawing.
9) If you believe, as you seem to suggest by invoking French theory, that there is no truth, only more or less persuasive narratives, then you open the door to some truly nasty possibilities. You can associate with all kinds of conspiracy theorists, from those who believe 9/11 was an Israeli plot to those who think the levees in New Orleans were deliberately dynamited. Most significantly, you find yourself in the same intellectual camp as Holocaust deniers, who use theories just like yours to undermine the history of genocide in Europe. I suspect you do not want to be in that camp, but if you deny all truth, why not allow the Holocaust deniers an equal platform? It is all just narratives, right?
From the natural sciences to the social sciences, we have created, over the last century or two, a set of relatively rigorous methods that have led, despite David H’s nihilistic assertions, to significant benefits for humanity. This includes the study of history and the study of biology, along with my own field of anthropology. You have all benefitted from the work of evolutionary scientists along the way. From public health, to nutrition and even the lessons of history, the way in which we have framed science works so well that even those who want to assert a religious counter discourse…frame their arguments in terms of science. To invoke another French theorist: we live in a scientific episteme. Good luck changing that.
December 12, 2009 at 7:36 am
Jeff W
Thanks for adding yet another series of perspectives David! It’s great to have all sorts of opinions to think about.
Since it seems you are obviously a bright man, I’d love to consider your points more. I think, though, that you’ve missed the rules of our debate. Suggesting that people are delusional and resorting to hyperbole, no matter how much you personally believe it, is severely unproductive.
Likewise, comparing people you’ve never met with Holocaust deniers is a really quick way to turn a debate into a shouting match.
I’ll re-post our rules that say we should be:
“seeking common ground, avoiding argumentative or inflammatory comments, showing respect, not turning opinions into statements of absolute fact, and a humble recognition that none of us has arrived at the goal (nor will we ever in this life time).”
Of course, where I have broken these, you may be free to call me out.
I’d love to read comments on the above that deal with the merits of the post, rather than sift through pages of people trying to one-up each other with shocking metaphors and comparisons.
December 12, 2009 at 8:34 am
David Housholder
PS: This is a really strong post. Wish I could think faster. Going to have to crock-pot this one.
December 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
David Housholder
Derrida was teaching at UC-Irvine a bike ride from my home.
Passed away a few years ago.
We miss him.
December 12, 2009 at 7:16 am
Jeff W
I want to step out from behind my self-prescribed curtain, because I’ve made my points on why it really shouldn’t matter for the church or my faith whether I believe in evolution or not. But, I think it’s always good to represent the minority, and I believe in this thread, I am in the minority.
I believe in evolution.
I believe God created the universe, people, plants, animals, shoes, ships, sealing wax, cabbages and kings.
However, my belief in God has grown to be unrelated to arguments of design. Here’s my take if anyone wants to keep reading my scribblings:
The design argument is perhaps one of the most common, because let’s face it, everyone should be sitting around looking at watches, potholes, eyes, and central nervous systems and saying “who ordered THAT!” Most everything in our world is governed by apparent randomness, and we have no concept of complex, ordered things just falling out of nowhere. And so we notice things like watches and say “Wow, it is obvious that somebody designed that. And since I’m quite proud to say that I’m certainly more complicated than a watch, I was designed as well! Thus I too came from some grand Watchmaker! Why isn’t everyone in agreement?”
I think as far as I understand it, there are indeed good reasons why many people have somehow made the conclusion which prime facie seems to be complete non-sense: design does not necessarily imply an initial designer.
How could this be, since it just feels so intuitive that eyes and brains and watches don’t just appear from nowhere?
Consider our watch, clearly designed by the watchmaker. Where did the watchmaker come from? Well, she came from what would again appear to be some other design, that of DNA. Where did that DNA sequence come from? Well, an evolutionary biologist (perhaps Christian or non) would say it came from RNA -> DNA -> people’s DNA via natural selection; creationists might say “the Third Day.” Nevertheless, science is tasked with reconstructing at least some of this chain, with scientists figuring out how one thing came from another–this is uncontroversial biology 101. Our trouble isn’t with the chain of design itself, but with where it is going. Creationists probably stop it the soonest and say “God made DNA, now let science figure out proteins and development and what-not.” Most evolutionary biologists stop it a bit later, perhaps with the formation of a universe that was ripe for a planet that would have within it the “designs” for nucleotides -> RNA-> DNA -> watchmaker -> watch.
But no matter how long the chain is, the design argument seems to still apply. Given our chain (of whatever length you chose, evolutionists or creationists), the question “Who ordered that watch?” becomes something like “Who ordered that universe that had the plans for that planet that had the plans for those nucleotides that… had plans for that watch?”
Our watches make us think of the very beginning, and since the watch was designed, the very beginning of our chain must have been the designer that somehow got this whole ball rolling. Design implies designer.
Recall that our initial premise was that designed things don’t just pop out of nowhere. ( I want to clarify that well-accepted, non-Dawkins evolutionary theory is just fine with this premise, since evolution’s chain just says the watch was already in the “DNA” of the initial universe, and no claim need be made about where the universe came from. Same chain, different lengths. )
It follows then that according to our premise, we now must ask the question: “Where did our designer come from?”
Theists would say “Well, He always was, and is the one Being capable of starting the chain.”
But atheists say “Well, given that we have such a nicely tuned universe, I’d bet there are lots of universes, just like there always have been for all time, and lucky me I ended up in the right one.”
The theist will then say “Where did you get all those universes?” The atheists adeptly replies “Where did you get God?” Both sides give the same answer to each others questions, and we have a perfect draw.
Now, I have heard some discussion indicating that perhaps the atheists’ belief that they “just so happened” to end up in the right universe is particularly weak, given how many universes there would have to be for such an unlikely event as life. The anthropic principle deals with this quite nicely though. If all the universes were stuffed in a hat, the probability of picking the one universe that has life is vanishingly small–seems to weaken the atheists on probability calculations alone. However, the clever atheist replies “Sure, but let’s use all the information at hand. I know that since we ARE asking that question, the probability of my being in a universe that was well-tuned enough for there to be beings like you and me asking complex questions like these is actually one.” We’re back to the stalemate.
To be fair, the anthropic principle itself isn’t nearly as straight forward as this. There are multiple formulations with a whole slew of associated debates. For example, many formulations address just how many free parameters there are in the universe, which in hand is influenced by theories of strings, and inflation and quantum field theories and … Big point is, this whole design thing becomes really really hard.
In allowing others to challenge my ideas, I have come to realize that old stand-bys like design are astoundingly complicated at best, and stale-mates at worst. My opinion is that if anyone hoped to soften the shell of an atheist using the watch argument, both parties would quickly run into quicksand, with scores of Ph.D. philosophers, scientists and theologians madly trying to dig their buddies out.
So I suppose what I am trying to say is that, as with many other arguments that try to imply God, the situation is never as clear as many think. Is it any wonder that no matter how hard we try, we always come back to faith? I suppose for me, it’s not all that surprising that God made a universe that never had the trump card that so many people on both sides are scrambling for. Scores of people have come up with incredibly intelligent and logical arguments that God must/must not exist, and this will likely continue.
In the end, our initial task of using a design argument to support what we already feel from faith seems pretty futile. But feeling God, seeing God work in people’s lives–these are entirely separate from any concerns about evolution or design or anything else in our debates. These experiences give us reasons to believe, entirely outside of logic and tired philosophies on the existence of God.
I think that explaining these experiences is exactly what the Church and the Bible is good at. The Who and the Why (borrowing once again from what I’m learning from Phil), I’ll leave to God. For the How, I’ll leave it to science. And since evolution makes sense to me, and since I have no reasons to think science is missing some God variable, I get to be extra glad that I live in a time that is quickly developing a theory describing the How to God’s method of creation. God/Science conflict: zero.
NOTE: In all above posts, by “science” I mean well-agreed upon facts/observations/logical explanations science. I don’t want anyone confusing this with Dawkins science or wacky “science proves things in theology too” science. It’s unfortunate that science is often incorrectly grouped with these alternative Why theories.
December 12, 2009 at 9:07 am
David Housholder
First of all, I want to thank ALL OF YOU for this amazing discussion. It is one of the finest of its kind anywhere. I may write a book based on this discussion, but won’t start writing until there is a genuine breakthrough, which I believe is imminent.
Why couldn’t it happen here? Why not us?
Lay aside old patterns and think (and pray if you are spiritual) in fresh tracks.
The whole premise of my first essay is that I feel we are (over)due for a Copernican Revolution in thinking about our origins. Something about the current conceptual constellation (and its polarities and lack of ever “making it”) just doesn’t ring true.
I was watching a U2 concert from Boston on TV today. Dripping with spiritual and design imagery (three of the four members of the band are long time members of a Pentecostal house church in Dublin). 20,000 youngish people stoked with and resonating with the message; the energy spiked every time there was a Judeo-Christian depth-charge sound bite. Sanitized secularism will never capture our imagination fully–we are better than that.
We are crafted a wood shaving lower than gods. (Psalm 8:5, my translation from the original Hebrew based on depth etymologies–so I’m a Bible nerd–sue me!). Part of you knows that. It comes with the wiring.
About the postmodern thing; I hang around mostly with adults half my age (surfing and snowboarding); I was probably born in the wrong generation. I treasure every chairlift conversation. We invite 18-25 year olds into our home on Sunday nights in the Summer and Winter. It’s simply the way they think, and we don’t get to vote on it. They are affecting us way more than we are affecting them (they control electronics and social media). Contrary to what has been expressed, they don’t give up on truth; they simply see it in a more nuanced form. They see a lot of both/ands when we see either/ors.
We’ll all be dead, and their worldview will prevail. What of value do we have to pass on to them? They are as suspicious of big science as they are of organized religion. But most of them are way more supernaturally oriented than we of the boomer generation were.
They don’t see themselves as basically sinful (or good). They see themselves as “basically complicated.” Probably a more accurate, albeit Baroque/Rococo anthropology.
It’s going to be (very soon) their world.
A mix of PoMo Anglo/Europeans (both “bro” and “scene” cultures) and tons of emerging Asians/Latin Americans with deep family-based filial-piety pre-modern sociologies. It’s already here in California. We can only pray that Africa awakens from its smoking crater and can join this new emerging world. What’s missing is the “modern” scientific worldview we grew up with.
I studied with Friedrich Winter (faith and science prof) at the Humboldt U. in (East) Berlin in the 80’s. “Ja zum modernernen Weltbild” was his life theme. Totally outdated now. Also connected with Wim Drees at ULeiden (Holland), who is the major faith/science guy.
The truth is, those of us of faith (especially those of Pentecostal persuasion, who along with Muslims and Roman Catholics, have all the cards demographically) don’t have to make bargains with a secular scientific worldview. In the pre/post modern world which is emerging, pure secular science is going to be “laid off” or just ignored.
December 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Jeff W
I suppose I don’t understand the claim against all of secular science? Perhaps you could detail this further for the interested reader (well, at least me!). I guess I am worried about your supporting claims like:
“Remember when nobel prizes in science were about cool things like beating polio and figuring out electricity? Nowadays the prize winners “achieve” something like figuring out somenuance in a light wavelength. Diminishing returns. Science is losing mojo.”
Perhaps you could better explain why, for instance, the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces, or discovery of Bose-Einstein condensations, is an “achievement” worthy of scare-quotes? You might imagine readers’ skepticism (like mine) when claims about “nuances” in quantum field theory are espoused by an evangelist. As someone with the formal training required to arrive at the Bose-Einstein problem from first principles, feel free to be as detailed as you wish in your explanation about why this is a mere “nuance.” (Your description may assume key elements like the Dirac equation and special relativity, which were formed during a time when you feel science wasn’t on it’s way out).
Remember, I am a Christian and a scientist, so this is your chance to show me why my life’s work is “losing mojo,” and exactly what Christianity has to do with this. The stakes are high though, because “you’re losing your mojo” wouldn’t be my opening line as an evangelist trying to reach out to scientists.
December 12, 2009 at 9:32 am
David Housholder
ABIOGNESIS
(Life from non-life)
This is the biggie.
Did and/or can this happen apart from personality-intentionality-oriented design?
Google Oparin (RUS) and Haldane (UK) from the 20’s. Back then, secular scientists took abiogensis free of design as a real possibility.
As you know, this never panned out. Although Stanley Miller (50’s) gave the idea some hope. Turns out he was totally wrong about the primitive atmosphere at the time of alleged natural “abiogenesis.” His collaborators admit this (Bada and Lozcano).
And it turns out (since we learned about enzymes) that primordial “protoplasm” was way too complex to be a result of abiogenesis. You could wish that such a thing could happen, but no one (even with all of our technology and perfect conditions) has been able to reproduce it.
A (most simple living) cell’s threshold survivability matrix is simply irreducibly complex. 2,000 enzymes have to be crafted and lined up so perfectly that no contemporary experiments have been able to recreate it. All the kings horses….
And there may be thousands of layers of complexity beneath these enzymes (much like the subatomic particles of chemistry). We are just beginning to find and name them.
There is also the matter of the Pre-Cambrian explosion of 540 million years ago (as best we understand, but who really knows? The past is slippery stuff). There was a sudden flowering of thousands of (fully formed) species within a generation or two of life with no transitional records. Cannot be accounted for by natural (gradual) selection or by mutations. Mathematically impossible. Just plain nuts, is what it is. Mass extinctions happen just as suddenly.
Also, contemporary geneticists have eliminated Homo Erectus (Neaderthal, etc.) from human ancestry. They died out. We moved on. They were not our parents.
However, attacking the orthodox high school textbook does not prove design or creation.
Believers have never put forward a single verifiable piece of evidence for their point of view. They don’t post testable hypotheses.
Secular evolution theory is taking on water and will go down as the Titanic did. But I don’t see a viable alternative other than “the Bible says so.” If the Bible is true (which I believe it is) in what it says about design, then what is keeping us from demonstrating that?
If we want design taught to our children, we have to do better than this.
December 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Jeff W
David H: I really like this last post in many ways. First, it starts out with the big guns against evolution: how did the first cells get there? Probably more than in any other part of this theory, the jury is still out even in the science world. This is a pretty tough problem.
But I would caution against confusing “tough” with “wrong.” Science has indeed not given a wholly satisfactory demonstration of how abiogenesis occurred. You mention that it would be nice if, given our technology and perfect conditions, we could recreate this. However, clever scientists and great technology aren’t in the theory of evolution. Time is. Abiogenisis wasn’t limited to a two liter flask in the basement of some lab in U Chicago in 1952. It had a few more tries than that, quite a few more–100’s of millions of years, across the entire planet.
My other comment I want to make is on this continued theme of “history is slippery stuff.” This may be very true, but as one of your a priori bases, it is a lousy way of sinking evolution.
Here’s one example: you were right to point out that the Urey-Miller experiment was perhaps not as powerful as scientists had once thought, since scientists’ doubts over the composition of the atmosphere were substantial. But I believe that the primordial atmosphere was in the past too. My logic alert light started flashing warning-yellow when I saw one of your premises being used to discredit the whole endeavor, except in the case that science of the past supported your hypothesis.
Here’s another: 2000 enzymes have to be lined up perfectly for a cell to work. For our cells today, that may be true. But your point is to preclude the possibility of the first cells ever forming. Again, if I were an evolutionary biologist that just had the “past is slippery” card pulled on me, I would say question how you know exactly what cells from 4 billion years ago look like. I may not either, but “the past is slippery” would really only help my case on this one.
I think most every scientist (or really any person) would agree that the past is pretty tricky. We weren’t there! But as a useful a priori assumption against evolution, it’s a pretty tough sell.
In the interest of time, I won’t address the other science points, maybe someone else would be interested. I suppose if you wanted that debate, you could go to any biology department in the country. The point I have been trying to make in my critique of the church’s science department, the “game”, the design argument, and now in this post, is that IF Christian’s do want to debate:
1) Science debates may be fun, but they are really really bad evangelism tools.
2) If you do want to debate, know that it’s much tougher than most people think, and anyone assured of their knowledge of science enough to proclaim that other theories are “just plain nuts,” are bound to invoke snickers from the crowds of biologists who spent their lives studying what many Christians feel they are likely to disprove with some back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Now, the final point is that if indeed evolution were sinking like the Titanic, one could indeed rely on science to help bring it down. But I couldn’t imagine that the church’s science department would be of any help in this anyway.
December 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Jeff W
I feel I should have been more laudatory of the previous post, rather than merely nit-pick. I am very convinced that David H would be a pretty tough man to debate, given the thoughtfulness and reasonability of the posts. I’m having fun doing my best though!
December 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm
David Housholder
Great posts all.
Some facts:
1) This IS a debate on the truth and not an evangelism forum.
2) I love evangelism, but this discussion is not a trap to lure in secularists and convert them. Although they will be assimilated–resistance is futile (JUST kidding).
An unusually stubborn attempt to find a new way of thinking about the origins question.
In Hegelian terms (how Humboldt-Berlin of me), we have a thesis (Judeo-Christian creation story), we have an antithesis (Darwin and his descendants).
I believe it’s time for a synthesis. A new thought. Not just a blending or a rehashing, but a truly newer and truer way of going about this.
December 12, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Jeff W
^^ Well put indeed, and the clarification in 2) is much appreciated!
Time to read Hegel… you are a hard man to keep up with!
December 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Lori Willey
Food for thought. I enjoy the challenges posted. One was a direct hit to my comment on nutrition. This of course, challenged me. Am I exhibiting an instinct for survival?
Nutrition; it is life-giving. Genesis started with it. An infant knows it as they cry to be filled. Plants reach their roots for it. Nutrition is our bodies intake of physical things that keeps us living. The process of that has not changed. It is a part of every living organism.
Sure, there are variations. A strawberry growing in the right conditions of light, water, soil and temperatures can produce large berries. Resilient little strawberries seen growing on alpine mountains are smaller which in turn lack the fullness of moisure in larger juicier strawberries. But, it remains a strawberry and tastes like one. Where conditions are not right, you don’t see strawberries.
We need proteins. Some rely on animals for that. Other humans who do not have that plentiful to them eat rice and beans. Things that are plentiful in their region. Rice and beans together form a perfect protein. The list goes on as we find substitutions to cover the necessary portions to fulfill our nutritional needs based on what is available to us in our region we live.
Man has made efforts to make foods. Most of which we have learned creates toxins for our bodies or cause excessive weight gain or result in other diseases. As we tinker we often throw out of whack that which was intended and instead of benefiting our bodies we financially benefit manufacturers. Sure, a kid can grow up on mac and cheese and we like these flavors. But life, and a good one, is often based on health. How many times do we hear, “If you have your health you have everything.”
Nutrition is constant and unchanging and life giving. Our bodies must have it to live and it always processes the same way. It has not evolved differently.
Returning to Genesis and the garden. God told Adam and Eve they could eat the fruit except for one. When they ate from it, “The tree of Knowledge,” all hell broke loose. We are creatures that have an appetite. One for physical food, one for knowledge and one of spiritual things.
The Bible is filled with teachings used around food. “Man cannot live on bread alone.” “Bread of Life.” “Living water.” “Knowing them by their fruits.” The later statement is much about truth. You know what it is by its fruit. It will yield that which it is.
We as human beings desired to be filled. Some food, when not prepared correctly before taking in, like rice, can germinate and cause death as stomaches literally explode. Some knowledge is too much for us to comprehend, frustrates and can drive men to insanity. Mind explosion. What is healthy for the mind which is wisdom in James 3:17 “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering without hypocrisy.”
The other portion which we desire to fill ourselves with and makes us human life is that for our inner self, some call it soul. It is our beliefs. Belief in something be it spiritually or even for atheists, a belief that there isn’t. All the same, it fills the inner portion. Again, nutritionally speaking, some things fill us more fully and healthier to endure a strong life. Those who have a faith live longer happier lives. Here’s where the Holy Spirit comes in, but that’s a whole other extensive comment. Again, I could make a parable on nutrition. “Your portion.”
As we make comments we are creating our own personal thesis. Catch the word create? We are created in His image. He is, in my opinion, the creator and we too take great pleasure in our own creations. Part of His likeness. Reviewing the process that has lead me to comment. I feel I have taken in your comments, let them nourish me in knowledge and thoughts, digested it. As the book is titled, “Everybody Poops.”
December 12, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Tom H
Wow! You guys get crazy on the weekends. There’s far to much to respond to here in one simple post, but I’ll hit a few high points:
Welcome to the new David. You commented that we Christians did not use the same Bible Jews. With regard to the Old Testament (as we call it) I think you may be mistaken. We have clear records of the Greek-language Jewish Bible (called the Septuagint), which was used by Greek speaking Jews as early as the first century AD. Christians have also made use of the dead-sea scrolls, which may not be the case with Jews, I don’t know. We have ordered the books differently than Jews, but the content is so substantially the same that there is virtually no difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. What we don’t have, of course, is the Talmud etc…
David also mentioned that the religious viewpoint has already lost. I understand why someone might have that perspective. However, the truth is that the majority of sentient beings on our planet since the primordial soup (or whatever) until today, have always believed in some sort of God or gods. This is true even today. Atheists are, and always have been, a minority. More of the world is religious now than it was twenty years ago. Conservative branches of all religions are growing faster than liberals. Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world, with Islam second.
Now, we don’t see this in American and Europe, but take the world as a whole, and we find that religion continues to dominate the world view of most of the people on this planet, and the percentages (as well as real numbers) are growing. Western secularists may dominate western culture, but with the greatest population growth occurring among religious people and religious areas of the world, this domination will not stand if trends continue for the next 50 years or so.
We in the west are living in a bubble, that will eventually burst. The Creation-evolution debate is not particularly hot in Peru or South Africa. Soon, what is “hot” there will come here.
This is not to say we shouldn’t pursue it. We who live in Western culture, after all have a right to engage it if we can. But there’s no question that globally, it is the Secular, not the Religious, world view that is in jeopardy.
December 12, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Louis H.
This is such a great thread. I understand it is important to establish where this all started. Big bang or big God. We can, and will, debate this until the cows come home. What if we called it a draw and started to focus on where we are going?
People have a hard time wrapping their heads around this because there is nothing to prove. It is all based on Faith. I realize it helps to know and believe that God is behind everything before, now and forever. But the bottom line is there is an end. We all face it. Is your soul worth it?
I posted something about this earlier and it was just passed over. This might be better for another discussion. But it is on my heart. It consumes me. It is our purpose in life (I believe) to share the Gospel of Christ. We are getting too caught up in who is right and who is wrong. Just like this thread, it will soon end. And then what? It is hard to share this with people that are caught up in all the Science and evolution. What happens if you think you have it all figured out? Where do you go from there? Do you get published and win prizes and make lots of money? Then what? You die. Is your soul worth the risk of eternal damnation for science? You have to have scientific faith to get your head around some of the things that just can’t be explained. No one ever worries about what happens when it’s over.
To me, nothing else matters. I tried to explain that to David F. earlier. It doesn’t matter if you think you are right or not. Then what? Say you’re right in your beliefs. Where does that leave you?
The Bible has been around for many years. It is the number one bestselling book every year. And of all time. So what? He who dies with the most toys, theories, prizes, money or whatever wins what? Nothing!
Just some food for thought:
“There are things in our heavenly Father’s dealings with us which have no immediate explanation. There are inexplicable providences which test us to the limit, and prove that rationalism is a mere mental pose. The Bible and our common sense agree that the basis of human life is tragic, not rational, and the whole problem is focused for us in the book of Job”. Oswald Chambers
What if we are not to understand everything? It is not our place in this world to figure it all out. It just takes a little faith. The problem with faith is if you don’t want to see it working or believe in it, you won’t. You have to want it. Then the wool is lifted from your eyes and you can see.
Many hardcore scientists have tried to disprove the Bible. And many scientists have left as believers. Because once they set out to seek the truth, they found it. And once you find it you can never go back.
December 12, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
Tom H – if you think this grew over the weekend (and it is only Saturday afternoon, at least that’s what it is here in SW Michigan) you should try going out of town for a couple of days and then checking in. Whew.
It has been an interesting debate although I doubt if it has changed anyone’s mind on the issue. Evolution is one of those topics where people come down on two sides, fact believing truth seekers or brain dead zealots. Depending upon what side of the argument you come down on the other side are the brain dead zealots.
That’s not to say that this debate has not been, for the most part, civil, and has not resorted to name calling, at least not that of the “neo maxi zoom dweebie” variety. The fact is that, despite Hous’ (the possessive of Hous is difficult) plea for us to keep an open mind, most of our minds are made up on the subject.
Personally I believe in a creator God that knew His creation so intimately that He knew we would need something like evolution to chew on and debate. But that’s just me.
I know that this adds nothing to the debate other than to let everyone know that there are those of us out here following along feeling we have nothing substantial to add to the discussion.
That and I wanted to be the 15th poster and 75th comment (including Hous’ original) and I do like numbers that are divisible by 5.
Peace out.
December 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Jeff W
Interesting comments Tom H, but may I challenge one of your a priori assumptions: secular science and religion are mutually exclusive.
Without this assumption, there is no necessary correlation between the growth of religion and the purported retreat of science. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. I have no clue why my beliefs on science (or certainly anthropologist David’s) would be influenced by Peruvian theology. I digress to Phil’s blog:
http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2009/10/but-its-counterintuitive.html
which I found to be one of the most well laid out series of explanations for why Christians can find no quarrel between evolution and religion (I hope they BOTH grow). It’s all about, as David H is trying to uncover, finding a fresh way of looking at things.
Remember, evolutionary theory is different than Dawkins-theory, which is a common mistake amongst well-meaning Christians. One is science, one is philosophy, and usually the term “secular” attached to science brings up notions of an incorrectly categorized atheistic philosophy. I would hope a wave of religion could wash away atheistic evolution, but standard evolutionary theory is on independent and increasingly solid-ground.
December 12, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Lori Willey
Here is a comment from my father. My original comment gives you a bit of his background.
“I believe Life forms are too complex to have happened accidentally. Yes, I can see how diet, etc. can modify existing forms (note the increased size of people in the U.S. after only a hundred years or so), and mutations can generate a different looking form, but I still believe even that is God-driven. Throwing a bunch of atoms and molecules together in a particular atmosphere, at a particular temperature and pressure, and having an organism evolve out of that, with the ability to think, communicate and reproduce is, to me, way beyond the statistical probabilities of nature. Nature tends to go toward a simpler, lower energy state in just about any phenomenon you can think of – not a more complex or higher energy state. It would be more likely that man would degenerate into a monkey and not the other way around.”
December 12, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Jeff W
It sure does seem remarkable doesn’t it? No matter how we think it happened (me: creation via evolution, others: creation via 6 24-hour days, others: …), you and I can both agree that what God left us with is absolutely stunning. Although I disagree with the science in the above statement, we can both find very common ground in saying “Wow, God’s creation is full of some pretty amazing stuff!”
Your father sounds like a brilliant and thoughtful man, thanks for the quote!
December 13, 2009 at 12:23 am
David
Hey, I was the 4th person to write in this thread, Tom F., but thanks for the welcome anyhow.
Let’s be clear here: this is not really about evolution. It is about a broader agenda, one that David H. has written about before, to push aside the insights and frameworks of the Enlightenment and redefine the American public square with a radical Christian agenda.
If that were not true, then someone opposing evolution would have already addressed the issues I raised about evolution not being about origins. But that is not what they are after. Nor have they addressed the question of why we should take Genesis, among all the origin myths, more seriously. No evidence has been presented.
Bottom line: this is not a science debate. It is a culture debate. What kind of society do you want? A radical theocracy? Then get started taking down our institutions and undermining the values of the Republic. And where better to start than the core of the power/knowledge episteme, which is science?
To do so, however, you risk making some strange and dangerous friends. I already pointed this out and Jeff W. did not like it. But to deny it is to be intellectually dishonest. Why should I take a radical denial of history’s methods seriously from David H., but not from other radicals? It is all of a piece. It is the same culture war. It is the same will to power, in the end.
December 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Phil Wala
David, I don’t want you to faint from shock, but I happen to be a hardcore evangelical Christian who happens to agree with most of the points you make. I’m often troubled by the “culture war” model of present-day Christianity.
Before anyone misunderstands where I’m coming from, let me clarify. I believe everyone, be they Christian or atheist, has the freedom in this country to *influence* the culture as they see fit. That’s part of what I do: speaking up to *influence* fellow evangelicals when I see issues that may be damaging, rather than facilitating, the true mission of the church.
The danger comes when a “culture war” crosses the line from a desire to *influence* and becomes a desire to *control*. If we start to believe we can, through political power or other means, actually “win” the culture war, we’ve missed the point of the message of Jesus. I don’t think Jesus ever thought “if I can just change the culture and political structure, then hearts will change.” That may have been what religious leaders were hoping for in a Messiah, and why they were disappointed in Jesus. He wasn’t about changing the culture, He was about changing hearts, one individual at a time.
I like the way Jud Wilhite, a pastor in Las Vegas, put it:
“In Las Vegas, where I live, the culture war is over. We lost. Let me repeat: WE LOST. Now our calling is to love and accept people one-on-one, caring for them where they are.” (Kinnaman & Lyons, unChristian, Baker Books, 2007, p. 62)
I also wanted to comment on your use of the word “agenda”, only because some may take it to imply a unity and agreement of purpose among Christians that just ain’t there. It’s analogous to the way some Christians ascribe a vast atheistic “agenda” to the entire scientific community. I don’t think scientists are any more united on matters of faith than Christians are on matters of science. I don’t deny that there are many sub-groups with many different agendas, and your comment reflects your perspective on what you see as one of them I just wanted to suggest that both Christians and non-Christians are likely oversimplifying things when we ascribe a single, united agenda to the larger group.
As to creation stories, I agree that there are many, some of which pre-date, and are probably reflected in the Genesis account. The reason I embrace the Genesis story, is not because I believe it was intended to be a scientific textbook, but because it speaks of a God whose ability to radically change the hearts of individuals I see on a daily basis, in my own life, and the lives of countless others. It’s not the “how” or “when” of the Genesis account that matters to me; it’s the “WHO”.
December 14, 2009 at 3:31 am
Jeff W
Anthropologist David, I think you’re absolutely right about this really not being about science. If it were, it would be a strange coincidence that David H went after this particular theory: there are certainly many, many other unintuitive theories one could go after. But of course, evolution is just the one that happens to, in many eyes David H’s personal beliefs–it’s not about facts and logic. And so, I too must agree with your above description of the underlying culture war. Sad, but well done indeed.
I’m also afraid I was overly dismissive of your comments earlier, and I regret that. I do get a bit, off-put, when I see people of any group being linked to the Holocaust or Hitler or what have you, simply because such bold statements usually go nowhere. But you did recognize that no one wants this title, and yet science-deniers find themselves rejecting similarly overwhelming amounts of facts, based on a personal agenda. I know this statement will come across harshly against David H, but the particularly scathing words against science (see my above complaints) in the original post left a pretty bad taste in my mouth about what church leadership is actually trying to accomplish. It’s one thing when people of opposing personal beliefs bump heads; it’s another when church leadership is leading such a scathing charge against an entire culture.
As this thread dies down, I do want say a few short things while anyone is watching:
1) I think the conversation does have to happen, because the status-quo attitude of science causing big problems for the church. It will be a sad day when the conservative Christian movement finishes what it started by pushing educated American’s away from God.
2) Probably no one was definitely swayed in one direction, but before anyone gets too skeptical about these conversations, remember that sometimes the process of just writing things out helps you recognize more of what you believe.
So in response to the original post: Please, please stop pushing away scientists by making fun of them, telling them they’re wrong on issues you know comparatively little about, and framing it as such a power struggle between the church and educated America. It’s so sad to watch the church lose a battle it doesn’t even have to fight.
December 14, 2009 at 3:33 am
Jeff W
Typo: … in many eyes *go against* …
December 14, 2009 at 12:40 am
David F
Ya’ll are probably more than tired of hearing from me but I just can’t stop reading this thread and I sure can’t stop bringing my thoughts to the table.
Hous,
How many points of view are there on this subject? You have the Biblical view or the world view. Is their another? The world view encompases many threads, straight no-god evolution, theistic evolution in it’s many forms, the list goes on. The Biblical view is pretty simple and has no threads.
You called me “very religious”. I’ll tell you where I come from. I was born on a Tuesday and in a Baptist church the very next Sunday. I was never late, cuz dad always had keys to the church and was an usher, or trustee or held some other silly title within the church. The older I got (jr. high & high school) the more garbage I began to see within the church. My dad was never happy unless he was helping to “stir the pot”. I saw many many people get burned by the church because of my father and people like him. I finaly left the Baptist church and for several years I just kinda bounced around till I found a church that taught the Word of God the way it is written. Plain, sound english.
About 8 or 9 years ago I was going to a church of the same “denomination” and they had a guest speaker. His name is (Dr.) *Kent Hovind. He spoke about evolution, the age of the earth, dinosaurs, sin and all kinds of stuff. He made an impression on me. I looked at his website very carefully, I looked at a lot of his materials, then I went exploring the web to find out if there were any other “scientists” that were like minded.
I found Ken Ham founder of Answers In Genesis and Dr. Henery Morris founder of The Institute of Creation Research. I’ve been digging through their respective materials ever since. I’ve read dozens of books by them and other scientists that call A.I.G. and I.C.R. home. The resources they have provided me are worth more than all the tea in China. I strongly recomend that all peolple (Christians or otherwise) seek out these institutions on the web and peruse for yourself the materials.
Having said all that I personaly hate the term “religious” when applied to me. I have not ever set foot in a colege classrom, secular, Christian or otherwise. I simply believe the Bible is the 100% accurate word of God. I will accept no other explanation of the Bible. Call me a fundamental Bible believing Christian, call me an ultra-right wing Christian, most of the time you can call me a litteralist when it come to how I read the Bible. But personaly I detest the word “religious” when applied to me.
bryanmc,
Question…….have you ever studied the specific words in their context in the Bible? How can you say “no the bible doesn’t even think that” in regards to “6 consecutive days”? In The New king James version of the Bible it says…..the first day,…the second day,..the third day,……all the way through the seventh day. How do you interpet it as saying anything but seven 24 hour time periods? Your logic makes no sence to me. The Bible does not say “the first era…the second era……meaning millions or billions or however many illions of years you want to see. A simple reading that a child can understans is DAY!
Jeff W,
You want the church’s science department? I’ve given it to you many times over now. answersingenesis.org and instituteofcreationresearch.org
Have at it boys!
*Dr Kent Hovind is curently serving a jail sentence in the state of Florida for tax evasion. I believe he is in the middle of a 10 year strech. The sentence was given because he believes that his “church” comes under tax exempt laws. I make no claim to his guilt or innocence in this mater.
December 15, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Tom H
I need to clarify just a few things.
Jeff W, I did not say that science and religion are mutually exclusive, and if I implied it, I was being unclear. Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity.
Someone earlier had said that the scientific/secular mindset has already won, and now dominates. I would separate *secular and *scientific, because I don’t think they have to go together.
It is the secular (and not necessarily the scientific) world view that is in retreat worldwide in the face of a global advance of religion. Again, we do not see this reflected in our culture, but it is true globally.
Phil and Jeff both make excellent points about not unnecessarily driving away scientists, and making the church look ignorant, when the conflict does not have to be there. I hear you loud and clear, and I see the value in what you are saying.
There is another side to the argument however. A few posts here seem to relegate faith to mere existentialism (Jeff W, last para of a post, where you talk about why you believe the bible).
Francis Collins basically does this in “The Language of God” which turns out to be a robust apology for evolution and a somewhat anemic defense of the Christian faith. What I hear Collins and other scientists who are Christians say is: “There’s no point in fighting science. So we must accept that there really is no evidence for God in the natural world. The real evidence for God is in our hearts.”
This is what most evangelicals have difficulty with, and is perhaps a large reason for the distrust of science. If the only evidence for God is within our hearts, then God is simply our feelings. All I have to do is follow my feelings. But the dominance of feelings has made a wreck of many a life before now. And what about when I feel like there is no God? Does he appear and then disappear according to what my heart tells me?
I love the quote that someone posted by Oswald Chambers. However, while reason cannot be supreme in matters of faith, it has a place. Maybe logic cannot take me across the river, but it can at least convince me that the bridge is likely to be solid.
If there really is no evidence for God in the natural world, then Romans 1:20 and Acts 14:14-20 are wrong, and my faith is baseless. If there is no evidence for God in the natural world, then how likely is it that there really is a creator?
On the other hand, if there really is a creator, how likely is it that there will be no evidence of him? If I believe in a creator, my mind is right to expect evidence that he created. Being told “there is no evidence, but have faith anyway” is patronizing. That’s what we do with children and Santa Claus.
I agree with Hous’s original proposition: there must be another way to approach this thing.
January 9, 2010 at 3:57 am
David Housholder
What do all of you skeptics and believers make of this?
Amino acids from space?
January 9, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Phil Wala
As a scientist, EVERY new discovery is fascinating to me. And as a believer, it’s doubly fascinating, because I know we’re just reading the record God has put into His creation for us to discover. Here’s another fascinating new discovery about how quickly genetic mutations accumulate : http://www.physorg.com/news181467990.html
Non-believers tend to take these discoveries as proof that God isn’t necessary. In reality, they only disprove some of the “God of the gaps” arguments some Christians try to use. These arguments always make Christians look like idiots, because science keeps making discoveries that fill in those gaps.
What we need to understand is that every time a “gap” is filled in, it only points to a more basic principle of nature — until ultimately, we’re get down to the most fundamental laws of physics, and the question “why does it seem that those laws were designed as if they knew we were coming?” A non-believer can only attribute it to random chance. As a believer in an primal First Cause, I attribute it to a Creator who, in accordance with His divine purpose, spoke every one of those laws into existence at the moment of creation.
January 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
David Housholder
Say more about the God of the Gaps–this is good stuff. Familiar to me, but you articulate it well. Lay it out for everyone.
January 9, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Phil Wala
“God of the Gaps” refers to the tendency for believers to point to things for which science does not have an explanation, and say, “Aha! Science cannot explain this; therefore, this is proof that there is a God.”
The danger of using an “argument from ignorance” (an argument based on what we DON’T know) is that the argument is immediately destroyed whenever that gap in knowledge is filled in. And science has a remarkably good track record of filling in gaps in knowledge.
The “irreducible complexity” argument is one of the more recent examples of this fallacy: “Science can’t explain the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting. Therefore, this is proof of God.” It’s a dangerous argument, because it assumes, and actually REQUIRES that a particular knowledge gap remain permanent in order for the argument to remain valid. The subtle underlying message we send is “belief in Christianity is dependent on ignorance, and destroyed by knowledge.” (By the way, compelling evidence for the mechanisms leading both to the flagellum and blood clotting were discovered quite shortly after the “intelligent design” movement put forth those arguments.)
Yes, there will always be gaps in our knowledge. But for believers, those gaps should be seen as a cause for humility, not as a source of “proof”. If we can learn to do that, then every time science fills in one of those gaps, we can embrace it as another revelation of God through His creation. And once we’ve done that, we can begin marveling over the two NEW gaps in our knowledge that were uncovered in the process.
For a deeper explanation of the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, including historical examples, and a discussion of this fallacy in the context of arguments from fine tuning of physical laws and the presence of morality, see http://www.biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps/
January 11, 2010 at 3:29 am
David Housholder
Although I disagree with some of your premises (which leads to a disagreement on some conclusions), this is an excellent summary. Thank you Phil.
January 12, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Phil Wala
You don’t specifically cite with which premises or conclusions you disagree, but let me comment further to perhaps clarify a few points.
First of all, let me repeat what I said in an earlier post. I see evidence of an intelligent designer everywhere I look. The problem I have with the popular conception of the “intelligent design” movement is that, by using weak “God of the Gaps” arguments, it actually portrays God as being less intelligent than He really is. It tends to defined God’s intelligence in terms of our own, and puts unnecessary limits on His ability.
Take, for example, the claims of Newton cited in the Biologos article linked to in my previous post. Newton described the laws of gravity that kept planets in orbit around the sun. But he assumed that the perturbations caused by planets interacting with each other were something God had to keep correcting for. In essence, he was saying, “I never would have anticipated that problem, so God probably didn’t either. The fact that everything works is evidence that God is constantly interacting with His creation, in order to keep compensating for the flaws in His original design.” Further study, of course, showed that the planetary interactions are in equilibrium, and no correcting hand is necessary.
In essence, the “God of the Gaps” argument says, “Here’s something we observe in nature that the greatest scientific minds don’t have an explanation for. Therefore, this can only be explained by God stepping in to make it happen.”
The naturalist argument says, “We have studied it further, and can now explain how this happened. Therefore, your God is not necessary.”
My response is, “The explanation for how it happened is evidence that the intelligence of the Designer is far beyond our own. We thought this was an inexplicable problem that could only be explained by the correcting hand of God when, in fact, we have just discovered that He already anticipated how this would work, and built the mechanism into His creation from the very beginning.”
January 12, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Michael Foster
“You can separate out traits (dog breeding, agriculture, etc.), but these are artificially isolated trait groups. Put all the dogs in the world on one of the Hawaiian Islands and in a few generations they’d all look just like their proto-ancestors. There is remarkable consistency within a species.”
may be true, however this was not the observation that was made on the Galapagos Isle. to better replicate and envision what observation you’d like expect, you have to talk about taking that population of dogs, dividing it into two populations and place them in diverse environments and leave them undisturbed for several hundred years (if not longer) – then you’d begin to have adequate data to start comparing what Darwin observed.
“And micro-evolution going on with humans today? If that were the case, then people in harsh environments (more improvements because of forced adaptation) would be superior to those who have spent thousands of years in “resort” climates. Let the racism begin…”
The only way that this statement could approach truthfulness is if there were restrictions on who got to breed. (and yes, that’s a sign of a very dangerous regime, indeed) The fact that (at least in the USA) anybody has the opportunity to meet, marry, and mate with whomever (without regard to phenotype or genotype) – the potentially (or theoretically) genetic adaptations are less likely (no chance) of being isolated.
My feeling on these particular quotes – is that they find grounding in the rhetorical divisiveness of the day – rather than being grounded in the truthfulness of and fairness to the issues and dynamics they seek to describe.
January 12, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Michael Foster
“And micro-evolution going on with humans today?”
further along this question: I have the question about the diversification of the human race. How did it happen?
Having come from one parental pair (to entertain the Biblical starting points) what was the nature of the change to the human genome that gives rise to the very different phenotypes we find across the globe?
How did it happen that those in the sunnier/more heat prone climates seem to tend toward darker skin? HOw is the differing phenotypes regarding facial features, stature, height etc accounted for?
One way I’ve heard of this being addressed is that there were other human creations. that human creation happened specific to the needs of that particular climate. But I’ve got problems with this – because as we read through Genesis 2, it appears that God’s process of creating a mate suitable for adam could not be replicated – hence the taking material from adam to create eve.
So, to presume that there were additional specific human creations seems to be discounted by Biblical witness – but if that were the case – how does that sit for ‘other’ human races that don’t phenotypicaly resemble those who reside in the area of mesopotamia? Does that proposition mean that some or less than or somehow different than the original creation of Adam? (those of us who are of caucasian phenotype would certainly fall in this ‘next generation’ of creation)
just questions I have that help inform, guide, and prayerfully consider the nature of the Creation that God has brought forth, and how we live into that creation in the hear and now.
Gen. 1 states, ‘God spoke, and . . . . . .’ At God’s Word – creation came about – in the speaking, proclaimation of God’s Word life comes about. So a question I have is – has God’s word finished being spoken? Is God no longer speaking? If that’s so, than yes, creation is something we can talk about as an event of the past.
But if, as we who hope to proclaim God’s word on a weekly basis believe, as those who put our faith in the resurrection of God’s living Word – God’s Word is alive and speaking, and darkness cannot conquer the light of God’s Word.
At God’s Word – life, the way of life, the way for life happens – and this is the creation event we read in Gen. 1. God’s good creation is something we do live in the hear and now – not something relegated to a past event.
Peace.
January 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm
RBH
This will be long, and I apologize for its length. But I can’t edit it down without losing muscle.
I’m going to take a bit of a risk here, the risk that this dialogue is not closed to non-theists who have a professional and personal interest in the issue under discussion. I write as a non-theist and a scientist, and while what I write might be (uncharitably) characterized as concern trolling, I assure you it is not. I have watched and participated in discussions of this nature on the blogs of people — some of them scientists — who label themselves “evolutionary creationists (for example, An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution and Quintessence of Dust), and have found no animosity there. I have spoken in Protestant (though not conservative evangelical) churches about evolution and the range of relationships between science and religion that various people hold, and will do so again.
I have a good deal of admiration for the scientists and others within the evangelical Christian community who attempt to bring their co-religionists to an understanding of what science in general and evolutionary theory in particular actually say, and about how they integrate their religious commitment with their acceptance of what science teaches us about the way the world works. They do so at some social and professional risk — see Rick Colling or Howard van Till.
Their task is not made easier by religious leaders who misrepresent science and the evidence it adduces for its explanatory theories. For a fence-sitting scientist, the kind that Phil Wala wants to reach, those claims are seriously problematic. Let me give an example from David Housholder’s remarks in this thread. I am not here picking on him specifically (or at least, not much), but am using him as an example of the phenomenon.
In a comment above Mr. Housholder wrote
Now, that assertion is false in several respects. No evolutionary biologist or paleontologist makes that claim, and there is no evidence for it. I am wholly confident that Mr. Housholder could not provide one single reference to the scientific literature that supports it. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that contradicts it. It was not the “Pre-Cambrian explosion,” but rather the “Cambrian Explosion.” And the striking thing about it is not the emergence of “thousands of (fully formed) species” but rather the first appearance in the fossil record of representatives of a number of phyla (but not all known phyla; e.g., all plant phyla appear after the Cambrian). And the “explosion” was not a “generation or two” in length, but extended over millions of years (recent estimates range from 10 million to 30 million years), and given the critters involved, which had generation times of a year or less, it therefore extended over millions of generations.
But my purpose here is not to argue the scientific point, and hence I haven’t given references for my asserion that Mr. Housholder’s claims are false; they’re available but beside the point of this comment. My purpose is to identify two consequences of such a misrepresentation and others like it for those fence-sitting scientists Jeff W writes of above and to whom Phil Wala says he is called to minister.
The first consequence is to erode the credibility of the person making the misrepresentation, the false assertion. When a fence-sitting scientist who knows anything at all about the paleontological record sees that false assertion, his or her confidence in the person making the claim must decrease. A natural question is immediately, “If this person knows so little about what science has found that he makes false claims about it, what credibility should I give him in general? Why should I believe him on anything?”
The second consequence is related but different, less personal, and it is roughly “If this person has to make false claims about the science to support his theological case, that theological case can’t be very strong. If a view must be defended by asserting falsehoods it can’t be very believable on its own.”
Let me say it again: I am not here picking on Mr. Housholder personally or criticizing his beliefs about God and his relationship to that God, but rather I am using his statement as an example of a general phenomenon that erodes the credibility of the case he wants to make for that God. If accepting Mr. Housholder’s view of God seems to require that one reject or misrepresent the hard-earned knowledge of the last 400 years of science, then it’s going to be very very difficult for those fence-sitting scientists (and informed lay people) to accept that view of God.
St. Augustine said it early and well:
Would that more apologists paid attention to that.
January 12, 2010 at 8:22 pm
David Housholder
RBH, you are more than welcome to post here.
We are a group of people from all “directions” on an unusually stubborn attempt at finding truth.
I very much appreciate your post.
So why do you think, that after over a century of trying, those promoting a secular view of evolution have not been able to prevail in convincing so many tens of millions of intelligent Americans that their view best explains the origins of life?
Most all other scientific theories, however controversial at first, eventually convince everyone. This does not seem to be happening with evolution.
There’s either something wrong with the concept or you have failed in explaining it. And telling intelligent, educated, open-minded, truth-seeking people that they aren’t qualified to hold their opinions is not a good debating tactic.
No wonder a slight majority to a huge minority (depending how you ask the question) of Americans don’t buy it.
If science can’t explain something so that sharp people can get it, then:
1) Go back to the drawing board and think of another way to explain it.
2) Entertain the thought that there might be a flaw in the theory.
I’m open to either.
-Unconvinced A+ College chemistry major and Fulbright Scholar who just wants to know how we got here.
January 12, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Michael Foster
I think the initial concern that RBH expressed, being that the positions that science holds are being misrepresented – and it’s this misrepresentation on the part of people (clergy, ministers, leaders both secular as well as religious) that “intelligent, educated, open-minded, truth-seeking people” trust that shapes the attitudes, feelings, mind set regarding this (any many other) topics.
Were these ‘presenters’ willing to explore, learn, seek to understand (not necessarily agree with, but simply understand) and then present their case from this perspective, then – I’m not saying that MORE people would agree with certain scientific evidence, but the integrity of the case presented (and as RBH states -the integrity of those making the claims) would allow for a more informed, a more truthful, thoughtful response to.
Now, I’m not in a position to state whether or not such misrepresentation is intentional for the purpose of furthering a particular ideology, But would have to agree with what I believe RBH is asserting, that any case made on the shoulders of incomplete or misrepresented thoughts would be received very speculatively by truly intelligent, educated, open-minded, truth-seeking people.
I believe high school debate classes teach the exercises of understanding the full expanse of the arguments being discusses – without regard to whether or not one agrees with the argument. I would encourage us all to live into a faith that seeks to understand – all aspects of a given ideology and to trust the Holy Spirit to reveal in truth the fullness of Truth.
Peace
January 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm
David Housholder
Good comments.
I think that most all theories, including those I hold, are ideologically conditioned.
Most on both sides of the fence (in this argument) would deny this. Most secular scientists (some with terminal myopia) wouldn’t even be able to entertain the idea that an agenda tent pole may be holding up their canvas.
There isn’t a lot of agenda-free truth out there, in my camp or in others.
But the truth is out there.
I intend to find it.
January 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Michael Foster
while I will agree that agenda-free truth is scarce – I think it behooves us as leaders to hold those of our constituence accountable rather than seeking to provide the same scrutiny. (hello kettle, my name’s pot)
but when we come together – we need to be able to affirm certain truths –
ie – water boils at 212 F, 100 C (@ sea level); boyles Law, gravity, etc.
: internal organs of various organisms operate in remarkably similar ways when compared to other organisms: DNA across the living organisms in this good creation of God are the basis around which God designed life – and changes to those DNA codes cause changes to the organisms.
Off to a meeting.
Peace and God bless.
March 25, 2010 at 2:05 am
steve martin
Hi David,
First, I appreciate the candor, honesty, and humility (for the most part from most people) of this discussion so far. That is rarely the case for these discussions (particularly on the net). Second, I must admit I have not read all (or not even most) of this posts comments – almost 40K words???? Yikes, that’s a book!
So, I’m not going to say much (I will probably just repeat something from above) but I will comment on your statement above. On:
But the truth is out there. I intend to find it.
To which I say, I believe you already have – the greatest truth is that God revealed himself through Jesus Christ, his life, death, and resurrection and he has provided his written Word and his Holy Spirit to guide us. The rest of “truth” (including the truth discovered in God’s creation) is just additional commentary. Scientific “truth” may be important but it isn’t THAT important.
On ideological conditioning of most camps, well that is true. BUT, there are certain things discovered in God’s creation through science that are, well, if not certain, almost certain. Check out Doug’s comment on critical realism in his post in the same series that Phil contributed to – actually a very nice leadin to Phil’s post on Critical Thinking.
I’d say that common descent is one of those things that is “pretty certain” and so, even though this scientific “truth” may not be important, tying the Gospel of Jesus to opposition to this theory is a really, really dangerous thing. That is why I believe this discussion matters for Evangelicals.
March 25, 2010 at 8:14 pm
David F.
Steve,
I agree that “this discussion matters for Evangelicals”. But I find many troubles with the “evangelical” that does not take The Holy Bible (as we have it in the English language and preferably The King James Version) as the ultimate authority on creation. (We can also add the global flood, the talking ass, the burning bush that was speaking to Moses, the resurrection of Jesus Christ…blah blah blah…you get the idea).
Most of the time the people who are opposed to any (or all) of these things are influenced by the anti god / evolutionary ideas that are prolific in the educational systems around the globe. Kids are taught as early as kindergarten and 1st grade about thousands, millions and billions of years in terms of age of the earth and also teach the goo-to-you ideas!
How can God fearing parents and churches combat this? It’s bloody near impossible. Every day I read or hear something about “…illions of years”! No wonder the church in America is sinking ever deeper day by day into this acceptance of secular theology! And make no mistake evolution is not simply a bad idea or theory, to the secularist it is THEOLOGY. And the church is buying into it!!
The church is afraid of all this man made bull crap so they try to appease these morons and accept a day age theory or theistic evolution or some other hybrid. The secularist smiles, and goes along his way knowing that he has gotten the church to compromise on their beliefs, compromise on The Holy Bible. The secularist has no regard for this kind of church, he laughs at it because he knows he has gotten it to kneel at the altar of man.
The secularist then looks at someone like me who refuses to back down from The Holy Bible and knows that he has to shred me for my stand. he can’t do it from a scientific stand he has to do it personally, call me simple minded, bigoted, a nazi or anything else he can come up with.
I have the truth. It’s composed of 66 separate books all housed in one volume. We call it the Holy Bible. Yes I do believe in a literal six day creation, a GLOBAL FLOOD, Christ rising from the dead and yes I do believe that the earth is only on the order of about 6,000 years old. The Bible tells me so.
March 25, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Phil Wala
David F: The Bible tells me that God not only reveals Himself to us through His word (II Tim. 3:16), but also through His Holy Spirit (John 14:26), through the wisdom of others (Col. 3:16) and through His creation (Psalm 19:1). He reveals Himself in multiple ways, because we aren’t always very good at understanding or interpreting what He has said. But when we listen in all of these ways, our misinterpretations are corrected, and we are kept on course.
I share your reverence for God’s Word, and agree that for the things that really matter the most — the nature of God, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the forgiveness of sin that He offers — the Bible is the means by which God has chosen to speak the loudest. But it is not the only way He speaks. In my daily walk with Him, He speaks through His Holy Spirit to show me how to apply the truths of the Word. When I have blind spots, He speaks to me through the wisdom and counsel of others. And when it comes to issues that are really peripheral, such as the laws of physics or composition of stars, He chooses to reveal Himself by letting His creation speak for itself.
For the first 1600 years of the church age, believers who shared your profound respect for the authority of the Bible knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that God’s word declared the earth to be flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. Why don’t we believe that any more? Did God’s Word change at that point in history? No, what happened was that the invention of the telescope allowed us to see a truth revealed in God’s creation that corrected the way we interpreted His Word.
If you want to be true to the authority of the Bible and reject the way God is revealing Himself to us through modern scientific discovery, shouldn’t you reject scientific discovery of the past as well? It seems that the only consistent way to apply your philosophy would be to agree that the round earth/ heliocentric solar system theory is every bit as evil and contrary to God’s Word as the church, during its first 1600 years, said it was. If the authority of the Bible always trumps science, then the church’s acceptance of heliocentrism at that point was just as much an act of surrendering the authority of the Bible to secular knowledge as you claim old-earth or evolutionary creationism to be. You can’t appeal to science on that issue without allowing us to appeal to science as well.
Those of us who are scientists and believers love our work because we get to be some of the first to discover ways God reveals new truths about Himself through His creation. We find it to be one of the most Godly pursuits we could be involved in, and are baffled and hurt by fellow believers who dismiss what we do as “secular”.
I am truly sad that you seem to be rejecting some of the very ways that God may be trying to speak to you. You seem to find comfort in limiting your exploration of God to the things revealed in His Word; although if you were to pick only one way to hear from God, then you’ve certainly picked the one in which the most important truths are revealed.
But please don’t fault those of us who are hungry to know God in a depth that is only possible by seeing with more than one eye and listening with more than one ear.
March 26, 2010 at 12:39 am
Phil Wala
I need to correct one thing I said. The struggle between the church and science around 1600 was over heliocentrism. Educated church leaders accepted Greek understanding of the earth’s shape much earlier. Augustine (354-430), for example, accepted the sphericity of the earth, but questioned whether the “other side” could have any inhabitants. But although it occurred much earlier, it was still a conclusion that educated Christians first arrived at by studying and accepting the discoveries of Greek astronomers, not by reading the Bible.
January 12, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Phil Wala
David,
I think you may have answered your own question. No one talks about a “secular view of meteorology” or a “secular theory of gravity”, yet you have used the phrase “secular view of evolution”. This reflects what I believe to be an erroneous presupposition and a false dichotomy, which is widely accepted in the form of “do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?”
As long as we continue to imply (by equating evolution with secularism) that belief in evolution requires one to abandon their belief in God, it’s no wonder that “tens of millions” will never be convinced.
I believe in a secular view of meteorology. I believe that rain comes from movements of air masses, temperature gradients, and water evaporation and condensation cycles, rather than from the opening and closing of windows in the firmament as the Bible describes. Yet no one has ever asked me, “do you believe in meteorology, or do you believe in God?” If, somewhere along the line, someone had decided to make our view of meteorology the litmus test for orthodoxy, instead of our view of biology, I suspect we’d be asking why meteorologists haven’t been able to convince tens of millions of people about their secular theories of what causes rain.
I am a Christian first, and a scientist second. My acceptance of evidence for evolution came quite recently, after reading “Language of God” (Francis Collins) and “Coming to Peace with Science” (Darrell Falk). Because I was never convinced of the commonly held false dichotomy, this was no big deal for me. The evidence was compelling, there was no reason to reject it, and my faith was strengthened, not weakened. In contrast, many of those who cling to this false dichotomy, refuse to even read the books.
So, David, have you read these books yet?
January 12, 2010 at 9:49 pm
RBH
First, I heartily endorse your goal of
Anything I say here is intended to contribute to that goal, albeit from a perspective that does not characterize most who contribute here.
David H asked
Mostly because the theory of biological evolution does not even attempt to explain the “origins of life.” Evolution takes as an initial condition the existence of a fecund population of imperfectly replicating entities with heritable variation. That is, it assumes as an initial condition that somehow or other that population came into being. Evolutionary theory describes and explains what happens thereafter: the diversification of life on earth over millenia into the forms we now see.
The theory of biological evolution is indifferent to how that initial population first appeared–it could have emerged ‘spontaneously’ via some currently unknown pre-biotic chemical processes or it could have been created de novo by a supernatural agency or it could have been planted by space aliens. The theory of biological evolution is agnostic in that respect. Just as, say, organic chemistry is agnostic with respect to how the chemical element carbon originated (mostly in the nuclear furnaces of other stars that went nova, spraying carbon atoms into interstellar space), so the theory of biological evolution is agnostic with respect to how that first population of replicating entities originated. The theory of biological evolution would not change one tiny bit if that first population were created by nature or by a god or by space aliens.
How life might have originated via naturalistic processes is an active area of research in geochemistry and biochemistry, but at this point we simply do not know. There’s a great deal we don’t know. But there’s also a great deal we do know, and it’s that knowledge I urge theists to learn and use.
Further, it is not the case that
Heliocentrism took a very long time to be accepted. In fact, pastors and theologians of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church rejected heliocentrism well into the 20th century (see Ron Numbers’ The Creationists, page 124). That’s a 350-year lag time.
David H wrote
I said nothing about opinions; anyone is free to hold whatever opinion they wish. Nor did I say anything about “qualified” except to observe that knowing a field is prerequisite to accurately representing it and critiquing it. If one doesn’t accurately represent what a scientific theory actually says, one’s critique of it is almost certain to be mistaken and one’s views about it will be disregarded by folks who do know the theory. So I urge learning what the theory actually says, what the data actually are, what the evidence actually is. The theory of biological evolution is not immune from criticism, and there are many things we don’t know. But we are not wholly in the dark, and I suggest that it behooves those who would reject it to know what it is they are rejecting lest they fall into St. Augustine’s problem.
Suppose, for example, that I said to you in all seriousness, “Well, the Easter Bunny must be real because Luke 22 tells us that the disciples roasted a rabbit for the Last Supper.” What would you conclude about my knowledge of scripture and the worth of the A I got in New Testament in college? Would you be inclined to take me seriously about anything else I said? I doubt it. But that’s about the level of misconception about the theory of biological evolution that one often sees from its theist critics.
David H wrote
I’d amend that to read “so that sharp people who are motivated to learn about it can get it.” There are numerous resources for lay people available at one’s fingertips nowadays. There is the Berkeley site, the National Academy of Sciences site, the TalkOrigins Archive, and the National Science Teachers Association site, to name just a few. Hundreds of thousands of papers describing original research in biology and biomedicine are available through PubMed and in any college or university library.
But it requires some attention and effort. The basics of evolution aren’t intrinsically difficult, as, say, quantum mechanics is, but they are not intuitively obvious–see Phil Wala’s post on counter-intuitive notions in science and religion. It’s counter-intuitive to suppose that a subatomic particle can in effect disappear from one place and re-appear at another place without actually travelling through the space between the places. But that’s what quantum mechanics, a very highly corroborated physical theory, tells us can happen. And indeed, the operation of flash memory in computers depends on that counter-intuitive phenomenon, called quantum tunneling. Intuitions are not necessarily good guides to the underlying reality, as Wala makes clear. Learning and understanding stuff that is counter-intuitive requires extra effort, and one has to be willing to put in the time and energy required.
Finally, note that I do not ask you to accept evolutionary theory; I ask only that you know it well enough that your critique is an informed one.
January 12, 2010 at 10:07 pm
David Housholder
As long as “informed” does not mean:
-Accept the premises
-Accept the outcomes
One should be able to challenge either without encountering defensiveness.
January 13, 2010 at 5:42 am
Jeff W
RBH, your comments are spot-on, and clearly some of the most well researched on this thread. As a formally trained scientist myself, I was excited to see the theory of evolution correctly framed, and to come across your well-informed responses to the misinformed claims against evolution.
Householder, I don’t believe that RBH was insulting your intelligence at all, but rather was stating his/her concern with the cause you are taking up with so little information. Your appointment as a Fulbright scholar is no small feat, and it earns you much credibility. However, I think it is important to realize that such critical thinking skills aren’t sufficient to bring down a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is, as RBH more eloquently described, based on over 100 years of observations and experiments. Again, claims that it is counter-intuitive, or meta-science claims like “but many still don’t believe it”, or knowledge of a different subject (perhaps chemistry), are severely insufficient for anyone trained in the theory, to the point that they make the expounder look quite foolish, as St. Augustine described.
I am sad then to see leading, intelligent people appear poorly when they step out of their area of expertise. I would suppose any theologian could run circles around Dawkins in issues of theology, and in the Christian community, he looks quite myopic (to put it nicely) indeed. But the same occurs when well-meaning Christians spout out anti-science claims, when their opinions aren’t really grounded in science at all.
And so, when someone makes fun of Nobel prize winning work in physics, they must be either so incredibly well versed in the subject that they saw something that the world scientific community did not, or they are attempting to make a point based on misinformation. If the latter is the case, scientists will have no chance of ever respecting the argument. If the argument against science is wrapped up in claims about God, the whole thing is lost, and the scientist has already left for a different church or religion.
January 13, 2010 at 6:10 am
David Housholder
Thanks for posting.
Good to have you on board.
Help me with the idea that only “ueber-trained” scientists have anything to say on this topic; the rest of us should stick to theology.
This:
science=facts=public=truth
faith=feelings=private
division thing is just not working for a lot of us.
Science is a search for truth (i.e. “Wissenschaft”), not a narrow field in the balkanized world of human knowledge, limited to positivist thought sanitized of any legitimate theological speculation.
You are saying, in effect, that you are just one room in the building and that we theologians are another room in the building. With soundproof walls.
What about the building itself?
What about the whole truth?
January 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Jeff W
RBH relays my feelings once again, but in a much better way. I understand how my comments may seem exclusionary. I was intending to make the point that such strong claims against whole branches of science must be accompanied by equally strong knowledge of the subject one is attacking. The theologian is welcome to poke at leading physics research, but they have to be informed enough on this research to do so. Stating things like “some nuance in the wavelength of light” does not lead any scientist to believe that sufficient investigation was conducted.
Whether one is a theologian or physicist, if you are well-informed on the science you attacking, a meaningful conversation can occur. If not, scientists see a lack of credibility and walk away from anything that is said by the ill-informed critic, even if most of it isn’t science at all. This, I believe, is why anti-science (or maybe just poorly informed) positions are doing such a marvelous job at driving educated people away from the Church.
January 13, 2010 at 4:20 pm
RBH
David H wrote
No one here has argued that idea. The plea that I’ve made is that when one talks about a scientific discipline or theory, and especially when one critiques a scientific theory in supporting a position in another discipline (in this case critiquing the theory of biological evolution to support a theological position), that person expend the time and effort to actually understand what he or she is talking about. If one wants to be taken seriously when talking about science, then one had best make an effort to know what one is talking about.
That doesn’t imply that one must become a scientist. But it does imply that one should make the effort to become an informed layman. It doesn’t imply that one must accept the assumptions and findings and theories of science, but it does imply that one must know them well enough to at least avoid appearing foolish and uninformed to those who are expert in them when critiquing them. Otherwise, as I described earlier, one sacrifices one’s own credibility as a critic and at least implies that one’s theological position is weak because one employs obviously specious arguments for its support. It may not actually be a weak theological position, but using specious arguments in its support certainly suggests that.
Science thrives on informed criticism. I have never faced more severe critics than my peers, whether it is in informal discussions (one just last week), at more formal colloquia with colleagues, giving presentations at professional meetings, or in the peer review process to which one’s publications are subject.
David H wrote
I’m glad you used a lower-case “t” in “truth.” Science does not seek ultimate Truth-with-a-capital-T. It seeks the best possible testable models–theories–of the physical world with the methods available to it. The facts of science are indeed public; I provided a link to PubMed where one can examine the research that produces those facts and to the tests of the explanatory theories that scientists devise to account for the facts and regularities in the natural world. By its nature science is limited to the natural world; its methods do not address supernatural variables or agencies. We cannot bring gods into the laboratory and subject them to test. If a god or gods are ultimately responsible for the order and regularities we observe in the lab and field, and which we explain in terms of natural causes, we cannot test that hypothesis because we cannot require the gods to perform in the lab on our command and cannot specify the methods in such a way that other scientists can independently replicate our work.
And recall that philosophers made a distinction between Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften.
January 13, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Phil Wala
RBH, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, and appreciate the way you, as a self-identified non-theist, are able to graciously dialogue on the scientific issues while still showing respect for those of us who claim a theistic world view. And after all, isn’t that the point we’ve been trying to make? Meteorology, geology, physics, and astronomy have advanced tremendously since the Bible was written, but never have, and I suspect never will, either prove or disprove the existence of God. I don’t see why biological science should be any different.
Your are absolutely correct about the need to stay informed. I was a National Science Foundation Fellow, earned my Ph.D. in engineering from Stanford University, and have 15 patents. All of which mean nothing when it comes to my ability to discuss evolutionary biology, especially the preponderance of genetic evidence that has has accumulated in recent years, long after I was out of school.
Growing up in evangelical churches, I was continually exposed to one side of the “argument”. Although I abandoned young earth creationism long before I began to grow facial hair (I won’t say how old I was when that happened!), I found some of the old earth and “intelligent design” arguments quite satisfactory. My growth point came when I heard an interview with Francis Collins, and decided to buy his book, “Language of God”. I read it, and saw a very sincere Christian lay out clear and compelling evidence for evolution that I really hadn’t encountered before. I examined it, said “OK, now it makes sense”, and accepted it without any heartache, except to wonder why the church felt it necessary to mislead me all those years.
While “The Language of God” is probably more widely known, the book I usually recommend to Christians is “Coming to Peace with Science” by Darrell Falk. I think he does an even better job of clearly laying out the evidence, and does it with such grace and tenderness towards his fellow Christians, that I challenge any believer who really wants to be informed to read his book, and see if it doesn’t accomplish its goal: to build a bridge between the worlds of faith and biology.
I’m still waiting to hear if David H has read this book, but look forward to hearing his comments once he has. Maybe Falk or Collins will end up being the Copernicus he’s been looking for. They certainly were for me.
January 13, 2010 at 5:43 pm
RBH
Phil wrote
(Italics added)
That’s the tragic and and even dangerous part for Christianity. Others who wondered the same thing have ended up deconverting, abandoning Christianity and theism altogether. I was an administrator of Internet Infidels Discussion Board (now FRDB) for years and heard many deconversion stories that had a general introductory comment along the lines of “If they misled me about the science, what’s to say they weren’t also misleading me about the religion?”
January 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Phil Wala
I could have chosen my words better. To say the church “felt it necessary to mislead” implies an intent to deceive, which I in no way want to imply.
Unfortunately, for many people, the result is the same. Whether we are being deliberately deceptive, or just passing along misinformation by which we ourselves have been misled, we discredit the rest of our message, and the result is often just as RBH describes.
Too often the church damages its own reputation, not by being wrong about a particular issue, but by arrogantly denying the possibility that it might be. In the search for truth, we must be careful not to act as if we’ve arrived, when in fact, we’re still on the journey. Yes, the church has taken incorrect positions in the past (just ask Galileo) and will take incorrect positions in the future (one thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history). But ultimately, the feeling of being betrayed by the church comes, not because the church wasn’t correct enough, but because it wasn’t humble enough.
January 13, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Tom H
Phil mentioned Galileo. Sorry, I can’t let that one slip by.
People still point to Galileo as one the prime examples of the arrogance of the church. Does anyone remember that Galileo died almost five centuries ago? If we can’t come up with anything better than Galileo, the argument is already invalid. Is it even slightly possible that modern Protestantism is a different animal than medieval Roman Catholicism? Also Galileo was not the martyr for science that people make him out to be. First, he was never imprisoned, tortured or threatened, unless you count a five month house arrest in the magnificent palace of one of his friends. He was never even charged with heresy.
Second, he was “punished” in this way for primarily three things:
1.He broke an amicable (but official) agreement he had previously made with the Catholic church to avoid teaching about heliocentrism. Galileo had discussed his theories with Jesuit officials. They found them interesting and plausible. They did not assume a threat to Christianity. Later, a rival tried to get him in trouble with the church. Galileo met with Cardinal Bellarmine of the Inquisition in a comfortable palace to discuss matters. The Cardinal was intrigued, but felt that Galileo had not conclusively proved his case, and until he did so more thoroughly, he agreed to avoid teaching publicly about heliocentrism. Even today, we know that some of Galileo’s “proof’s” were wrong (among other things, he thought tides were evidence of the earth’s orbit around the sun). In other words, the church was right to hold off on a public proclamation until more evidence was gathered.
2.Galileo published his findings in the form of a dialogue. In it, the Pope was represented as a fool. This created not a controversy over science, but one over politics.
3.During the investigation (where again, he was treated as nobility), when it was found that he had broken his agreement with Bellarmine, Galileo claimed that actually he was attempting to disprove heliocentrism. This was such a blatant lie that the church felt they must do something.
Basically, though Galileo was correct in his conclusion, some of his science was shaky, and the scientists in the Catholic church knew it. The agreement made by Galileo was not to stop studying, nor to simply “shut up,” but rather to wait on publishing his findings until the case was more robust. He broke that agreement, publicly insulted the Pope, and then denied having done it.
The Roman Catholic church responded with an extremely gentle, velvet slap on the wrist. The incident of Galileo is not a particularly strong argument for the arrogance of the church, but it is an argument for the arrogance of Galileo.
January 13, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Tom H
All of these latter comments have been terrific, and I appreciate the addition of RBH. The Augustine quote was particularly telling, and I humbly accept the truth there.
I am keeping at this, however, because we keep talking as if the only problem here is the church. As House notes, there remains a polite, understated attitude of “the church should stick to theology, and in private, if you please.”
Phil said:
”Too often the church damages its own reputation, not by being wrong about a particular issue, but by arrogantly denying the possibility that it might be… But ultimately, the feeling of being betrayed by the church comes, not because the church wasn’t correct enough, but because it wasn’t humble enough.”
In fact, this is my precise problem with science. It is science that appears to me to be particularly arrogant. Francis Collins writes, and I quote:
“Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long…”
In other words, science is never wrong. Now tell me who is arrogant?
Evolution/creation in stages/creation in six days, young earth/old earth, none of that ultimately affects my faith. However it happened, there is clear evidence that a Designer is responsible. For one thing, science cannot by nature explain rational thought, mind or soul, because these things are not subject to empirical verification. In fact, a purely random explanation for thought makes all thoughts random, and therefore invalid as a way of apprehending reality.
But science needs to own the fact that the aggressors in the “religion wars” come from their own ranks, and Christian attacks on science are largely defensive. Dawkins, Hitchens and other characters have launched full scale offensives on Christianity, and their favorite big gun is evolution.
The battle gets personal for families and churches when you realize that evolution is never taught in public schools as a way in which God might have brought about this world. It is strictly atheistic in the public square. It is the atheists who have co-opted science, and the scientists have done no more about it than the moderate Muslims have done about radical Islam.
January 14, 2010 at 1:36 am
Jeff W
Tom H, you make strong points all around, and I must agree nearly completely. I believe you are absolutely right that the burden of this conflict isn’t just on the church to change, but on “science” as well. I don’t believe that the church is simply being defensive, as they tend to raise many issues regarding science to their own aims. But I also don’t believe, that “science” is innocent either. One of the big problems with the theory of evolution is how many have hijacked it for their own theological beliefs. You mention Dawkins and others.
Scientists are likely then to be misled by their knowledge of one field but not the other, in sort of the opposite problem. For every ill-informed Christian on science, there is an ill-informed scientist on theology. You are 100% correct on this point. People in both “camps” are free to comment on the other, but in most cases (creationsists and Dawkins-ists) they look quite ignorant to the other side. RBH’s plea is become well informed if you are to opine. This needs to be a rule for BOTH sides, and for anything in life really.
I put “science” in quotes though, because what these men use to support their hypotheses about theology isn’t really science. The Big Picture questions are outside of science’s reach, and much arrogance lies in the scientific community for thinking otherwise. This “science” is doing a marvelous job of driving Christians away from the labs.
However, this is not the science that Collins supports when he claims that it is never wrong for very long. In fact, he is quite right on this point. We have gone from thinking that atoms are indivisible (incorrect) to understanding their intricacies to tens of decimal points, and scales than an atom itself would think were, well, atomic! This has been accomplished in only 100 years, and it was all because people questioned the inconsistencies. This is why evolutionary theory is so solid as well, because scientists are prone to always objecting to the inconsistencies. In fact, this is how you publish good papers!
So, Tom H, you are absolutely right about the arrogance of many scientists, and about the presence of this undesirable sub-culture. As long as Christians don’t confuse this arrogant science subculture with the true, objective nature of the field, and as long as scientists don’t confuse the arrogant, anti-science Christian subculture with what the Bible and God are really trying to teach us about, I think we would ALL be better off.
Oh, and I would also be interested in more examples (besides Galileo). I know they are out there, and I have a feeling RBH has some up his/her sleeve. Phil as well. I agree completely with Tom H that we need more examples if the historical analysis of the Church’s science mistakes are to be correct.
January 14, 2010 at 2:12 am
RBH
Jeff remarked
Not up my sleeve waiting for a propitious moment to spring them, but yes, I know of some examples of problems scientists have had in Christian educational contexts. Here are two:
Howard van Till: Three years of examination on his religious fitness to hold a faculty position in astronomy at Calvin College after having taught there for decades. See also here for a Christian biologist’s reaction. Howard was ultimately moved away from Christianity by his experiences.
Rick Colling, removed from teaching general biology at Olivet Nazarene College on account of his book reconciling his Nazarene beliefs with science, evolution in particular. He ultimately left the college from which he graduated and where he had taught biology for 30 years. I have his book, autographed. From the news story linked just above:
Just so.
January 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Tom H
Maybe we’re getting somewhere here. We have a subculture of science at war with a subculture of evangelical Christianity (and vice versa). Perhaps the majority of the others are more open than we have been led to believe.
Another person who deserves to be mentioned here is Hugh Ross, both a legitimate cosmologist and strong evangelical Christian. He heads up Reasons to Believe, [ http://www.reasons.org/ ] an organization that Phil W and Jeff W might find a lot in common with. Though unconvinced on evolution (at least, as of a few years ago), Ross is fully committed to science, and understands the scientific community, and deplores the schism between faith and science. He believes they are allies in the discovery of truth.
January 18, 2010 at 3:40 am
David
A mutual friend of ours (David H and me) from back in Bloomington sent me this the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs. Thought you might find it amusing.
January 18, 2010 at 5:28 am
David Housholder
Saw the site, but can’t find a name. What mutual friend? Very curious. Creative stuff on the site, but with cartoons you can manipulate your opponents to be especially stupid. In fact, with cartoons, you kinda ARE God :-).
January 18, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
Or satan depending on how skilled an artist you are. 😉
January 19, 2010 at 3:54 am
David Housholder
Isaac Newton wrote his /Principia/ in the 17th Century, which outlined how gravity works (proving everything to the fourth decimal point) and is the basis for most modern practical engineering, rocketry, ballistics, aerospace, etc. And by the way, Newton, along with Leibniz also developed Differential Calculus.
One of the sharpest crayons ever to emerge from the human crayon box.
He wrote /Principia/ in Latin.
He concludes this pivotal, seminal work (published by Halley) with a nod to Mainmonides, the Jewish intellectual:
“One day, Maimonides showed a landscape painting to his students.
‘Who painted that?’ they asked, admiring the work.
‘No one,’ said Maimonides. ‘This canvas stood in my room and a visitor ran into my table, through which a couple of paint cans were poured out, and this was the result.
His students laughed with high hearts.
‘You don’t believe that this painting appeared out of itself,’ said Maimonides surprised, ‘and yet you do dare believe that the complete cosmos, in which everything is held in perfect balance, appeared by chance?'”
From Geert Kimpen’s Flemish translation of the close of /Principia/ by Isaac Newton.
Most modern secular evolutionist would say that this closing has no business being in his book and that it’s not science.
How amazingly arrogant.
Design simply is a logical possibility, and should be considered with all others.
It’s amazingly convincing to throngs of people. Always has been.
January 19, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Phil Wala
This is a great illustration, and if you go back and reread my comments, it should be apparent that I’m in full agreement with the evidence for design. I don’t think we disagree at all on that issue, and I also think we’re closer to full agreement than you may realize. In fact, I’m not sure whom you’re debating with this post, but I notice that you’ve become increasingly careful to identify only secular evolutionists, which I take to be a tentative admission that you’re not putting those of us who are theistic evolutionists into the same category. (Remembering that 99% of scientists accept the evidence for evolution, and 70% of those same scientists believe in God, I assume you’re only addressing the other 30%.)
I still sense an implicit assumption that evolution and intelligent design can’t overlap, which is decidedly not the case. Let me quote one of the leaders of the “Intelligent Design” movement:
“For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996)
Behe and I are both part of the “throngs” you say are convinced of design. As are the majority of my fellow scientists. So the only point on which we differ is: at what point did the design take place? Is common descent so lacking in evidence to support it, that it is an unbridgeable gap that can’t be explained any other way than by the insertion of designer that individually created each species ex nihilo? (To me, that seems too much like a weak “God of the Gaps” argument.) Or, on the other hand, if the evidence for common descent really does exist, does the evidence for design reside in a divine hand that guided the evolutionary process (my limited understanding of Behe’s perspective)? Or does it reside in the design of the process itself? (Theistic evolution) Or were all the elements of design inherent in the word of God that spoke the universe into existence in the first place? There are many possibilities, but from a purely theological perspective, I find that the further back in time we push the insertion of design, the greater God becomes.
One more comment on your observation that the scientific process doesn’t allow for “design” as a hypothesis. While I think there are good reasons for science to operate on this principle, I would question whether this constitutes an actual rejection of the possibility, or mere neutrality. That scientists can be in 99% agreement on scientific explanations, yet 70% of us see in those same explanations evidence of a Creator that the other 30% doesn’t see, seems to me to be evidence that the science itself is really more neutral than dismissive. The strident voices in the scientific community rejecting the need for a Creator get a lot of attention; just recognize that their belief system is based on the fact that they’re part of that vocal 30%, NOT because they’re scientists.
Getting back to the “painting” story: it’s a great illustration of the design that’s deeply embedded in the very fabric of creation, and evident to anyone willing to open their eyes to it. But if you’re trying to use it as an argument against evolution (atheistic, theistic, or neutral), it has some serious flaws. I’m working on an extension to the allegory that will illustrate what I mean. Watch for it!
I continue to enjoy the dialogue. I hope you do, too.
February 14, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Phil Wala
My update to the original Maimonides illustration is now available at: http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/maimonides-monkeys-and-monet.html
January 29, 2010 at 1:06 am
David F
Tom H,
I like many of the points you make but you recently brought up the name of a very scary person. You brought up Hugh Ross.
I met Hugh at a one day conference (actually a debate) just a few years ago at a large church in Fullerton. He had a fellow named Fuzz (Randa?) with him and they debated young earth/old earth creationism with Dr. Jason Lisle and another gentelman I can not recall.
Dr. Lisle’s primary field of study is in astro-physics and is very much in the young earth (6,000-10,000 years old) camp. Quite honestly at this debate Dr. Lisle made Hugh look like a fool. Ross looks at “nature” as basicly the 67th book of the Bible and that if there is a discrepancy between the two then “nature” overrides the biblical teaching.
Ross does NOT believe in a literal 6 day creation week as the Bible clearly states, (+ the day of rest God took after) nor does he believe in a global flood as told of in Genesis chapters 7 & 8.
Sometime after this conference I found a book called “Refuting Compromise” by Jonathan Sarfati, PH.D. The book is nearly 400 pages and refutes Dr. Ross’s entire theory. Sarfati enlisted the help of many people in the writting of this book including but not limited to, Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (nuclear physicist), Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. (history of geology) and Don Batten, Ph.D. (plant physiology)
I strongly recomend that you look for this book and read it. Heck it’s a great book for anyone to read if you have questions regarding the young earth/old earth debate! Also go look at the websites for Answers In Genesis & The Institute of Creation Research. If you and HOUS look at the materials these institutions provide I’m sure that you will come away more sure in the simple reading of The Holy Bible and in science. People like John Morris, Ken Ham and all these other individuals will only strengthen ones views in the sciences in relation to the infalibility of the The Holy Scriptures.
This whole blog realy boils down to one simple question… Is the Bible the 100% Word of God, complete and without error or is it not? Once you can answer this simple question in your own heart the answer becomes quite clear on our origins.
January 30, 2010 at 9:42 pm
David F
Hous,
Some time ago you made the post “I believe the Bible as much as anyone on this list (you can not be to the right of me on that one)….” and a few times you have said something on the order of “But the truth is out there. I intend to find it.”
I have a simple question….Witch is it?
The Bible is the ultimate history book. If you believe it to be 100% acurate then we are on the same page and you indeed have found the truth. If “the truth is out there and I intend to find it” is more acurate of your beliefs then I am way, way to the right of you on my belief in the Holy Bible.
You can’t have it both ways Hous. Chose a side, I did.
February 1, 2010 at 5:35 am
David Housholder
Just because the Bible is true does not mean it is comprehensive.
In other words, it says nothing about many things–from optometry to algebra to French cooking.
There is a lot of truth that is not in the Bible.
All truth is God’s truth.
The Bible is accurate in what it reports, but it doesn’t report everything.
There is truth that is “out there” about which the Bible is simply silent.
February 1, 2010 at 6:21 am
Pastor Tom
David F,
I applaud your commitment to the Bible. I believe that I share the same commitment to the authority and infallibility of scripture. I reply to your post cautiously, because I would never willingly do anything to shake that faith you have.
You might be confusing the truth of the Bible with the truth of a particular interpretation of the Bible. For example, the Bible talks about baptism in many places. When it teaches about baptism, the Bible teaches us the truth. Yet for almost 2000 years, Bible-believing Christians have disagreed about what that biblical truth means for babies. Christians on both sides of the debate believe that the answer is in the bible. They both use the Bible to explain their positions.
The problem is not the Bible. The problem is, fallible human beings are interpreting it.
When it comes to creation, for one thing we are dealing with the Hebrew word “yom” which means “24 hour period” OR…It can mean some portion of the daylight hours.
But it can also mean simply an a segment of time with a definite beginning and end. In this third definition, yom could be several weeks, or years, or even an epoch. Maybe one way to capture this sense of the word would be the English expression: “Back in my Grandpa’s day, they didn’t have running water.” When you say that, you don’t mean that there was only one day in which they didn’t have running water. You mean it as a time-period. In addition, Peter writes this:
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day (1 Peter 3:8).
Therefore “day” in Genesis 1, does not necessarily mean 24 hours. It certainly seems like the first three days of creation should not be interpreted as literal 24 hour periods, since the Sun and Moon and stars do not appear until the fourth day. If the first three days then, are intended to mean something more like “time period” or “era,” then it stands to reason that the other four days should be interpreted the same way.
So although certainly, if you believe the Bible (and I do, whole heartedly) you should believe that God is capable of creating the world in six days, the Bible does not explicitly and necessarily teach that He did. You can be a good Christian and believe that God took eons to create the world, just as you can be a good Christian and believe he did in 144 hours.
February 2, 2010 at 2:18 am
David F
Pastor Tom,
With all due respect to whatever studying you may have done on this subject I submit that the only simple and logical reading of Genesis 1 is a day means a freaking day! Question…….. what key word is in 1 Peter 3:8?…answer LIKE! That is a metaphor! Nowhere in Genesis chapter 1 in my King James Bible do I see the word “Like”!
Seriously, do you believe that I have not seen this arguement before? I am not a novice when it comes to the special creation/evolution debate sir. You can NOT “shake my faith”, because my faith is in the ONE who inpired every last detail in The Holy Bible! Clearly and sadly you do NOT share in “my commitment to the authority and infallibility of scripture”.
I’m just a regular guy. Never went to school beyond the 12th grade. I’m as blue colar as you can get. My spelling is horible and all my friends and family could say that I have wasted almost all of my 40 years I have spent on this rock we call Earth. They would be correct. But the one thing that can not be said of me is that I have no clue about the special creation/evolution debate.
I will not bend on this theology. Jesus said “..come to me as a child…” Question….How would a child read Genesis 1? I submit that they would read it as the text wrote it. A day is a day is a day. If God made all things would it have been imposible for him to NOT create the sun, moon and all the other “off world” bodies untill day 4? If we as Christians can handle the idea of the Trinity and yet not be able to fully comprehend it is it to much to ask to take on face value that there was an alternate light scource in play during days 1, 2 and 3?
In one of my more recent posts to this blog I brought up a book called “Refuting Compromise” by Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. I strongly recomend you find this book (heck find me and I’ll let you borrow my copy) and read it. I am very confident that this book will help in your understanding of many of the errors in theistic evolution and the very bad ideas that people like Hugh Ross teach.
The Bible does indeed explicitly teach a literal 6 day creation week. If a pastor, minister, priest, rabbi or any man or woman preaches and or believes otherwise you can be assured that I will not be apart of that specific “house of God”. Because they aint preachin’ the truth! I was given a link to this blog by a member of Robinwood Church. I have comunication with this person nearly every day and I have attended a few men’s outings. Great guys all! But I could never be a part of your house if you are not teaching the truth.
I hope that I have not come off as angry or disrespectful of you, whatever title(s) you may hold, your church or anyone or anything connected to Robinwood. That was and is not my intent. But this greater issue is something that I take very seriously and have devoted countless hours to study to.
David F
February 2, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Louis H.
I never thought this thread would get so deep or last so long. I am a simple man so I will just chime in with the time lines and such. God can and does things His way. He also does things in His time. I know this to be true. God has created this world in such a way that a day last roughly 24 hours. The makes a complete revolution in this time frame. We get some sun, and we get the moon. He would not have designed it this way if it was not the truth. If He said it was a day then it was a day.
Like it really matters anyway…
I am sure glad slavation is not as complicated as science. Maybe that is why there is only one way, and it is not for debate. Kept that one really simple. Humans just aren’t that smart.
March 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm
David Housholder
If Darwin’s theory of Evolution were correct, cats would be able to operate a can opener by now. -CS Lewis
🙂
March 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Phil Wala
Where did you see this attributed to CS Lewis? I usually see it attributed to cartoonist Larry Wright (although it sounds like something that might have been said by the even greater philosopher, Steven Wright!)
If you’re interested in what CS Lewis really thought about evolution, ASA published a pretty good article on the topic:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Ferngren.html
March 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm
David Housholder
It must be true–I found it on Twitter.
My favorite tweet:
“the great thing about Twitter is that you don’t have to verify sources. -Abraham Lincoln”
🙂
March 12, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Phil Wala
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. – Steven Wright
March 12, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
But instead God created man to do it for them. 😉
March 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm
St. Rodney
So what if we arnt going back far enough? I think that ist not about beings and animals but energy. Everything is made up of energy (as far as humans know so far). Energy is light. Jesus said “I am the truth, the LIGHT,and the way.” On the first day God creaded light (energy). Now in space, a voide of nuthingness, where does the energy come from, or get gererated from? Does God emit energy?
If we are going to entertain this topic from a purly scientific stand point, lets also entertain it scientificly from a purly Christian belief. How did the energy and matter get in to space?
Im not even ready to think about how Heaven was created.
I do believe however that we were created to evolve (adapt) to our environment. God didnt create a bonch of different raced Adoms, He created one and evolutaion made them change to fit there invironment.
Some could wright a great comic book on this topic.
March 15, 2010 at 6:07 am
Frank Guerra
I’ve been talking with an atheist via an online forum and I’ve been realizing the same thing David. There is always a counter argument, especially when it relates to God. I brought this to the guys (a biologist) attention and he seen my point but predictably said he would rather follow the evidence wherever it leads regardless of what he wants. I will never be convinced by the supposed scientific “evidence”, i see the bias in it. It is grace that allows people to see Him, it is the gospel that changes people.
How grateful I am that I have received that grace.
March 15, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Phil Wala
In one respect, you’ve hit the nail on the head. It is only our response to God’s grace that enables us to see Him. But that is exactly why scientific evidence can never prove or disprove God. If it could, we would be responding to a coercive logical argument, not grace.
Militant atheists think they can present coercive scientific arguments that disprove the existence of God. The evangelical response should have been that the basic premise of that argument – that it is even possible to prove or disprove God scientifically – is flawed. Instead, we’ve actually conceded that premise to the atheists, and concluded that our only defense is to try to disprove their science. It’s a tragic error that the church continues to repeat, to its own discredit.
In effect, evangelicals have been saying to scientists, “We know you’re wrong, and aren’t you going to feel stupid when you have to admit that we were right all along?” The trouble is, when it comes to evolution, 99.85% of biological scientists agree with the evidence (no “scare quotes” needed). And those were the numbers before the most conclusive evidence – the detailed history of our genetic ancestry written out in exquisite detail in the 3.1 billion character long human genome – was even uncovered. What are we trying to accomplish by telling scientists, including the two-thirds who already believe in God, that 99.85% of them are wrong about their science?
To me, the fact that two-thirds of scientists believe in God is great evidence that science is not biased either for or against God. In fact, it is decidedly neutral. And that, in spite of what atheists on the one side, and evangelicals on the other side, think, is just how science should be.
When science itself is neutral, there is freedom for some (the non-believing third) to resist God’s grace, and interpret their discoveries as disproof of God. At the same time, there is freedom for others (the believing two-thirds) to respond to God’s grace, and see evidence of His handiwork in those very same discoveries.
And when the non-believing third and the believing two-thirds can come into nearly 100% agreement on the science, that’s pretty good evidence that the science itself really was never biased one way or the other.
I too am grateful that I have received God’s grace. But as a scientist, I am also grateful that I didn’t have to deny the evidence in His creation in order to receive it.
March 23, 2010 at 4:59 am
David Housholder
Please check out this wealth of thought on the topic:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
An evangelical looks at evolution
March 25, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Louis H.
I am more concerned about where I am going then where I have been. Everlasting life is not to be taken lightly.
March 26, 2010 at 12:10 am
Bcouz
I believe you have one mistake in your writing. Darwin was not the main man of human evolution, but of evolution itself. Darwin studied finches at the Galapagos islands, you can actually research the topic, they were called “Darwin’s finches”. Please be more careful.
March 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Phil Wala
In the latest edition of Enrichment Journal, the magazine for Assemblies of God pastors, there are two articles addressing faith and science issues.
An article on Pentecostal views of origins (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_origins.cfm) lists evolutionary creationism as one of the views that is coherent with Assemblies of God theology, while another article on science and belief (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/201002_122_scientif_prove.cfm) explains why evolution does not remove the need for a Creator.
While this is apparently how science has been taught in Assemblies of God colleges for some time, I am hoping that the publication of these articles in a pastors’ journal indicates a recognition that the time has come for such openness to dialogue to move beyond the colleges, and into the pulpits and pews.
March 31, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Louis H.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
May 4, 2010 at 2:29 am
Kent Schneider
My name is John, I was brought up in the Catholic church and spent 2 years as a devout “Born Again” Christian. I now have a much broader view of the Divine but let me address your well spoken site.
I am with you in spirit, and a believer in an organizing power, but I am not sure that his name is Jehovah (the original Hebrew intended the name of God to be unpronounceable) and of the doctrine of the “Trinity”, but more to the point, think that the bible must be taken metaphorically very often.
The “tower of Babble, “ (Linguistics and archeological records of ancient languages pre-dating the early Jewish culture themselves and the Babel myth)
The re-origins of man starting (at aprox. 3000 BC) with Noah and his presumably Semitic, homogenous kin (check out modern DNA research, the same science that challenges the Mormon premises of the origins of N Am “Indians.”
And, just to name another scriptural error, from our perspective (assuming past and present and gains in knowledge mean anything) the earth-centric statements of early scripture written as men saw reality at the time, but now seen as early mans attempt to state the obvious (that the sun rotates around the earth) in the same context as their “equally true” statements about Revelation.
While I believe the above to be just a few points that indicate that Believers must amend their beliefs (which of course I do not expect from an Assembly of God believer like yourself, or one of my dear Mormon acquaintances) I think that books liked Darwin On Trial (Philip Johnson) must be taken by evolutionists as a challenge to alter their paradigm as well. This is not likely to happen as well as the above example of how our minds work as humans. Once we are conditioned into a belief system, we adhere to it as True Believers( Eric Hoffer another excellent book) to a point wher we will allow NO evidence not matter how convincing to sway us.
It seems true that evolutionary naturalists are a group like the above, ultimately embracing (or being embraced by it?) as a philosophical belief as dearly held as the early Catholic assumptions that the Bible must be true in its Geo-centric views until the works of Copernicus and Gallileo’s hammers of scientific reason caused it to crumble.
Agree with you that in the future (that never comes? Not to mock, I see much truth in the Eastern points of view that All is One – my favorite book along the lines of Quantum Physics confirming ancient, “mystical “ Eastern thought is found in the tome The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra)the scientific community will look as silly as the Pope as he sentenced Galileo to house arrest for heresy.
In the meantime, we must all be honest with our perception, both material and spiritual, or is not reality a perfect organic harmony of both at once?
May 11, 2010 at 2:13 am
Tom H
It’s been a few months since I’ve been on here. I’m getting the sense that we’re still talking in circles.
To the scientifically oriented among us: is it not possible that someone with a strong grasp of logic and critical thinking, can legitimately raise logical and reasonable (as in “Reason” – thinking) concerns about evolution — even if that person does not have a strong grasp of biology?
This is the crux of my concern. I have read repeated insistences from the scientifically oriented, that folks like House (and me) have no basis from which to critique Evolution, since we are not trained biologists.
I still beg to differ. Any theoretical paradigm like Evolution rests upon:
1. Underlying assumptions or presuppositions
2. A logical Framework
3. Specific Facts
While I do know some specific facts in biology, it is true that the facts here are not my area of expertise.
However, I humbly claim a certain ability with logical frameworks — indeed I think many non-scientists can claim that. I also reserve the right to challenge the underlying presuppositions.
Also, in a friendly, and humble way, I want to suggest that some folks may not have framed the historical debates between church and science in a very accurate manner. Heliocentricism was not actually a very big deal theologically (it was mostly a political issue) and Flat-earth was never really a big deal either.
Once again, I think it is legitimate for non-scientists to speak intelligently to the logical and presuppositional aspects of the Theory of Evolution. And in fact, my own reservations about Evolution stem from those areas, rather than from any perceived conflict with the Bible.
May 12, 2010 at 3:51 am
Phil Wala
I like the idea of addressing the presuppositions. Of course, that may require us to face our presuppositions about those presuppositions.
Many of us who are Christians have always assumed that evolution was a theory arrived at by scientists who presupposed that there is no God. However, that didn’t square with surveys claiming that two-thirds of degreed scientists, including evolutionary biologists, DO believe in God, with as many as 40% defining that as a personal, prayer-answering God.
Apparently, in contrast to what we’ve assumed, biologists are just as likely to presuppose the existence of God as they are to presuppose the non-existence of God. Yet 99.85% of them come to the same conclusion regarding evidence for evolution. Which tells me that the scientific conclusion may not be as heavily influenced by presuppositions as we thought it was.
May 11, 2010 at 5:16 am
Tom H
Phil,
I just read your “updated Maimonides” illustration. I would observe a few things, and ask a few questions:
Observation 1: In your greatly expanded analogy, it is obvious that some conscious force – external to the paintings – is at work. Some paintings are discarded – why? Who discards them? Some are reproduced prolifically. Same question. Without this external force, your analogy is meaningless and impossible. Now I realize that a biologist would probably say this force is “natural selection.” But if the entire process is random, why should natural selection be nonrandom? Yet clearly, “natural selection” is not random. Your analogy makes it look like Intelligent Design.
Observation 2. The addition of the extra paintings (to represent the actual findings of biology) seem to make the story even more unlikely than Maimonides’ one-canvas illustration. In other words, the overall effect is to make the absence of Intelligent design even more ridiculous looking. We might just barely imagine the remote possibility of one incredibly lucky spill resulting in a Monet. But billions of canvases with billions of little changes, many discarded, others improved upon, the same pigments and materials used in each – that sounds exactly like the Studio of a Cosmic Artist.
That billions of paintings, sharing common pigments etc would even exist without an Artist, is silly. That they would develop into a Monet without the touch of an Artist seems far less likely than the one single massively lucky spill (which of course, is ridiculously unlikely itself).
Question: in your illustration you made it sound like mutations happen quite regularly “collisions with paint cans, do in fact seem to happen quite frequently…” Any idea just how often random mutations take place? Any additional idea how often a random mutation turns out to be beneficial? I mean actual observational data – not extrapolations backwards through time, which would simply serve as a circular argument. Also, it is my understanding that some organism are more susceptible to mutation than others. Any ideas on how that works?
I don’t know the answers to that, but I suspect that random beneficial mutation does not happen, on average, often enough to account for the progression of life in a mere few billion years.
May 12, 2010 at 3:54 am
Phil Wala
Tom H, Your question about the mutation rate was an interesting one. I’m not a biologist, but from what I’ve read, there is quite a range of estimates, depending on the criteria being used. Of course, mutations occur quite frequently at a cellular level (leading to cancer, or simple aging, for example), but I assume that here we are only concerned with mutations that are passed on to the next generation, via the sperm or egg.
I agree with the need for observational data. One such study looked at the mutation responsible for retinoblastoma, a rare childhood cancer. Until recently, this was always fatal in childhood (before victims were old enough to reproduce), so each occurrence could be attributed to a new mutation. This particular anomaly was found to occur at a rate of about one mutation per 10,000 genes per generation. With 30,000 genes, this means that each person would have, in their genome, an average of three mutations. (I’ve seen other estimates pointing to 100-200 mutations per individual, but I assume this includes the 90% or so that occur in unused portions of the DNA. Maybe someone with a biology background could chime in here.)
As to beneficial mutations, I don’t know what the rate is, but I can only guess they are exceedingly rare, or primarily occur as a result of a specific sequence of individually neutral mutations. But with three mutations for every child born (three new spots of paint on every reproduced painting?), the statistical space gets quite large. I expect we’ll learn much more in coming years from our recently developed genome mapping capabilities. It will be interesting to find out if the rate of beneficial mutations matches what would be expected from a purely random mutation space, or if the statistics point toward the necessity of an external hand guiding the process.
Now if I accept the rate of three mutations per individual, my first thought is “why isn’t the world populated by mutant freaks?” (Insert your own punch line here.) I’m guessing it has to do not only with a large percentage of mutations being neutral, but also with the redundancy and self-repair capability of DNA.
And when you start looking at how self-repairing DNA works, I’m right with you in marveling at what looks like evidence of design. I think we underestimate God, however, when we stop at whatever our current level of knowledge is, and say “this is where the design takes place”. When we do that, aren’t we in effect saying, as we peel back the layers of creation, that God is just one layer smarter than we are?
I, for one, am not surprised or disappointed when a scientific discovery presents an explanation for something we once assumed was a “miraculous design”. Why? Because such discoveries invariably lead to uncovering another layer which shows that the design is buried more deeply than we had imagined.
Yes, I see the hand of an Intelligent Designer in all of creation. For me, study of science only enhances that. I see the hand of the Artist when I look at the final result.
When I study the mechanisms by which life developed (the process by which “paintings” are modified, replicated, and chosen), I marvel at the incomprehensible genius of a process that is so relentlessly driven towards its ultimate purpose, but with the built-in variability needed to ensure a creation with free will, independent of its Creator.
When I look at the structure of DNA needed to make that process work, I marvel at seeing the signature of the Artist in the assembly manual recorded in every living cell.
So, do I believe in “intelligent design”? Absolutely. To those who are willing to open their eyes to it, the Artist’s hand can be seen in every property of chemistry, in every law of physics, in the initial conditions of the universe at the moment of creation – maybe even a universe of universes, or even something even more incomprehensible. And the deeper we look, the more amazing and incomprehensibly powerful He becomes in our eyes.
But to say that our current state of scientific knowledge defines the depth at which the design occurred, or that we’ll ever reach a point at which we’ll be able to offer scientific proof of design, greatly overestimates the capabilities of science and greatly underestimates the magnitude of God.
May 12, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Pastor Tom
Phil,
I understand that many biologists believe in God and perhaps 40% of them have faith just like you and I do. These same scientists subscribe to the theory of Evolution.
However, I’m not sure that these 40-66% necessarily use God as part of their paradigm in understanding their work as biologists. I think it is fairly evident that Intelligent Design is ruled out as a working hypothesis within biology as a whole.
Even Francis Collins, who is an Evangelical Christian, takes an almost Deistic view, suggestion that God set things in motion, let it go however it would, and then at a certain point, put His Spirit in human beings. He explicitly repudiates Intelligent Design in the Development of life.
In some ways, it is easy to understand why. If we simply say “God did it” then there is nothing more to study. I have two thoughts about this, however.
First, imagine a crime where the Butler did it. However, the Police find that they don’t discover very much about the crime by pursuing the Butler as a suspect. So, early on, the rule out the Butler. Now, by imagining it is someone else, they discover more and more facts at the crime scene. They build their case on an alternative paradigm. It looks very convincing. But however many facts they accumulate, they will never arrest the correct suspect, because they’ve already ruled him out.
Although many folks believe in both God and Evolution, the paradigm of Evolution has ruled out God as a working hypothesis. In other words, God will *never* be the answer to question posed in the framework of Evolution. He can’t be. The paradigm excludes him.
The closest a biologist can come to including God is to say, “look at how God planned all this” or “the amazing complexity of life is reflection of God.” However, even that is usually heaped with derision, and even Francis Collins cannot bring himself to say things like that in print. He views the development of DNA as entirely random.
Second, Evolution has been the dominant paradigm in biology for roughly 150 years. If a scientist were to bring God into the paradigm, the career of that scientist would be over. In other words, Evolution as a theoretical model does not suffer competition. There is no money and no professional future, in any other paradigm.
Now all this leads to ONE of my questions about pre-suppositions (there are others, and in many ways, this is the weakest, but it addressed Phil’s comment on believing scientists):
We believe God was behind it all. Evolution — as a working theory — is atheistic. If scientists start out to find the truth by excluding the idea that God is active in creation, as many factual details as they might discover, how can they possibly arrive at a comprehensively truthful understanding of biological life?
Again we are saying “for the purposes of investigating more deeply, we are not going admit that the Butler even exists.” So you might discover more facts at the crime scenes, or about the people involved. But you’ll never get at the heart of the crime, and your view of it will always be fundamentally flawed.
May 28, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Phil Wala
It’s taken a while for me to get back to this, and there are a lot of points to address here, but let me focus on the biggie – the one comment that I think exposes the fundamental misunderstanding behind all of the debates. Although I’m continually baffled by this line of thinking, I really shouldn’t be, since just a few years ago, I thought the same thing. Maybe if we can address this issue, we can make tremendous progress towards a consensus. The issue is this:
After acknowledging that nearly half of scientists, including evolutionary biologists, believe in a personal, prayer-answering God, and that the half who presuppose such a God, and the half who don’t, come to exactly the same conclusion on the science, you still say, “Evolution – as a working theory – is atheistic.”
I suggest that you, and perhaps a large proportion of those engaging in these discussions, are conflating the concepts of “evolution” and “philosophical naturalism”. And therein lies the crux of the misunderstanding.
If you have a copy of Tim Keller’s “Reason for God”, read Chapter 6. If you don’t have a copy, get one (http://www.thereasonforgod.com). The entire book is good, but his contrast between evolution as a process, and philosophical naturalism as a worldview, is one of the most well-written and concise treatments I’ve seen. Keller points out what now seems obvious to me, but was an epiphany when I first comprehended it: that accepting evolution as a process does NOT automatically require accepting philosophical naturalism as a worldview.
Maybe half or so of scientists are philosophical naturalists, seeing nothing but purposeless randomness in the process of evolution. The other half believe in a personal, prayer-answering God whose character and purpose are marvelously displayed within that same process. Drastically contrasting worldviews, yet they agree on the science describing the process. Stated another way, those who accept evolution as a process seem about equally as likely to accept a theistic worldview as an atheistic one. If we’re able to look at this dispassionately (admittedly hard to do), it sure seems as if the assumed correlation between evolution and atheism is nonexistent.
I wonder how many of our arguments would go away if we all realized that the scientific theory of evolution and the atheistic view of philosophical naturalism are NOT as inextricably intertwined as we assumed. Perhaps we’d realize that most of our arguments against evolution should really have been framed as arguments against philosophical naturalism. And when we do that, maybe the debate over evolution itself would become a non-issue.
May 14, 2010 at 2:35 am
Pastor Tom
Sorry I’m writing so much lately. Thinking and writing about this subject is a good outlet for me to relieve stress (that makes me a total, geek, I know).
Another presupposition. In Evolution, the process of the development of life is presupposed to be random. This creates two large problems.
The first is the issue of probability. The story of Evolution is one in which – completely by a series of accidents, with no guidance at all – simple, single celled organisms developed into the vast complex interwoven varieties of bacteria, fungi, insects, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, trees, flowers, corals, mammals and human beings – to name a few. This must be accomplished in 2 to 3.5 billion years. To achieve this are two mechanisms – the first is natural selection, which simply means that those genes which are most fit to survive, do typically survive, while those genes which are unfit, do not get passed on. The second is mutation, which sometimes occurs, and very rarely and unreliably adds something beneficial to the gene pool of a particular species.
The problem is, there is simply not enough time for natural selection and random mutation to create the kinds of life we have on planet earth. By the mathematical rules of probability, we could not have got here yet. Biologist Richard Dawkins’ response to this is, “well obviously, we did.” The argument is basically that the world was tremendously lucky in the frequency and usefulness of mutations.
The second problem is more complex. Simplified, it goes like this: If all of life is a result of random chance, then our thinking is a result of that random chance. But logic and rational thought cannot be random. Therefore, we have two alternatives:
1.Our thinking cannot be logical or rational. If this is the case, then our thoughts about evolution are merely the products of a long random process, and have no necessary connection to reality.
2.The development of life was not random.
Am I missing anything here?
May 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Phil Wala
Of course you’re missing something. But so am I. It’s called omniscience. 🙂
But seriously — with regard to the issue of randomness, your last paragraph seems to imply an “all or nothing” assumption. Either life is completely random (the “philosophical naturalism” assumption), or randomness must be completely rejected.
As I stated in one of my first comments on this thread, I believe that creation seems driven towards a purpose which rules out complete randomness, but that some amount of randomness is necessary in a creation over which God has relinquished a certain level of control (i.e. conferring free will).
I’ve written a new post for my “Faith for Thinkers” blog that explores this issue in greater depth: http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2010/05/random-thoughts.html
May 25, 2010 at 7:06 am
Saint Rodney
OK. So I have now read every entry of this blog, & my brain is applesauce.
Pardon me if I ask for a halftime recap. It sounds like meny of you are still clarifying, &/or forming your opinions.
Soo if I may ask. How do you think everything came into be? I mean from complete nothingness to life as we know it. As I see it there are no boundaries to what might be. In some descussions there is how, and others why. Please go deep and be detailed.
Sorry for the break in this deep voyage of exploration, just having trouble sorting through all this new found data to form an opinion.
May 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Phil Wala
It’s only halftime? I thought we were in overtime! 🙂
May 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Pastor Tom
Phil,
I am loving this discussion. Thanks for getting back to it. I appreciate you and your comments. I think I understand where you are coming from. You are saying that for about half of working scientists, true faith in God does not preclude belief in evolution; at the same time, belief in evolution does not preclude true faith. I get this. I hear what you are saying.
I agree with you that belief in Evolution does not equal atheism; also that true faith does not demand that we reject evolution.
Your conclusion from all this, if I understand correctly, is that the theory of evolution is basically “God-neutral.”
I have some logical trouble with that conclusion. First, roughly 95% of the general population of the entire world believes in a Supreme Being. Roughly 50% of all scientists believe in a Supreme Being. In other words, a scientist is only half as likely to believe in God as anyone else. The 45% gap suggests that perhaps the scientific community has a culture that is not God-neutral at all. *But this is not my main point* I’m simply pointing out that your logic about science being God-neutral has some flaws. I’ll do another post for my main point.
May 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Phil Wala
Yes, you have restated my position well.
I agree that scientists are statistically somewhat less likely to believe in God than the general population, but I don’t think the difference is a great as you state. There’s a problem with comparing statistics that come from different studies, because they get wildly different results depending on how the question is asked. Tim Keller specifically addresses this issue in Chapter 6 of “Reason for God”.
40% is the most conservative number because it reflects response to a study that specifically focused on belief in “a personal God who actively interacts with humanity in response to prayer”. In other words, those that answered “no” (another 40%) or “I don’t know” (20%) would include many with a non-Christian or deistic belief in God.
In another survey that asked the question more generically, about two-thirds of scientists professed belief in God. The comparisons I’ve seen put the number at about 85% when a similarly stated question is asked of the general public.
67% vs. 85% is still a discrepancy, but I don’t think it’s as great as the 50% vs. 95% numbers you are using.
Even if there is a discrepancy, you haven’t established a cause and effect relationship. Does a correlation mean that science causes unbelief, or did the unbelieving worldview come first, followed by an attraction to science in search of answers?
And for the cases in which study of science preceded a departure from faith, was it necessarily the science itself that pushed them away? Or was it the preponderance of loud “evangelical” voices proclaiming incompatibility of science and faith that pressured them to mistakenly believe they had to make a choice?
May 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm
David Housholder
BIOCENTRISM
What do you all make of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)
Kind of turns everything on its head.
What are your thoughts?
June 2, 2010 at 7:18 am
Tom H
While I agree there is no necessary correlation between evolution and atheism, I do not think it has been demonstrated here that Evolution as a theory is theologically neutral. To do that, someone would have to show where and how that theory – *within its own parameters* (not merely individual scientists) – allows for the possibility of design, and in fact, a Supreme Being.
Physics actually does do that. Physicists have been searching for a “Grand Unified Theory” for many years now. While many do not favor the idea of God, it is at least acknowledged by some that God could be the foundational explanation.
I do not see this same kind of openness within biology. Even Francis Collins, in “Language of God” openly rejects the active work of God in development of life. Collins takes a form of the Deistic view that God set things in motion originally, and then sat back and allowed things to develop in a completely random fashion. After a while, maintains Collins, God did something spiritual (but not physical) with one of species that had developed, and viola, we have human beings.
Phil mentioned that a certain amount of randomness is required in a universe where created beings have free will – but that presupposes both Creation and Spiritual reality. Collins’ theory would not allow for free will (which is dependent upon real spiritual existence) until AFTER evolution was basically up to the point it is today. He at least, is not talking about randomness that is the result of beings choosing their own way. In fact, it seems to me that has bought into Evolution even at a few points where it does conflict with faith; certainly Genesis 1-2 describe God as actively involved in bringing forth not only life, but the also the diversity of creatures on earth.
My overall point is this: I get what Phil is saying and I too have a distaste for unnecessary battles which hinder people from coming to know Jesus. But there is a continuum, here and I’m afraid we are all still sitting on either one end or the other. On the one hand, we might sit with Collins and say “God’s action was purely spiritual, and he had no discernible role in the physical.” Or we might sit at the other end and say, “God made the world in 144 hours, end of discussion.”
I stand with Phil in reference to the latter position. I think sound Biblical interpretation gives us more room than that. On the other hand, I continue to have a distrust of a scientific discipline that admits no alternatives and virulently attacks questioners; that produces atheist activists but does not produce people who are willing to admit – *on the basis of the science* – the possibility of God as the Designer. (Please read this carefully: of course there many Christian biologists, but they do not write books about how biology convinces them of the reality of God – Collins’ book was quite the opposite) Again, I see a stark contrast here between biology on the one hand, and astrophysics and cosmology on the other.
June 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Phil Wala
I hadn’t addressed this earlier, but you (Tom H) keep bringing it up, so I feel I need to. It has to do with your use of the term “Deism”. Perhaps we are defining the word differently, but I’m having a hard time justifying your use of that term in this context.
As I understand it, Deism describes a god who created the universe, but then never again interacts with his creation; he forever maintains his distance. To take a term that makes such fundamental assumptions about a distant god, and apply it when someone suggests that there may be one particular process in which God doesn’t need to (or choose to) intervene, seems to be a misuse of the term. It’s like calling me a vegetarian because you once saw me eat a carrot stick.
Let me illustrate by asking you this question: do you believe that the basic laws of physics (gravity, momentum, etc.) are sufficient to keep the planets in motion, or do you think God has to step in every once in a while to make adjustments to keep the planets on course? (This is not a frivolous question. When Isaac Newton used gravity to explain planetary orbits, he was accused of using gravity “to replace the hand of God.” Newton himself proposed the need for divine adjustments to correct for interaction between the planets, before it was discovered that those interactions were already in a state of equilibrium.) If you believe the laws of motion and gravity operate satisfactorily without the need for frequent intervention and adjustment, then wouldn’t that also be a Deistic belief in a God who “set the planets in motion”? Is a God who “set the planets in motion” any different from a God who “set biology in motion”?
Personally, I don’t know whether God may have interacted with the evolutionary process frequently (Behe) or never (Collins). I just know that for me, the “never” answer would speak more highly of God, because it describes a process so superbly crafted that corrections weren’t necessary. It may be my engineer mentality showing through, but to see the designer’s hand only in the perturbations, and not in the process itself, is like looking at a complex piece of machinery and saying, “this machine obviously had no designer, because I never see him coming around to poke at it to keep it running”.
The interesting thing about the process, though, is that even if the biological process itself ran flawlessly without the need for divine interaction, the purposeful end of that process was a flawed human race that desperately needs that interaction. With a Deistic god, we’d be out of luck. Instead, we have a God who designed us to need Him, and stands by longing to be involved in our lives (but often restraining Himself until we acknowledge our need).
One more point. I can understand how you’d be uncomfortable with a process that you describe as “allowing things to develop in a completely random fashion.” This reflects the common misconception: that anything that includes a random element is somehow unstructured, poorly designed, and purposeless. I suggest you do some research on the subject of “genetic algorithms”. These are computer algorithms which were designed to mimic evolutionary processes, “randomly” trying multiple solutions, and using the strongest candidates from a population to “breed” successive generations of solutions until the desired level of optimization is achieved. These algorithms are now being used to solve tremendously complex problems for which no known closed-form solution exists, and they were literally modelled after biological evolution. (I’m actually working on a project now that makes use of this. A complex circuit which previously required each unit to be individually hand-tweaked, now automatically self-optimizes with the use of genetic algorithms.) Far from being a sub-optimum, chaotic process, it seems that genetic algorithms are a highly advanced method of solving previously unsolvable problems. Is it any surprise to recognize this, and then be able to say, “God thought of it first”?
June 2, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Tom H
Phil, your last post is replete with design imagery: “a process so superbly crafted that corrections weren’t necessary;” “ This reflects the common misconception: that anything that includes a random element is somehow unstructured, poorly designed, and purposeless;” Even your illustration of genetic algorithms is an illustration not of something ultimately random, but of something purposefully designed by humans. To assert that it is taken from evolution, and evolution is random, would be to beg the question.
Now, I know that you believe, as do I, in a God who did in fact, design creation. My point is, professional biologists who try to go there – in their professional capacity – are attacked by their peers (Behe has been subjected to vicious attack, and even Collins argues against ID in the Behe sense). In addition non-professionals (at least in science) who raise the issue are told, as has been mentioned before, that we know nothing, and our questions of logic are largely ignored.
For the record, I have no problem with random elements. However, my understanding of the theory of evolution (which may be flawed at this point, as well as many others) is that it is approached as completely random process from beginning to end. My understanding is that ID is not generally accepted at this point, nor is it likely to be.
Maybe what I’m trying to say that as I understand the logical framework of evolution, your own view would not be acceptable in biology, unless you could subscribe to the statement: “There is no evidence, *from biology*, that God was involved in the development of life.”
From beyond biology, I have concluded that the most logical and cohesive way to understand the world includes the foundational fact of a supreme being. It seems unlikely to me, if there is a supreme being, that there would be no evidence of it within an accurate framework for understanding the development of life. But even Christian evolutionists, such as Collins, argue that such is the case. With Householder, I remain unconvinced.
June 15, 2010 at 8:46 am
David Housholder
CAUTION. Filthy language, but profound video on Creation which has gone viral. Way viral.
Insane Clown Posse and /Miracles/
“****ing magnets, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all moth******rs lying, and getting me pissed”
Once again, the lyrics are trailer trash, and I am in no way supportive of that, but there’s something to it and bazillions of people are downloading it. Why would that be?
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
More proof that it’s not just those “brainwashed” church people (like me) that don’t buy a mechanistic de-natured universe.
June 28, 2010 at 4:16 am
David Housholder
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT
Quantum mechanics plays no role in “wet” science? Think again.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25375/
June 28, 2010 at 4:57 am
Phil Wala
Interesting article. I’m just finishing up Lanza’s book on Biocentrism which also has some very interesting discussions of quantum effects as they relate to consciousness.
Here’s another relevant article from one of my most trusted sources, the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/eons-of-darwinian-evolution-somehow-produce-mitch,17635/
June 28, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Anna Madorsky
A good scientist should not care what the truth looks like (God or no God, design or no design); the dedication should be to the process of empirically finding that truth. Empirically finding the truth is not about intuition or faith or belief. That would create prejudice and compromise the science.
Physics and chemistry are more mathematical. It makes sense that Newton happened first. It’s an easier phenomena to measure and observe and reproduce.
But things that are on a larger scale than an apple falling from a tree (for example, population biology, weather phenomena on a global scale, climate change, neuroscience, quantum physics), these things are so much harder to interpret correctly and study. If I wanted to study a mold, I put in a petri dish and see what happens..I can test my hypothesis. But we can’t recreate a planet in a petri dish and change certain factors to look at the nature of CO2 and global warming, we can’t stick a species in a petri dish and see how mutations create evolution. These things are too big. And yes, this does create big difficulties for the necessary rigors of science. The one thing I caution a scientist against: jumping the gun because of frustration in the process of finding answers. It’s a process that requires patience, humbleness, and an infinite curiosity for the truth. Some answers we may not have for a long time or ever, because of the limitations of the measuring capabilities we have.
The question of inerrancy in the Bible vs. the role or non-role of a God in scientifically observed phenomena are two different things, and I don’t think they should be confused.
July 14, 2010 at 4:58 am
David Housholder
What if we need to rethink the way we are doing science altogether, whether or not people read the Bible? http://quantumactivist.com/
June 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Jolene Kraft
If you think for even 1 minute that we “simply evolved”, then talk to someone who has visited @ death’s door. No, it is NOT just a bright light from unconsciousness… sooo much more than that. Evolution cannot create the supernatural Godly powers that come into play @ these times in a life. Ask someone who has been resuscitated; you will find the great majority that have turned to God after the journey through the valley of death.
On another note, 12 yrs. ago a student nominated for a Rhodes Scholarship in physics told me that the “avenues” of investigation run out after time; they can go no further on certain physics subjects without new directions.To produce new avenues and more material, guess where they go? The Bible for clues! Hope college receives many prestigious grants for research in nuclear physics. Yes, they are a Christian college but that doesn’t stop them from cutting edge research which is Bible-linked.
We will only learn as much as we are allowed to learn with our limited powers. God is in control & always will be.
July 14, 2010 at 4:57 am
David Housholder
What if we’ve been doing science wrong all along? http://quantumactivist.com/
August 4, 2010 at 2:11 pm
David F
Hous,
It’s not that we’re doing science “wrong”, it’s the world view we take into the science. If we go with the world view of gooo to you then we will unquestionably come up with “scientific facts” that back up and help the cause of evolution. If we take the Biblical view of things into a science then we are more likely to find evidence for a creator and or intelligent design.
The secular scientist does NOT want to find evidence for a creator because he then must admit to a higher authority than man. If there is a god then we are responsible for what we have done with our time here on earth, if there is no god then it’s all about the here and now and to heck with tomorrow.
Once again I go back to my primary question for all who read this blog or whatever you may call this site……Do you believe in Jesus Christ and that he created everything? Including time and space? Or do you choose to believe man who is messed up big time? Man, who by definition chooses to do wrong.
I made my choice a long time a go.
August 7, 2010 at 1:45 pm
David Housholder
Miller Lecture on Evolution and Design: http://fora.tv/2008/08/18/Kenneth_Miller_on_Evolution_and_Intelligent_Design What are your thoughts?
August 7, 2010 at 1:47 pm
David Housholder
Five other good videos along with this one. Have a browse…. Still haven’t found a single one who things straight (each has hiccups in his argument), but I learn from each one.
August 7, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Phil Wala
I watched the Ken Miller video. Nothing much that was new to me; it echoed a lot of material that was discussed at an Evolution and Intelligent Design seminar I attended at Wartburg College several years ago.
Miller did a fairly decent job of addressing the historical and cultural aspects of the debate, but as a Catholic, he isn’t always the best at relating to the evangelical community. A much better treatment of the topic from an evangelical perspective can be found in “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” by Wheaton professor Mark Noll. Noll does a very thorough job of tracing the roots of the current “evangelical” world view on issues such as politics, economics, and science; not surprisingly, much of what is considered “evangelical thought” has closer ties to American history and culture than to the Bible.
Back to the Miller talk – I guess what I did appreciate was his ability to differentiate between the existence of design in nature (pt 12 of the video) and the weak foundation of the popular “Intelligent Design” movement that tries to prove such design (pt 11). ID’s rebranded creationism or “God of the gaps” arguments garner popular appeal, but are scientifically weak.
I believe, along with Miller, that evidence for God should never have to depend on denying scientific evidence. For example, he describes how scientists can now look at the design of the human genome and trace its origin as a perhaps inevitable eventual result of the basic laws of physics and chemistry. Instead of looking for ways to refute the science (inevitably a losing battle), doesn’t it make more sense to simply accept the evidence and ask why (as Paul Davies puts it) the laws of physics are such that the universe “seemed to know we were coming”? Is a universe impregnated with the seeds of life from the moment of its creation any less evidence for God?
Anyway, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, there is no way I could ever have time to watch or listen to all the good information that is available on this topic. Veritas Forum, Faraday Institute, and Biologos, all have good audio and video resources online. In fact, for those who don’t have the inclination to sit through hour-long lectures, I’d recommend an excellent selection of much shorter video clips at http://biologos.org/resources/conversations/
August 7, 2010 at 8:58 pm
David Housholder
Phil, always appreciate your take on things. Saves me a tone of research!
August 8, 2010 at 5:33 am
Jason kramme
Here are just a couple thoughts:
1. I think the main issue here is one of epistemology. Specifically, ihear you battling between positivism on the one hand and phenominalism on the other. Hard and fast enlightenment thinkers will tend towards positivism which is a sort of naive and arrogant (in some cases) form of objectivism. You can spot this view all over the place in the new atheists. The second view, phenominalism, will beheld be your staunch post moderns. They will say that we cant know anything because it is all embedded in story and context\culture. There you will find rorty, derrida, and foucalt. At the end of the day, neither view is any good for this discussion, or working with the bible at all. I would advocate for a move towards critical realism. N.t wright lays it out really well.
2. The second point i want to make is that most christians read the bible within these two frameworks. Some people are mining it for facts while others are just looking at themselves in the text. We need to do more work at becoming aware of ourselves.
3. The spiritual and physical split needs to go. That is 100% a product of the enlightenment.
August 8, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Phil Wala
Jason,
Not being fluent in the language of epistemology, I was forced to do a little more research. I found this article to be a helpful summary of N.T. Wright’s application of critical realism to biblical interpretation: http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_117_2_Stewart.pdf . In addition, the link I posted earlier (http://biologos.org/resources/conversations/) has a few short segments featuring N.T. Wright.
Accepting God as a knowable reality, yet continually reevaluating our own interpretation of that reality, seems to be what Christian maturity is all about. If that makes me a critical realist, then I’ll gladly adopt that label. Thanks for your comments.
August 8, 2010 at 8:21 am
Ryan M
I was up almost all night reading these comments. While much of it is admittedly over my head, I don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand how a candle works. With that said, I’ll add my two cents.
First of all, I didn’t come to the evolution debate with a dogmatic opinion on God, evolution or science. I was raised Catholic and, after a few tragedies in my family, I completely fell away from God and religion. I began to question everything. I wondered how a perfect God could let people suffer. I questioned all of the apparent randomness in the world. My job involves a lot of engineering so I tend to take a very logical and analytical approach to things (to my wife’s annoyance) so I cleared my mind and started from zero. I needed to find out if there was a God because religion had failed me. I figured that the best place to start was with the question “where did we come from?” because, if we did evolve from some cosmic soup, I could just stop there. But if there is a creator, I need to be sure I was following the correct one. Again, because of my engineering background, I began to look closely at evolution. If anything, I was expecting to find the answer there because 1) It was taught to me as fact in high school and college so I assumed it was true and 2) I was looking for an excuse to not believe in God because if everything is random I could just let loose and have fun.
After months of studying everything from most of the sources listed in the comments above along with many, many books on the subject, I came away with more questions than answers but two things were certain. First, Darwin said himself that the lack of transitional fossils was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”. He was right. The fossil record was minuscule then but he had assumed that over time, many would be found. 150+ years later, have any been found? No. If there are no transitional fossils among the gazillions that have been found then we can stop the discussion right there. Second (and of much more importance), the universe is more highly fine-tuned than our minds can even imagine from the smallest subatomic particle to the organization of our solar system. I’ve come to the conclusion that it takes more faith to believe that all of the order in the universe comes from chance than from a designer. From there, I studied more and more and found all of the “mistakes” (or lies) that helped the theory gain credibility over time from gluing peppered moths on trees to Lucy (still in many textbooks by the way). Why would “science” need to cook the books if the theory was true? The more I study evolution, the more I laugh at the lengths “scientists” will go to to put their discoveries into the evolutionary puzzle rather than marveling at the incredible design and order in our universe.
“Who that designer is” is for another debate
August 9, 2010 at 2:29 am
David Housholder
Ryan, the books are indeed, as you say, totally cooked. And the double blind standards of science are turned on their head. Much of it is pure extrapolated conjecture based on epistemological hiccups and bias.
August 9, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Phil Wala
David,
Just a word of caution: unless you’re trying to establish rapport with the “valley girl” demographic, you really need to be careful about using words like “totally”. I don’t think you want to establish a standard which allows the citation of a few anecdotal examples as justification for discrediting an entire field of endeavor, unless you also want to allow a mistake or two you may have made throughout the course of your ministry career (OK, I could be making an unfounded assumption here) as grounds for discrediting all of Christianity.
If you want to support your charge that the books are “totally cooked”, you can’t just cite a few outdated examples (peppered moths, etc.), but ignore the vast body of accepted evidence, especially the genetic evidence uncovered in the last few years. How, for example, do you think the researchers working on the human genome project (of which Francis Collins estimates 40% were believers) were able to “cook the books” so that all their independent observations coalesced into an incredibly detailed (3.1 billion base pair long) record in which partially overwritten DNA fragments lined up perfectly (in both pattern and precise location within that 3.1 billion long sequence) with the fingerprints of genetic ancestors predicted by evolutionary theory?
Genome mapping DOES, in fact, provide the opportunity to make predictions about which fingerprints you would expect to find, independently analyze the genome, and then compare the results in a double blind fashion. When that is done, the statistical correlation of predicted and observed sequences involves numbers that are staggering. (A more thorough discussion of the genetic evidence can be found in the Falk book I gave you, and which I hope you have had a chance to read by now.)
If the books are “totally cooked”, then all those researchers (believers and non-believers alike) somehow conspired to “cook their books” to make all 3.1 billion data points line up exactly the way they wanted them to. Good luck proving that. Even a few of the most ardent young-earth creationists have conceded the apparent validity of the genetic evidence, but ascribe it to satanic deception, divine test, or some other mysterious divine purpose.
Maybe you’re right, and it really is a conspiracy or deception. But what I think I know about the nature of God invariably leads me to a third conclusion: that perhaps the evidence really is just what it seems to be, that God programmed the seeds of life into the very laws of physics and chemistry at the moment of creation, and that he then left a written record of the resulting process for us to discover.
August 10, 2010 at 5:55 am
David Housholder
To be fair, I (totally) think that book-cooking is an equal opportunity employer to the 5% lunatic fringes of the argument:
1) The hardline fringe of the young earth people are the most severe and least sophisticated “book cookers.”
2) The activist atheist evolutionists are not far behind. They differ from #1 in that they are better at appearing scientific.
In a complex argument like evolution/creation, book-cooking is especially easy if you have an agenda.
And if it is a “mountain of evidence,” why is a huge percentage of the population (and not all of them stupid by the way) simply not convinced? I’m not. And I’ve seen more of the evidence than 99% of folks.
The difference between Newton and Darwin is that Newton, rather quickly, convinced virtually everyone that he was right. Darwin is in his second century of failure on this count. With postmodernity re-working our epistemology as we speak, his chances of success are dropping faster than GM employee numbers over the past 40 years.
August 12, 2010 at 9:54 am
Phil Wala
“Why is a huge percentage of the population … not convinced?”
Sorry, David, but this is a really lousy argument. Since when is truth determined by democratic vote? A huge percentage of the population isn’t convinced of the truth of the gospel. Doesn’t have one iota of bearing on whether or not it’s true.
It may be related to how poorly the scientific community communicates with the general public, or more likely how loudly the 5% fringes communicate their positions. We can talk about that if you like. But don’t try to claim is has any bearing at all on the fundamental truth or falsity of a position.
By the way, your statement about “Newton” (by which I assume you imply his role in the entire heliocentric revolution) is incorrect. Copernicus’ work on heliocentrism was published in 1543. About 100 years later, when Galileo put forth his confirming evidence, Copernicanism was still being soundly rejected. It wasn’t until about 50 years after Galileo (150 years after Copernicus) that heliocentrism even became generally accepted among astronomers. And it took most of the 18th century (200-250 years after Copernicus) before the general public accepted heliocentrism (see “The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought” by Thomas Kuhn). I don’t know where you got the idea that “Newton rather quickly convinced virtually everyone that he was right”, but you might want to check your sources a little more thoroughly.
The bottom line is, I suspect a rather large majority of the population forms their opinions based on sound-bites (most loudly proclaimed by the 5% fringes) than by a serious investigations of the mathematical probabilities of common retroposon placement.
David, I know you are incredibly smart — which is why I know you can come up with much better arguments than “they’re totally cooking the books” or “why aren’t more people convinced?” (which are really nothing but sound-bites themselves). Let’s have more specifics and fewer generalities. Which specific portions of evolutionary theory do you disagree with? Just the way it’s often conflated with philosophical naturalism? Then we have no difference. Natural selection? Even the Creation Museum agrees with natural selection. Common descent? Then let’s discuss your alternative explanation for the commonality of retroposon placement.
But if you can’t do better than these broad generalities, then maybe you’re the one that needs to re-examine his epistemology 🙂 The retroposon placement discussion (which I assume you read about in the Falk book) might be an interesting place to start.
August 8, 2010 at 8:56 am
Ken
Galileo was a Christian and he clearly expressed his views on the complementary roles of science and religion: “The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” He was very frustrated with the church’s unwillingness to accept the proofs provided by science. In 1614 he complained, “It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment…I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Yet the church’s doctrinal stance was itself immovable. The proposition that the sun was the center of the solar system was unanimously declared “foolish and absurd. Philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.” (How utterly foolish these dogmatic declarations of the 17th church sound to our ears in today’s modern world! – have we learned nothing?!)
There has been conflict between science and religion ever since. Perhaps the most visible and contentious confrontations between science and theology in the last 150 years was centered on Darwin’s theory of origin of species. Darwin was an outstanding and broadly educated Christian scientist, scrupulous and detailed in documenting his observations. In his five year-long voyage around the globe as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-1836), Darwin observed stunning variations in related species wherever he traveled. In his Origin of Species published in 1859, he considered how these variations came to be and proposed that subtle variations and forces in environmental surroundings seemed to influence development of and selection for specific attributes leading to new species. Few realize that Darwin’s closing sentence in this groundbreaking book assigns the origin of life to the Creator and recognizes grandeur, beauty, and wonder in the process of life.
But many viewed Darwin’s thoughts as dangerous: Pastor T. DeWitt Talmage wrote in 1885 that the concept of evolution was “atheistic and absurd” and a “stenchful and damnable doctrine.” Talmage saw acceptance of Christian faith and acceptance of scientific theories of evolution as an either/or proposition. He passionately held to this position because of what he felt evolution implied – that life either arose spontaneously or that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created life.
Still, many others held to a middle view that science and religion were not in conflict, but were, in fact, compatible with one another! Geology professor (and Christian) Joseph Le Conte taught in the latter part of the 19th century that there was “general accordance between the teachings of Scripture and the teachings of Nature.” He acknowledged that “according to traditional interpretation of Scripture, there are many particular passages which seem to be in discordance with the teachings of Nature,” from which is plainly seen an ancient universe, orderly organic and inorganic evolution, and the inherent presence of biological death since the dawn of life. Le Conte pointed out that though the church has, in prior centuries, made adjustments in its biblical interpretations and doctrine in the face of the scientific findings in astronomy [i.e. re: Copernicus and Galileo’s work], the newness of scientific findings in geology presents startling challenges to dogmas “loved and referenced as Divine truth.”
James Cardinal Gibbons insisted in 1889 that science and theology actually existed in the most perfect harmony because God is the author of scientific truth just as He is the author of revealed truth. For Cardinal Gibbons, “No truth of natural science can ever be opposed to any truth of revelation; nor can any truth of the natural order be at variance with any truth of the supernatural order…[both] reason and revelation aid each other in leading us to God.” Presbyterian pastor and Princeton president, James McCosh, wrote in 1890 that “there was nothing atheistic in [Darwin’s theory of evolution] if properly understood.” McCosh found that he could not reject scientific truth simply because some erroneously turned scientific knowledge to irreligious use. John Augustine Zahm, a priest and professor of physics at Notre Dame, argued in 1896 that evolution created no need for anxiety regarding the truths of faith. This was so, he said, because the “theistic evolutionist” holds that all things are “a part of a grand unity betokening an omnipotent Creator” and because biologic evolution does not contravene the Genesis account of derivative creation accepted by the Church Fathers.
Today, as a geologist and evangelical Christian, it is quite clear to me that various points of view and approaches to thinking about evolution and faith are critically dependent on individual presuppositions, definition of terms, scientific education (or lack thereof), and the ability to think critically. For example, many will passionately argue that believing in biologic evolution automatically excludes one from holding to the true Christian faith (like Talmage), because of the presupposition that the theory of evolution explicitly declares there is no god. Actually, evolutionary theory does nothing of the sort, but rather seeks to provide a comprehensive and integrated unifying theory capable of explaining scientifically documentable observations about the constant and ongoing biologic changes that have characterized the Earth’s ecosystem since the origins of life more than 3 billion years ago.
Thus, a fundamentalist/biblical literalist feels they must oppose evolution, for to accept the dangerous heresy means to deny God. On the other hand, the vast majority of unbelieving scientists who hear such uninformed, yet passionate opposition from those claiming to represent Truth must reject faith, for its vocal proponents declare that their True Faith denies the very things the scientists know to be true about their areas of study and expertise regarding the natural world. So, there is a philosophical stalemate between the polemic dogmatists… and faithful Christian scientists like myself are left scratching their heads in the frustrating and under-recognized middle ground and asking themselves “Why can’t anyone see that this is not an ‘either/or’ issue?!”
As in Galileo’s day, the church once again has the opportunity, obligation, and duty to do the hard work of understanding and applying Scripture in light of newly revealed truths. Indeed modern science has revealed stunning, awe-inspiring, and humbling realities about God’s created order. Some 14 billion years ago our universe suddenly and mysteriously erupted into existence through the instantaneous release of unfathomable amounts of energy from a unique “singularity.” The modern science of astronomy has demonstrated that ever since this “Big Bang,” the physical universe has been in a constant state of transformation and change, replete with billions of massive swirling galaxies, the ongoing expansion of matter in all directions, the birth and death of stars, and the creation of planetary bodies orbiting those stars.
And the scientific fields of geology, chemistry, physics, biology, botany, and genetics have demonstrated that the history of the planet Earth has also been characterized by a constant state of transformation and change. This evolving natural history includes the ongoing formation and destruction of tectonic crustal plates that collide and subduct as they “float” about on a dynamic asthenosphere. Science has also revealed a history of transformation and change in the earth’s climate, ranging from the formation of continental sized scorching deserts to numerous ice ages characterized by continental glaciations. As glaciers and polar ice caps waxed and waned, the relative elevation of the earth’s oceans have risen and fallen, inundating or exposing vast areas of land.
Can the church rightly claim that out of all aspects of God’s creation, only life is static? Science documents as a matter of testable fact that the first life forms on our planet were proto-bacteria and single-celled algae, which over vast periods of geologic time eventually created an oxygen-rich atmosphere through the respiration of carbon dioxide. This highly significant, planet-wide environmental change was followed almost immediately by an explosion of various life forms (the Cambrian explosion). Transformation and change in life forms throughout the history of the earth to higher and more complex forms are undeniably revealed in the rock record, even though the geologic preservation of rock layers and of fossils are both rare events, rather than the rule. These documented changes in life forms over time is what science means by evolution. Evolutionary theory says nothing of the origins of life, nor of the role of God, but rightly confines itself to explaining what can be observed and tested (the definition of science). But it does incontrovertibly demonstrate that life forms have changed throughout earth’s history and that more than 99% of all species that have ever lived, including several less developed hominid species, are now extinct. These are the inarguable scientific facts that the Church simply must deal with openly, humbly, and intelligently, if they ever wish to be taken seriously by a disbelieving world.
Christians would be wise to heed Saint Augustine of Hippo who clearly admonished Christians to be fully informed before speaking out publicly with regard to Scripture and secular pursuits. At the beginning of the 5th century A.D. he wrote:
“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense. We should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn…If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintain his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?”
My dear friends, let us allow ourselves the freedom to delight and rejoice in the wonderful mysteries of an all-powerful, sovereign God who has placed us in the midst of an incredible, beautiful, dynamic, amazing, mind-boggling, ever-changing and evolving creation! In the words of priest and physics professor John Zahm, Christians can view evolution as ennobling “our conceptions of God and of man… to detect new beauties, and discover new lessons, in a world that, according to the agnostic and monistic views, is so dark and hopeless.” To the theistic evolutionist, “all is vocal with hymns of praise and benediction. Everything is a part of a grand unity betokening an omnipotent Creator. All is foresight, purpose, wisdom…God’s hand is seen in the least as in the greatest…All is pregnant with truths of the highest order, and calculated to inspire courage, and to strengthen our hope in faith’s promise of a blissful immortality…It is faith which teaches us how God binds all together into Himself.”
It is my prayer that the church and its unshakeable faith in God’s Truth should confidently seek to engage with the world of scientific “truth.” Such dialogue can serve as an effective and critical bridge to the educated and influential scientific elite and with a western, “science-minded” society bathed daily in the obvious and tangible reality of scientific progress and “truth.” It is certain that in failing to abide science, theology will maintain a certain unchanging surety of doctrine (which science has previously corrected!), but it will also erect and maintain a massive and virtually impenetrable barrier further isolating secular western society from a unique, genuine opportunity and means of bridging the gap between scientific knowledge of How? and When? with the vastly more important theological knowledge of Who? and Why? The stakes are eternal…
August 9, 2010 at 2:33 am
David Housholder
Profoundly written. What we have here is two different camps with different epistemologies wondering why they don’t agree. Like a basketball player trying to compete with a skateboarder. And then there are compatibilists in the middle with a totally undefined epistemology that values making peace over defining their rules and chalking the field and telling us what epistemology they are using.
August 9, 2010 at 10:57 am
Ken
Thanks, David (I think!?). I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize the “compatibilist’s” epistemology as “totally undefined.” I would argue that the middle ground epistemology is clearly and firmly rooted in BOTH natural and supernatural revelation – in BOTH God’s Creation and in God’s Word. My claim is that these cannot and do not contradict one another as the dogmatists in both camps insist (God’s revelation is Truth, however our fallible human interpretation of that Truth may be erroneous and subject to revision). Therefore, this middle ground is not so much about becoming religious peacemakers, but rather Divine Truthseekers with a lot of humility and an appreciation for the wonders of divine mystery (do we really think we can know it all?!). Rejoice!
August 10, 2010 at 5:58 am
David Housholder
Good points Ken, but working hard to show there is no contradiction is not the same as doing the hard work of crafting an epistemology. The biblicists and secular positivists have done so. Your turn. This is not a rhetorical statement. I would love to see that work done. The fact that compatibilists lack a coherent “reason for knowing” leads to intellectual dismissal from both camps.
August 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Phil Wala
David,
There you go again, using the word “totally”. You really have fallen under the influence of the “valley girl” demographic, haven’t you? 🙂
I’m no epistemologist – that’s ONE thing I’ve never been accused of (well, maybe once, but I don’t think it means what they thought it did) – but the abundance of reference material on “critical realism” makes it hard to call it a “totally undefined” epistemology. N.T. Wright seems to cover the topic thoroughly from a theological (and mostly over my head) perspective. And Glover devotes the entire first part of “Beyond the Firmament” (the other book I gave you) to his epistemology as applied to both natural and special revelation. So I’m not buying the “totally undefined” line.
One other comment. It may just be my interpretation, but it almost seems as if you’re using “compatibilist” as a pejorative. For what it’s worth, here’s my epistemology: I believe God reveals His truth to us in multiple ways (some variation of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral model) and that compatibility is the way we separate God’s truth from our own interpretation. God’s truth will never contradict itself, so by looking for compatibility from multiple sources, we’re able to separate consistent truth from the incompatibilities that arise from faulty interpretations. Now when incompatibilities arise, we may disagree on which interpretation is the one that needs to be corrected – but ultimately, we should agree that there is no such thing as “An Incompatible Truth” (Al Gore’s sequel?)
Seeking compatibility does have an element of “peacemaking” (hence, the title of Falk’s book, “Coming to Peace with Science”). But it’s NOT a false peace that comes from compromise. It’s God’s peace that results when we seek truth through multiple avenues and get closer to the One in whom they converge.
August 9, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Pastor Tom
Welcome to the discussion Ken. Your first post was very powerful. Since we are back (somewhat) to epistemology I’d like to steer this discussion towards House’s original point. Many folks have turned this into a debate with two basic positions:
1. evolution is TRUE, and people of faith don’t need to fear it
2. evolution is NOT true, and it contradicts the Bible.
Most of the books I have read on this topic (and I have read many) address the topic from one of these two views. Within the Christian community, Francis Collins, represents the first position. The opposite position is taken by the Creation Research Institute.
I don’t like either one of those propositions. As a theologian, I think the second one assumes some things about the Bible that are not accurate. I do agree with the first, in that people of faith do not need to fear the theory of evolution. But I have logical and philosophical questions about Evolution that have never been adequately addressed.
So let me say again, if evolution is true, it does not threaten my faith. My point however, is this:
When it is assessed from the standpoint of logical and philosophical coherency, Evolution suffers from some fairly significant problems.
So far, when those problems have been raised here, the general response from scientists is: “science and faith don’t have to contradict each other.” I know they don’t. This doesn’t address my questions.
Another response I’ve been getting is, “you’re not a scientist, so you don’t really have a right to question what scientists say.” Sounds a lot like the Roman Catholic priests in the middle ages, and doesn’t satisfy me. Scientist or not, I still know how to think.
Phil W., kudos to you in trying to address the randomness issue in one of your blogs. That’s the kind of discussion I was hoping to find. We need more of it.
August 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Pastor Tom
If people are still reading, it may be that some are asking “What are the philosophical and logical problems you see with evolution?” (or perhaps, “what are you smoking?”). Here is just one to start:
– The creation of vastly complex order from complete randomness. For instance, at its root, evolution requires that we believe human thought originated randomly, and yet results in reasonable conclusions. This is a logical impossibility.
[I know those of you who are Christians don’t believe that it is completely random. But show me where the theory of Evolution does NOT insist upon complete randomness in both the origin and development of life and thought.]
August 10, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Phil Wala
Pastor Tom,
Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate the openness and humility with which you continue to participate in this discussion.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I agree completely that the concept of complex order, including human thought, arising spontaneously from complete randomness, is one of the most compelling arguments I can think of for the existence of God.
The problem is, that this is an argument against philosophical naturalism, NOT an argument against evolution. I addressed this in an earlier comment, but conflating the two is such a common error (among both proponents and opponents) that it bears repeating. It is only philosophical naturalism, not evolution, that relies on complete randomness. And I’m talking about evolutionary theory in general, not just theistic evolution.
If you watched the Kenneth Miller talk Hous linked to, you heard a good description of how scientists see evolution itself: they see it as a well-defined, and efficient process which, given certain initial and secondary conditions (we’ll get to that in a minute), predictably produces increasingly complex biological structures. Yes, there is an element of randomness in the location and timing of individual mutations (which are necessary to drive potential solutions around the optimization space), and those random elements may result in more than one potential solution (where I see an element of free will entering the picture) but the process itself is anything but random.
In fact, the process is so efficient that many long-standing technological challenges are just now being solved because engineers abandoned their traditional design methods and began implementing algorithms based directly on evolutionary theory. We are increasingly finding out that these “genetic algorithms” produce solutions which are “more efficient, more elegant, or more complex than anything comparable a human engineer would produce.” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html) One could go so far as to say that for very complex designs, evolutionary processes are turning out to be far more “intelligent” than the engineering-based philosophy of “intelligent design”.
The big question is, why are the initial and secondary conditions “just right” for all this to take place? THIS is where I see God, and where philosophical naturalists see only randomness (often requiring an infinite number of universes).
So go ahead and use the “complexity from randomness” argument. But if you try to direct it at the evolutionary process itself, I’ll just invite you into an engineering lab and show you products now in development in which incredibly complex solutions do, in fact, “evolve” out of such a process, right in front of your eyes.
In my mind, it’s much more pertinent to consider whether randomness can reasonably explain the incredibly fine-tuned initial conditions necessary to make that process work in the first place. This, it seems, gets us much closer to the core issue. And I wholeheartedly agree with Tim Keller (“Reason for God”) that the core issue is philosophical naturalism, NOT evolution.
August 11, 2010 at 6:26 am
Ken
Phil, I couldn’t agree more! You correctly focus on the true philosophical nature of the issue – scientism/naturalism vs. theism. From Hebrews 11:3 we learn that only faith can open our eyes to see that God is Creator: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command…” Therefore, non-Christians are simply unable to incorporate God into their understanding of life development processes – hence they are left only with randomness as the sole actor in biological processes. This is why I feel so passionately that it is the responsibility of Christians to build bridges, initiate dialogue, and show non-Christians there is another perspective by helping them to make meaningful connections between faith and science without making it an either/or proposition (and without making up embarrassing and ridiculous pseudo-scientific explanations!).
David, perhaps the intellectual dismissal of the middle view is rooted in the inability of the dogmatists to overcome their own biases and presuppositions – not sure, but I’m just sayin’…
I am also a bit confused by your insistence on the necessity of constructing some sort of ideal compatibilist epistemology. Perhaps I have a different understanding of what it means “to know.” But it seems reasonable to say that my compatibilist epistemology is based on both science and theology – on the ways we know that both natural and supernatural truths constitute Truth. I think it is fair to say you are likely to utilize the same “way of knowing” when considering the resurrection of Jesus. Christian “knowledge” of this critical event combines both the direct observations of science (He died; the tomb was empty; He appeared to 500 witnesses) with faith and Scripture (His death and resurrection were prophesied; He was raised by the power of God; we are promised the same eternal life by grace through faith in Christ Jesus). In this case, scientific and theological truths are integrated into a coherent understanding of Truth.
Are you suggesting that there is some set of rules or “way of knowing” that must be distinctly articulated in order to guide us in how to properly and/or consistently integrate science and theology? I am definitely not a philosopher, so perhaps I simply fail to understand what you mean by “crafting an epistemology.” I look forward to hearing what you and others have to say in response…
Peace,
Ken
P.S. Thanks for posting the “Friends Talk About Evolution” video link – too funny! 🙂
August 12, 2010 at 6:05 am
Pastor Tom
Dang, I wish I had more time this week. I probably won’t get back here until Monday. In the meantime, thanks again Phil for excellent work, and you too Ken. I have some follow up questions.
I get the distinction between the scientific theory of Evolution on one hand, and Philosophical Naturalism on the others (can we call it PN for short? Typing it gets long). If all biologists spoke (wrote) like Phil, I would be convinced that the one has nothing to do with the other.
However, it’s confession time. I was deeply disturbed when I read Francis Collins’ “Language of God” because it seemed to me that he embraced PN wholeheartedly within the context of science, and retreated to mere existentialism with regard to faith. He presents that book as an accurate representation of professional biology. If that is true, and he meant to say what he did, then PN and Evolution ARE linked.
I’m willing to hear evidence that either he misrepresented himself, or biology in general, but until I do, I’ve heard it directly from the source. I know you’re going to want quotes. I don’t have time now, but I’ll look in my notes next week. For starters, however, look at how he treats Behe and Intelligent Design.
Also, of course, Dawkins, Hitchens and others would absolutely assert the connection between PN and Evolution. Also, though sometimes this is misrepresented, Darwin was an agnostic, who never really gave himself to the Lord.
If the two are inextricable, then obviously we Christians have a problem. Again, I’m willing to be convinced, but so far most biologists I have read, Christians and others, reject the concept that God’s work can be perceived through the study of evolution.
To create an analogy. It’s sort of like saying: “Although my house is perfectly suited for me, there is no evidence that my house was designed by anyone, or assembled with any purpose in mind. The real miracle is that there was just the right number, of boards, nails, wires, pipes and roofing shingles lying around when the tornado came.”
I still have trouble with that kind of logic.
August 12, 2010 at 7:17 am
Ken
Pastor Tom, you present very good questions. I am not familiar with Collins’ “Language of God” so I’m unable to comment directly. From my own personal perspective, faith has unlocked the wonders of my prior scientific knowledge/understanding of every aspect of God’s creation in overwhelming ways I never imagined, from black holes and plate tectonics, to epigenetics and the parts of a flower. I can’t begin to understand how He actually worked His power and will in all of this, yet there it all is for our awestruck appreciation and wonder…might this be what Collins is getting at? Just a thought…
However, with regards to your house analogy and your difficulty in accepting the logic of that perspective, I would simply say: “Don’t follow that kind of logic!” 🙂
Best wishes,
Ken
August 12, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Phil Wala
When people have questions about the relationship between faith and biological science, I recommend one of two books.
For people who are primarily scientists, and are either curious about faith or considering abandoning their faith, I recommend Collins’ “Language of God”. The reason is his perspective. Collins was raised as an atheist and trained as a scientist before he came to faith. For him, the science was the starting point from which he embarked on a journey that led him to Jesus Christ. He didn’t have any doubts about the science, but had to explore the many questions he had about faith.
Pastor Tom, I suspect you, and many others in this discussion, would see yourselves in the diametrically opposite position: settled on the issue of faith, but having many doubts about the science. This opposite perspective may have a lot to do with how you interpret Collins’ book. “Why does he seem so sure of the science and so ambiguous about faith?” you are probably wondering. But this is exactly what you would expect from a scientist describing how he navigated his journey towards God.
I have to say, however, that when Collins does talk about his faith journey, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone could call him a naturalist or deist. After accepting the existence of God, he specifically identifies deism as the very first belief system he rejected. He then goes on to describe how his yearning for a personal relationship with God led him to consider the necessity of Jesus’ death and resurrection as a means of forgiving sin and restoring relationship with God, and how the New Testament evidence confirmed to him the historical reality of Jesus as the resurrected Son of God. Doesn’t sound like “existentialist” faith to me! But I agree that, in general, Collins does a better job speaking to scientists than he does to believers.
For people of faith asking questions about science, I am much more likely to recommend Darrell Falk’s “Coming to Peace with Science”. Falk’s starting point was the opposite of Collins’. Falk was raised in evangelical Christianity, and struggled with his interest in science, concerned that studying biology, in particular, would destroy his faith. He describes how, as an evangelical Christian, he came to recognize that study of biology was not only NOT a threat to his faith, but how his faith grew and strengthened as he studied, and eventually became a professor of, biology. Falk is much better than Collins at keeping his faith perspective close at hand as he describes the science, and speaks with genuine respect, tenderness, and grace towards his fellow Christians who may be struggling with the science issues.
So for you, Pastor Tom, I’d recommend reassessing “Language of God” in light of the perspective Collins brings to it, and then picking up a copy of “Coming to Peace with Science” for a perspective with which you might more readily identify. For me, as a degreed scientist/engineer with an evangelical upbringing, I find much to appreciate in both accounts – most remarkably, how these two individuals, starting from opposite ends of the spectrum, each set out on a journey in search of a more complete, coherent, and convergent truth, and ended up in the same place.
As for Collins’ take on the “Intelligent Design” movement, I find his case against some of their “irreducible complexity” arguments to be compelling. But while he (and I) find issue with that particular “god of the gaps” line of reasoning, he makes a very strong case for the existence of an intelligent designer on other grounds. For example, on the fine-tuning of the universe, Collins says, “The precise tuning of all the physical constants and physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place.” So he affirms the concept of intelligent design, while showing that he doesn’t have to rely on faulty premises to do so. That may not be the answer some Christians were hoping for, but when searching for truth, it’s the kind of integrity we should all appreciate.
August 18, 2010 at 9:21 am
Pastor Tom
I think you are really on to something concerning Philosophical naturalism (I’ll just call it naturalism in this comment).
Before we proceed, let’s attempt a quick, albeit somewhat imprecise definition of naturalism: The belief (or assumption) that the “natural” world of rocks and trees and atoms etc encompasses all of existence. Nothing exists except our “natural” material universe and the elements of it.
Naturalism of course, excludes God because if he existed, he would be “other” (a point with which the Bible agrees). Supernatural events and entities, do not exist for naturalists.
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but there are three specific things which cause me to suspect that evolution is built upon a naturalistic foundation: (continued below)
August 18, 2010 at 9:24 am
Pastor Tom
I would love to discuss the following and make some progress on it. In the meantime, I’ll look for Falk’s book, and maybe re-read Collins at some point. Here’s why I suspect evolution is deeply connected to naturalism:
1. The study of biology under the evolutionary framework has produced many vocal proponents of naturalism and atheism. These crusaders of naturalism use their biological findings as “evidence” that there is no God; that there is nothing but the material universe. While many biologists remain Christians, they do not use biology in support of their faith, and like Francis Collins, seemed “forced” to look outside of biology for evidential or logical support for a Creator.
2. The very argument against “The God of the Gaps” betrays an underlying naturalism. The assumption is that the human mind will eventually fill in all the gaps, and in the process, find no evidence of the supernatural.
This is naturalistic in two ways: First, it assumes that the human mind, used collectively in science, is ultimately infallible. Francis Collins writes:
“Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long.”
Imagine if I said such a thing about theology! Applied to any other group of people or profession we would recognize this for the hubris it truly is. This belief in the infallibility of human reason is also at odds with a biblical view of human nature and human intellect (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:19-31).
The argument against the God of the Gaps is also naturalistic in that it assumes (without warrant either scientifically or spiritually) that all truth about the natural world is accessible to be discovered by human beings. The first point above, is an assumption about human intellect. This is an assumption that the natural world contains nothing “unnatural,” or rather “supernatural,” that could interfere with our discovery of the natural, or cause us to seek a supernatural explanation. In short there is an assumption that nothing in the universe is ultimately without a “natural” explanation.
Starting from this place “filling in the gaps” becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course biology has not discovered evidence of any miraculous intervention, because no such explanations will be either considered or accepted. The reason they will not, appears to me to be the domination of naturalism as the working presupposition of evolution.
To put it another way, it is preposterous to believe that any “respectable” biologist would ever announce that his research has discovered a miracle. That is the way careers get destroyed and programs get de-funded.
3. Even Christians in biology seem to take the approach of “working naturalism.”
“When I put on my scientist hat, I must ignore the God hypothesis for anything practical or empirical.” Francis Collins, in his own synthesis of evolution and faith puts this as his fourth of sixth points:
“Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.”
In other words, when I go to work in biology, I don’t have to worry about God showing up, because I’ve already determined that he didn’t interfere (even if I believe he got the ball rolling). Again from Collins:
“I believe that possibility [the supernatural] exists, but at the same time, the ‘prior’ should generally be very low. That is, the presumption in any given case should be for a natural explanation.”
August 20, 2010 at 7:14 am
Phil Wala
Pastor Tom,
I am loving this discussion, and appreciate the effort you are putting into this.
Each of the points you raise could branch out into a discussion topic of its own. I’ll try to address each of them as well as I can, but I sometimes feel I’m repeating myself. Other resources to which I refer (such as Falk’s book) may help by saying some of the same things in different ways. There is a LOT of material available; the web sites and books listed on my “Faith for Thinkers” home page (http://faithforthinkers.com) are just a small sample of what’s out there, so I hope you like to read!
I agree with you that many vocal atheists use evolutionary biology to justify their position. But that doesn’t imply an intrinsic connection, any more than people doing evil in the name of Christianity implies that Christianity is intrinsically evil. The easiest excuse for atheists to latch onto is the one which seems to set them farthest apart from their opponents; and there are few issues as polarizing as evolution. (See http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/polarization/ for a good article on how polarization escalates minor differences of viewpoint until they become non-negotiable extremes.)
In the case of evolutionary biology, the reasons for the polarization are largely historical, cultural, political and, for the most part, American. (See Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind for a very thorough analysis of this.) By the late 19th century, the evangelical church had, in general, already embraced the concept of a very old earth, and was willing to participate in meaningful dialog on the implications of Darwin’s theories. Some, such as Asa Gray (a founding father of the Christian fundamentalist movement) were among Darwin’s most vocal supporters. For most evangelicals, it was a non-issue – until it was brought to the forefront by the highly publicized Scopes trial in 1925. The “take sides” nature of the trial forever established evolutionary biology as a polarizing issue in the minds of the American public. And once such polarization begins, the tendency to snowball is almost inevitable.
Another thing that happens when an issue becomes polarized, is that it ends up being lumped together with all sorts of other polarizing issues, most of which have little or no intrinsic connection to one another. So yes, there are those who will associate evolutionary biology with atheism. And there are those who will associate Christianity with guns and country music. But I would argue that the existence of people who make such connections is an extraordinarily weak argument as to whether or not the connection is intrinsic or justified. Your other points hold more weight, but I’ll have to get around to them a bit later.
Parting comment: Picking a side on a polarizing issue is easy; willingness to dialogue takes courage. That’s why I appreciate the dialogue taking place in this forum.
August 18, 2010 at 9:24 am
Pastor Tom
In short, I suspect in biology a kind of dogmatism against the supernatural, which amounts to practical naturalism. GK Chesterton said it well:
“Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma
The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder.” (Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton)
August 21, 2010 at 7:49 am
Pastor Tom
I too appreciate this dialogue. I continue to be open to having my mind changed, but I also need to have that happen honestly, by pursuing the questions I have. I certainly don’t want to lay any stumbling blocks in front of those who might otherwise believe, by unnecessarily creating the impression that Christians must be party to ignorance and bigotry. At the same time, my mind tells me two things:
1. There are significant questions I have about evolution that remain unaddressed (I’ve tried to list some of them here). I am not willing to concede evolutionists the intellectual high ground unless they’ve earned it. So far, there is still a lot of explaining to do.
2. Usually, in my experience, “intellectual” objections to faith are merely a foil, and excuse. I have had the great privilege of leading quite a few people to Jesus, including many who previously had “intellectual objections.” In the final analysis, they weren’t stopped by their intellect, but rather by their emotions. So I’m not sure that sounding more like non-believers intellectually really makes any positive difference for the gospel.
So thanks again, brothers and sisters, for the ongoing conversation.
August 21, 2010 at 7:57 am
Pastor Tom
In response to Phil, I’m not sure you caught the nuance of what I was saying about point 1 of my previous comment (Atheists justifying their beliefs with evolution). Let’s try this analogy.
Before 9/11 there were literally thousands of terrorist attacks on Western targets. Almost all of them claimed Islam as motivation and justification. Right after 9/11, the Islamic world celebrated in the streets. Crowds of Muslims cheered and burned American flags.
Now, many people said “These are just extremists. Islam is a religion of peace.” However, the Muslim leaders of the world, by and large, failed to condemn the attacks. And those Muslims who did decry the terrorism, *did not appeal to the Koran to do so*. In other words, no one was quoting suras that clearly showed terrorism is wrong. I suspect that is because the terrorists do actually have some justification from the Koran.
When Christians do evil in the name of Christ (which though usually well publicized, is fortunately rare) Christian leaders are quick to separate themselves from the evil actions. Not only that, but other Christians refute the evil actions *on the basis of the Bible,* showing that the evil doers cannot justify themselves through Christianity.
Atheists sometimes use evolution as a basis from which to attack Christianity. Other biologists may demur, but none of them seem to *use biology as a basis for saying that their colleagues are wrong.* In other words, they seem to concede that at least on the basis of evolution, one can attack the idea of God, but not really defend it. I would love to be shown the writings of a prominent biologist who admits that evolution suggests God might be involved in the development of life on earth.
This is not true in physics and cosmology, where a number of prominent scientists – even many who aren’t Christian – concede that it looks like the universe was designed for us by a Supreme Being.
I agree Phil, that this is not intrinsic proof of naturalism. But biology (as represented in the theory of evolution) stands in marked contrast to the other sciences, in that even the Christians within the field are unwilling to suggest that God was involved with it.
August 21, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Phil Wala
Pastor Tom,
The problem I’m having is that the discussion always seems to come back to how a particular area of science is perceived, used, or interpreted, what types of people are associated with it, what their agenda is, how many people aren’t convinced, etc. All of which has ZERO bearing on whether or not it’s true.
Go back several thousand years, and the number of people who believed the earth went around the sun was undoubtedly very close to zero; and if someone did claim that, they were likely deemed insane or possessed. Given that only crazy people believed it, you would have had an airtight case against heliocentrism, if those kinds of arguments were valid. But they aren’t, and the earth kept going around the sun, completely oblivious to how few people believed it, whatever crazy reasons they may have had for believing it, or what other people thought of them.
Now discussions about agendas, interpretations, implications, and narratives, are valid discussions to have. But if there is verifiable experimental data to consider, it would be foolish to ignore it, just as it was foolish in the 1600s to ignore what Galileo saw when he observed Venus through his telescope. The one thing that I’m still waiting for is a willingness to seriously talk about the specific genetic evidence uncovered in the last ten years. For me, the discovery, over and over and over again, of uniquely identifiable and identically placed retroposon fingerprints, exactly where predicted by evolutionary biology, was enough to convince me that at least the common descent hypothesis was valid. It didn’t necessarily fit with my previously held world view, but I and many others (including Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe) had to accept the evidence for what it is and start incorporating is into our world views (a process which is still ongoing for me, and continually deepens my faith and enlarges my view of who God is.) So if there’s another reasonable explanation for the commonality of retroposon placement, I’d seriously like to talk about it; but so far I haven’t heard any being offered.
While Behe accepts the evidence for common descent, he continues, as far as I can tell, to adhere to the Intelligent Design argument that God had to keep inserting supernatural miracles along the way to keep things going the way He wanted them to. My problem with this is not just the “god of the gaps” nature of the argument, but the theological implications. It seems to me that the insertion of miracles to keep things on track implies a god who wasn’t smart enough to get it right the first time. It’s the same argument Leibniz had against Newton’s assumption that God had to keep adjusting the planets to keep them in orbit. Leibniz wanted to know why Newton had such a low opinion of God. Maybe this excerpt from the “Test of Faith” movie will explain this better than I can: http://biologos.org/blog/ard-louis-on-intelligent-design/
With regard to those who use biology as an excuse for their disbelief, I do have to wonder why you require biology to be used “as a basis for saying that their colleagues are wrong.” If the atheists were saying “biology proves there is no God”, then you may have a valid argument; it should be possible to use biology to show that “biology proves no such thing.”
However, I have never heard even the most ardent atheist claim that biology “disproves God.” What they do say is, “biology doesn’t prove that there IS a God,” which calls for an entirely different response. If you require a biology-based response, then it would have to come out sounding like “biology does SO prove there is a God” – which completely ignores the possibility biology may actually be neutral on the subject.
In fact, I would argue that this neutrality would be the most likely thing to expect, given what I understand about the nature of God. He always seems to leave evidence in nature that can be seen by those who choose to open their eyes to it, and ignored by those who don’t. Whether the science is physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry or meteorology, the evidence is there to be seen or ignored, but it will never be coercive. And I don’t see that biology is in “marked contrast to the other sciences” in that regard. Maybe it’s actually physics and astronomy that stand apart from the others.
One final caution: you might want to be careful about making absolute statements such as “no one was quoting suras that clearly showed terrorism is wrong.” It didn’t take much of a search to find hundreds of references to cases where Muslim leaders did just that. They certainly did in the days after 9/11 (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html for just one of many examples), and many still do, although most media outlets routinely reject such stories as uninteresting. I’m not trying to make any kind of statement about Islam or terrorism or what percentage of Muslims interpret the Koran a certain way – just pointing out a fundamental flaw in your analogy which sort of ruins the point you were trying to make 🙂
I hope I’m coming across as challenging, not confrontational. I find the process of challenging others and being challenged in return to be a very stimulating, growth-inducing, thought-provoking, and godly pursuit. I appreciate the way you keep me challenged (even after looking back at how many hours I spent thinking about and crafting this response!)
I also hope that other voices will chime in. This doesn’t have to be the “Pastor Tom and Phil Show”.
So, anyone out there want to discuss retroposons?
September 4, 2010 at 11:51 am
Phil Wala
Great response to Stephen Hawking’s latest pronouncement: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/letters-to-the-president-592-disproving-god-or-not/
September 4, 2010 at 12:32 pm
David Housholder
Interesting link. But makes it too easy when it really isn’t.
Science, much like medieval theology, is a highly developed self-affirming system. Actually, it’s so overdeveloped that it is incapable of awareness of, let alone critique of, its very assumptions, which quantum mechanics has totally called into question.
Ironically, the more developed a thought system is, the less capable it is of floating on the lake of truth. The same goes for Christian theology, which is why I lean Pentecostal rather than systematic in my encounter with Christianity.
Could it be that we have two overdeveloped systems that have a hard time with self-critique? Truth ends up being the loser. Paradigms get so developed that we can’t see the truth. This is why I mistrust and resist any system’s efforts at conditioning me.
The ground and source of all being either has to be either materialism (not to be confused with consumerism) or non-local non-derivative consciousness (i.e. God). Upward causation (gross-material) and downward causation (subtle-spiritual) are not compatible. Positivism and Christianity aren’t working from the same postulates.
Christianity happens to get the postulates right, but then over-develops its own system which no longer sees truth (hence the referenced ‘creation museum’). Which is why I like the Bible. It unravels systems like acid on acrylic knit.
A new science is on the way, which includes the subjective and the objective. A gift from quantum mechanics.
September 4, 2010 at 3:24 pm
David Housholder
In other words, the more co-opted one is by the over-developed scientific or theological paradigms, the less able he or she is to see foundational truth, because he/she must then question the whole skyscraper; which may be built on sand.
December 17, 2010 at 11:18 am
David F
It’s been a while since i’ve chimed in. I freely admit that I’m a simple person, never spent a day in college, seminary or any other institution of learning above high school. I do not go to church much more than once a week on a regular basis, nor am I a member of the church that I call home. I have zero clue what retroposons are. (Reference Phill Wala’s last comments on this blog.)” I am a simpleton.
What I do know and believe 100% is that God Made this earth, the universe, the angels, Lucifer, Heaven, Hell and everything else that has ever been created. God also gave us a history book giving many (but not all the specific) details on the who, what and WHEN of his creation.
Every human who has lived in the last few hundred years (since the translation of the Bible into the english language) has the choice to either accept this history book as is or they can corrupt this holy document and make it worthless if they so choose.
This may be “your” site Hous. Maybe you do have the rite to make up the rules for how or what questions , ideas or otherwise are posted here, honestly I don’t really care. But this whole mess here boils down to a simple question.
Do you (anyone who reads this blog or for that mater anyone who lives) believe the word of God 100% and without fault as we have it in the english language? Yes or No
If your answer is NO then you have no other option than to answer YES to the next question.
Do you have some other theology? (This could be any science, naturalism, or any other belief system that is not biblical.)
Hous, be honest here, there is no option C. It is either #1 or #2. I have made my choice. How about you?
December 17, 2010 at 3:53 pm
David Housholder
I am 100% behind biblical inerrancy. No reservations about it. For a lot of reasons. But that’s another blog post. May do it sooner than later.
But even if I’d never heard of a Bible, I would not believe in non-design-necessary evolution. Just simply not convinced. Most scientific theories convince the “race” of their truth over time. This one has failed to do so.
January 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Phil Wala
I’m 100% behind biblical inerrancy as well. But fill a coliseum with people who are all 100% behind biblical inerrancy, and I challenge you to find any two who completely agree with one another – because everything we pull from Scripture is tainted by a potentially errant interpretation. Anyone who thinks that “I believe what the Bible says” is the END of the discussion just doesn’t get it. There’s always an implicit interpretation.
That’s why I’m continually testing and retesting what I believe, and using every avenue of knowledge God has given us, including truth revealed in His creation, to adjust my beliefs as necessary, in order that my interpretation of inerrant Scripture might itself become continually less errant. Commitment to biblical inerrancy is easy. Diligently searching for potential errors in our own belief system takes work. And it takes humility.
There’s no doubt that opponents of heliocentrism in Galileo’s day were 100% behind biblical inerrancy. Unfortunately, many of them feared that the evidence of the telescope would be a threat to biblical inerrancy, instead of humbly admitting it might help correct an errant interpretation.
Today, many Christians fear looking at recent scientific discoveries (ancestral “fingerprints” in the genome, for example) for the same reason. They sense a threat to their belief system, and assuming their belief system to be as inerrant as Scripture itself, take it to be an attack on biblical inerrancy. Don’t worry – the inerrancy of the Word of God will stand on its own. But if there are errors in your interpretation, you’d be a fool to ignore any evidence that might help correct them.
I’ve already written a piece on my own blog about inerrancy. I invite comments there: http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2010/12/inerancy.html
One more comment, only because you keep bringing it up, and because it’s such a weak argument: whether or not the general public is “convinced over time” is irrelevant. The general public wasn’t convinced of heliocentrism until 250 years after Copernicus. But having said that, I don’t disagree at all with your statement about “non-design necessary evolution”. As I’ve said over and over again, I see evidence of design everywhere. I just see God’s design permeating His creation at a much deeper level than the intermittent tinkering posited by some popular “intelligent design” models.
December 27, 2010 at 7:28 am
Christopher Hopper
“Since when has an explosion ever created anything? Bangs, especially big ones, destroy life, not create it.” -Joseph Gilchrist
December 29, 2010 at 8:38 am
David F
Couldn’t agree more C.H. This follows in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
December 29, 2010 at 10:13 am
Phil Wala
… unless the “bang” has incredibly fine-tuned initial conditions. Which is why I’ve always preferred calling it a “Creation Event” rather than a “Big Bang”.
When first proposed (in the mid-20th century), many non-believing scientists felt threatened by a theory that sounded uncomfortably close to Genesis 1:1. “Big Bang” was, in part, popularized as a term of derision by those who rejected the theory, and accused their colleagues of “getting religious.” (Astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge accused them of running off to join the “First Church of Christ of the Big Bang”, and the “Positive Atheism” web site still posts an essay suggesting that the “Big Bang” is a religious hoax designed to promote creationism.) Now, of course, with such tools as the Hubble Telescope and Cosmic Background Explorer giving us the opportunity to make observations 13.7 billion light-years away (and thus 13.7 billion years ago), the evidence is overwhelming, and atheists can only deny an instantaneous origin to this universe on philosophical, not scientific grounds.
Incomprehensibly, the same Big Bang/Creation Event discovery that was so stubbornly opposed by atheists (who understood the implications), is now just as stubbornly opposed by many Christians (who completely MISunderstand them). Another reason I’d like to see more Christians start calling it what we know it to be: the Creation Event.
For another perspective, here’s a link to a column Chuck Colson wrote upon the death of Fred Hoyle, the skeptical astronomer who originally coined the term “Big Bang”:
http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/11280
December 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm
David F
P.W., With all due respect sir “the creation event” as you are referring to in this context never happened. The THEORY of the big bang is just that….. a theory and in my mind a very poor theory at that.
We have been told of the “creation event”. It is covered quite clearly, primarily the book of Genesis.
Neither the “big bang” and quiet honestly the creation account in the Bible can be PROVEN by science. We can NOT as humans recreate either theory. What we can do is observe and test ideas and then watch these ideas play themselves out to reach conclusions.
I have no issue with stars (and planets?) being 13.?? light years from earth. If you ask any scientist in the special creation movement they will readily agree that this is a problem that they have not yet been able to solve. They have a few theory’s but that is all and again they readily admit that they are only theory’s. They also say that with more science these theory’s will probably change. Dr. Jason Lisle would be a good example of this. His field of science is in astrophysics.
I have asked Hous a question here a few times and it’s a good question for all, A) Do you believe the whole Bible as we have it 100%? Yes or no
If your answer is “NO” then,
B) What is your belief system? Humanism? Some form of science? It could be anything. Makes no difference to me but I chose along time ago. I hope and pray that you have made the correct choice before you one day meet your maker. I know I have.
December 30, 2010 at 8:05 am
Phil Wala
Help me out here. I thought the YEC position was that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was a result of sin. If so, why would you invoke it in reference to the moment of initial creation, which preceded the sin in the Garden of Eden by at least a week?
December 30, 2010 at 8:39 am
David F
P.H. ,
Ken Ham, Dr. Morris and most of the YEC scientists have no specific position as to when the 2nd law of thermodynamics was put in motion. However, they all agree that that the sun was not “regenerating” any energy it was using prior to the fall of man. What I think is your point (and I could well be wrong here) in your question relates more to “death”.
The Bible seems at least somewhat clear when it refers to death. It does not qualify plants as living, most creeping, flying or walking creatures it does. The Bible does not consider stars or planets in and of them selves to be “alive”.
The question of what is life is certainly a topic that can be talked about until the day the Lord returns. I’m gonna lean on what the Bible tells me and watch what man comes up with. Please go look at answersingenesis.org This site should be able to be more clear than I on many of the more technical issues being discussed here. Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle and all the other men and women attached to this organization along with The Institute of Creation Research are so far ahead of me in these studies. I’m sure you cold spend many hours looking over the materials they have.
But Again I’ll go back to my question above. Do you believe God? Or do you believe man?
January 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Phil Wala
Actually, my point wasn’t about death; it was more of a caution to readers who might think you were perpetuating a common misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, which equates it with the statement that “left to themselves, things go from order to disorder.”
As I’m sure you’re aware, not only does the “order to disorder” simplification conflate thermodynamic entropy with disorder (logical entropy) and ignore the difference between open and closed systems, it doesn’t even pass the common sense test. Here in Minnesota, disordered water droplets, left to themselves, have organized themselves into highly complex and orderly snowflakes about 5 quintillion times this past month, without ever violating the second law of thermodynamics! (For you, and other readers who want to take a deeper look at what the second law really says, and its implications to Christian faith, this is a good place to start : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermot.htm.)
David F, to offer a slight correction to your comment, Henry Morris and nearly every other young-earth creationist most emphatically did proclaim that the second law of thermodynamics was a result of the Fall. It has been only recently that Ken Ham and others have finally conceded that Adam and Eve would have had difficulty walking without friction¹, and so have added this to the list of positions they have recanted. Of course, this just proves that people like Morris and Ham are just as fallible as any human. So it’s a good thing none of us believe them, because (as you say) doing so would be believing men, rather than God. Their growing list of recanted positions is also a pretty good indication that interpretation of Scripture isn’t nearly as black-and-white as you (or any of us) might like it to be.
¹ (which would have led to a totally different kind of fall)
January 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm
David Housholder
Phil, you are a super-valued family member on this blog. Post more often, Bro. Even if we disagree, you rock.
January 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm
David F
P.H., Water is water is water. In the form of heat, gas or liquid. Water by itself does not turn into something else. Water no mater how long you wait for it to happen will never turn into a Sharpie pen. It just aint gonna happen.
I’m not going to get into the open and closed system debate here as it would serve no useful purpose, but Ham, Morris and company have handled this issue quite well in my opinion.
I think that we both can agree that “science” is fluid, in that we are always learning more. What we may think to be true one day can be proven false just as quickly the next when science is used to test a theory. Can humans ever go as fast or faster than the speed of light? Right now the answer is no. But what if science in the next 2-300 years make advances and we are able to do such a thing? Will the answer still be no? Of course not! The men and women at both A.I.G. and I.C.R. all agree that as our knowledge increases our conclusions will take us in new directions.
By the same token it would be hypocritical of you or any non-christian to make evolutionary claims and then not recant when the science puts a particular theory on the hot stove. The Ort Cloud? This is a THEORY that scientists have come up with to explain certain things, yet to date there is no hard evidence that it is real. We could go back and forth on this till Hous puts a bullet into both of our wet noodles but I seriously doubt that either of us will change the others mind. I will leave that mater up to the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Scriptures are black and white. As I have stated previously I can NOT find the word “like” anywhere in the 1st chapter of Genesis. I choose to come to these passages as a child (as Christ told us to come to Him as). Therefore, I do believe that everything came to be in 6 days something on the order of 6,000 years ago. Many men have done the simple math on this using our modern day calendar along with the calendars used by the peoples of ancient times. Yes the numbers do vary but they all generally fall into the 5,500-7,000 year time frame. And yes I do PERSONALLY like the Usher date of about 4,004 B.C. , though I am not dogmatic on this number.
I know Jesus & Jesus knows me,
I believe Hous knows Jesus & I know Jesus knows Hous
Jesus knows Phil, does Phil know Jesus?
January 3, 2011 at 4:14 am
Phil Wala
Thank you for not being dogmatic.
January 3, 2011 at 4:52 am
David Housholder
The problem with the Christianity vs. Evolution debate is that we are dealing with two HIGHLY evolved (fun word) paradigms which are no longer critical of their assumptions.
These paradigms get irritated when someone from outside the system calls their very postulates into question.
Then they point to the huge level of complexity WITHIN their paradigm as proof that it’s really “smart.”
The reason I started this discussion was to try to get the “twin silos” to talk to each other. Both, more or less, claim to explain virtually everything with no help from the inside.
My agenda, in a deconstructive mode, is to point out the cracks in the positivist evolution silo. I’ll lay my cards right out on the table.
As i have said from the beginning, it’s not a “shot” from the other rival silo. I don’t think you need a single Bible verse to take positivist evolution down.
The flaw (see Amit Goswami’s work on this topic: http://www.amitgoswami.org/) is in the lack of acknowledgement of “downward causation” in the quantum sense.
Positivist science acknowledges only upward (mechanistic) causation. This is simply not compatible with any spiritual paradigm, biblical Christianity included.
That there are scientists (such as Phil) who acknowledge God is cool. But they need to show that God fits anywhere in the scientific paradigm. He was excluded back when the rules were made. At best, he is tolerated as an outside possibility.
January 3, 2011 at 10:56 am
Phil Wala
Sorry, Hous, but you just ended the discussion in your first seven words. Did you really mean to call this a “Christianity vs. Evolution” debate? Or was that just a revealing slip-up that unmasked one of your own assumptions? The dogmatic fringe elements (Ken Ham and company on one side, and Richard Dawkins and company on the other) try to force everyone to make it an either-or choice, but I thought you were smart enough not to fall for that false dichotomy. I refuse to be told I can only occupy one of two pre-defined and separated silos.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and surmise, rather, that it’s a problem of definition. We haven’t yet gotten specific on whether we even agree on the definition of “evolution”. Read this paper, which lays out six definitions of “evolution”, and then tell me which one you meant: http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf
Your “either-or” assumption tells me you’ve bought the misconception that accepting any level of evolution implies acceptance of E-6. So if by “evolution” you meant E-6, then yes, it is a “Christianity vs. Evolution” debate, although I’d rather you use the term “evolutionism” to distinguish the philosophical extrapolation from the science.
E-6 is the only definition that is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. No one (even young earth creationists) disputes E-1 and E-2. And even Intelligent Design proponents such as Michael Behe agree that the discovery of DNA ancestral fingerprints was pretty much a slam dunk on E-3. E-5 (abiogenesis) isn’t much more than speculation at this point.
So the debate in the mainstream science and faith community, and where I assume you are, is whether or not they buy E-4. Intelligent Design says no, that God had to tinker with the process. Christian biologists such as Darrell Falk lay out a pretty good case for why God may have designed a process robust enough to not need such intervention. You must have had a chance to read the Falk book by now, so I’d be interested to hear which elements of the evidence he lays out you don’t accept.
January 3, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Phil Wala
Correction. I swapped E-2 and E-3. It’s E-1 (change over time) and E-3 (some form of natural selection, even if just within a species) that nearly everyone agrees with, and E-2 (common ancestry) that became a “slam dunk” with the DNA evidence of ancestral fingerprints.
Reversing the order of E-2 and E-3 would have put them in order of acceptance in the non-scientific community (natural selection more widely accepted than common descent), rather than in order of scientific certainty. The genomic evidence certainly puts E-2 about as close to “proof” as anything in observational science can be, but is not as widely accepted in the non-scientific community because that evidence is so much more recent.
January 3, 2011 at 9:02 am
David F
You didn’t answer my last question Phil. That question above all others is the most important question anyone will ever answer.
January 3, 2011 at 9:55 am
David Housholder
Phil can answer for himself but I can vouch for the fact that he is an exemplary follower of Jesus Christ.
January 3, 2011 at 10:06 am
David F
You’re a unique cat Hous, I’ll give you that. It certainly has been fun the few times we have met.
January 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
David F
P.H., Can you give me ONE example of the addition of information to an object (alive, dead or neutral) ? Please don’t go to the old Finch thing down in the Galapagos Islands. Adaptation? Sure, but information (D.N.A.) added? Not a chance. Is this an example of microevolution? I’ll give you that. But it’s certainly not macroevolution.
And no Phil you can’t have it both ways, it’s either God of the Bible or man. As much as you may want to try it’s either /or, not both.
I guess it’s Hous’s turn to chime in since it’s his site. Hous, what is the definition of the title to this site? ” Creation and evolution….”, what’s the definition to the word evolution in this context? Your site your rules your definitions.
January 4, 2011 at 4:45 am
Phil Wala
Just published: an E-Book on “Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church”
January 4, 2011 at 10:08 pm
David Housholder
e-1 Change over Time NOPE
e-2 Common Ancestry NOPE
e-3 Evolutionary Mechanisms NOPE
e-4 Mechanisms account for Common Ancestry NOPE
e-5 Origin of Life (chemical evolution) NOPE
e-6 EvoluitionISM NOPE
Sorry.
1-3 have only been well established within a skyscraper of a “silo” paradigm which no longer questions its presuppositions and makes no mention of downward causation.
Much like highly evolved biblical theology which makes no room for science. These twin towers are so “evolved” that it’s almost impossible to communicate without a fundamental discussion of assumptions.
Otherwise, each is playing a total away game in the other silo, complete with mimes and french subtitles…
The whole biological evolution thing is based on assumptions I don’t share.
My assumption one: Spiritual forces and design are primary and necessary for the biological system to work.
Any system not including that assumption is wrong, in my book.
January 5, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Phil Wala
Hous, the question on the table was “how are you defining ‘evolution’?” and you’ve apparently rejected all six commonly-used definitions, without offering an alternative. I would have guessed you might have had E6 in mind whenever you’ve used the term, but you rejected that definition, too. We could add an “E7” definition (the “Ben Stein” version) which takes E6 and adds social Darwinism, eugenics, and Nazism to the mix. But leaving it undefined is not acceptable, unless there are new postmodern rules of debate that allow a main premise to mean “whatever you want it to mean”. To me that seems like a lousy way to seek truth, but maybe that’s only because I didn’t live in California long enough to think that way 🙂
For the record, my references to the “E-word” generally encompass E1 through E3 as scientifically sound descriptions of upward causation (which is all science addresses). In addition, for every example of upward causation discovered by science, whether it’s rain, galaxies, or DNA, I see the hand of God (downward causation) at work – behind it, through it, and all around it. But I see it because I believe in God and choose to see it, not because science has anything to say about it.
So if none of the six definitions offered adequately explain what you mean when you use the “E-word”, then please tell us what you do mean.
January 4, 2011 at 11:14 pm
David F
Ok Hous, You and I agree. It would be fun sometime to sit down with you over a cup of java and talk about this great big blog. Phil W. on the other hand, bro it seems to me that you and the others that wrote that paper have a lot of the same scary ideas that Hugh Ross has. Nature is the 67th book of the Bible and other silly ideas. I hate to be rude here but that whole “book” seems to be a manual for how to get the church to drop the simple (as a child) reading of the Bible and insert “nature” into the debate. Aint no room in the church I attend for such bogus teachings! If there was I’d be gone quicker than lightning.
I gotta go and get on a flight in just a few hours and return to So. Cal. Sadly I will not have access to the ‘net for many months. If you’d like to ever look me up Hous just ask yer buddy L.H. Jr. He and I are buds and I’m sure he would be willing to make something happen.
David F.
January 5, 2011 at 6:31 am
Pastor Tom
House has nailed my essential problem with the evolution paradigm as it currently sits:
>>That there are scientists (such as Phil) who acknowledge God is cool. But they need to show that God fits anywhere in the scientific paradigm. He was excluded back when the rules were made.<<
You said it in far fewer words than I've been using, but this is my basic issue. Biblically speaking, we believe that reality is both physical and spiritual and that the two interact. Six days or six epochs or 13.7 billion years, the Bible clearly teaches that physical reality was created by spiritual reality. The New Testament paradigm appears to be that physical reality is the battle ground of spiritual powers, and that what we do here is significant precisely because it has spiritual implications.
However, the scientific mindset for all practical purposes, ignores spiritual reality, or dismisses it altogether. It is a worldview problem.
January 5, 2011 at 8:23 am
Lyle Snyder
I don’t know that I can add very much. I made an attempt to read through all 200+ comments, but I only have so much time.
In the past 10 years of my life, I have not cared much for the evolution vs. creationism debate. I think it is a red herring. I only see it as an argument that divides human beings and results in the cessation of learning. I have experienced fervent and passionate folks on both sides have the same traits in common 1) they only seek certainty and not ambiguity, and 2) and they seek only to be correct. Ironically, I think both of these are contrary to both science as well as Christianity.
Now, the above is not to say either the scientific study of our origin should cease, or that theologians should stop exploring scripture and faith in regards to our origin. Hardly. But I would gently guide others to move forward instead of arguing one over the other. I think this is what David is doing by the initial blog post.
With the above being said, where do I stand? I don’t try to mesh evolution and Christianity (though I do not think they are diametrically opposed to each other). How I proceed is I do not seek certainty, as it is already there (my certainty is in Christ). Is there some truth in the theory of evolution, and the scientific observations behind it? Yes (though I know very little about it). Is the whole theory absolute truth? No (there is probably some very real criticism, though I do not know of that either). Eventually the scientific questions that plague evolution will be answered – but that will not be the end. Guess what will come then? Ha! More questions! When Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, scientists assumed that just about solved everything. Yet what remains? More questions!
There was a bit about the Big Bang tossed out above. The Big Bang (or singularity as it is known in astro-physics circles) was finally “proven” by the work of Stephen Hawking in the early 1970’s. I love what Hawking has now said in regards to the Big Bang. Now he states “The evidence does not exist to support that a Big Bang happened.” He said this in the Brief History of Time. Why? Because if we take the evidence we have (almost all observable universal appears red shifted to us), that would put us at the center of the universe. And guess what? We have done that twice before, and been wrong both times!
Now… does the above mean I don’t believe in the Big Bang? That is besides the point. Do I believe the universe is about 13 billion years old? It is probably pretty old, though I don’t know the number. But I do not seek the certainty in evolution vs. creation, because the certainty is already there. a 13 Billion year old universe doesn’t negate the truth found in both creation accounts in Genesis – namely, who created me? God did.
January 5, 2011 at 8:49 am
Fritz Trost
Beauty is the answer I think.
Jesus was able to speak volumes in short sentences. One of the most beautiful sentences uttered in the history of the world is: “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”. That is one beautiful sentence!
To try and describe why the sentence is beautiful is like trying to describe why a work of art is beautiful. I won’t try. But I will say that it says so much with so few words. –Sort of like feeding five thousand souls with a few loaves of bread and a few fish.
The debate of Darwin vs. Creator God is Ugly.
That fight/debate over the Origin of the Species has been mostly ugly and verbally violent. This blog is a testament to that. Folks here have been mostly polite (and even forgiving) but the undercurrent is obviously painful.
This debate is like a fight I never observed but see vividly in my imagination. Several years ago, two LARGE (150 pt) adult male deer fought and ended up with their antlers locked. One died first and the other died soon after. How do I know that?
A subcontractor on my job-site found their antlers. I can tell which one died first. I know because one set of antlers have a wear mark from being dragged. It looks like someone took an angle grinder to the side of the rack. I can picture the wheezing buck dragging the other 250 pound buck across the road and down into the creek bed. Stumbling, falling, down the ravine. Overwhelming exhaustion as the still live buck struggled to position his head so he could drink. A futile quest for survival.
The remains were found at a stream–skulls in the water. What an awful way to die.
Neither Buck won….in the end they both painfully lost.
Do I have to explain the analogy? Do you see the multiple levels of meaning? ………..Maybe you will throw your rocks down and walk away.
One of the infinitely Beautiful characteristics of our Creator (as articulated in the Bible) is that His actions are synonymous with His words. And both His actions and words are synonymous with His essence. Praise the name of YHVH.
Creation testifies to His nature. I see Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Faithfulness, and Self Control woven throughout the design of the created world, the history of my life and the narrative of the Bible. I love this God. He is Good!
But the most Beautiful and poetic aspect of His nature is how HE chooses to remain hidden.
God’s hidden nature is profound.
—written by a theatre major:) —who knows that the power of story trumps the science of theology and biology any day of the week!
The story of the Bible is infinitely more powerful than we can know. We as created beings —especially believers and followers of The Way need to renew and discover the wonderful Beauty and surpassing power of the story… There is only ONE story.
January 5, 2011 at 10:34 am
Jolene Anderson
Science is expected to prove; faith isn’t their forte. Archaeology isn’t considered science but it is continually proving the Bible to be a truthful history of man. I do NOT need validation of the Bible on our humble beginnings. I must admit that each time ancient Biblical artifacts are uncovered I get very excited; not for a lack of faith but for tangible evidence to show the unbeliever… proof for the scientist. If one person drops their “Darwinistic” views & gives God a chance from the proof they seem to need then it will be life altering. As for strength, faith has endured much longer than science & will continue to do so; it is our divine right. Compare humanity as a whole & there are far more Christians throughout history than scientists who believe in Darwin’s therory; all these Christians feel deeper life (spiritual) than science can explain & they can’t all be wrong. I vote for a Christian class in our public schools.
January 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Duane Larson
Good conversation here. Hous asked me to list some thinkers here whom I noted in a longish comment on FB. I will preface by noting that I agree with Hous’s declaration of no belief in secular [or merely materialistic] evolution. The academic and semi-popular literature on a more spiritual and “design” oriented evolutionary process is wide and deep, without, however, subscribing to “intelligent design.”
Many arguments do follow an Aristotelian bent, more in debt to the 20th century Roman Catholic thinker Karl Rahner. One fine thinker of an “emergent” character, Nancey Murphy, has written well on the transcendental moral requirement of a spiritual dimension–i.e., God–for the evolutionary process to move along. In other words, she makes a good case against materialistic evolution and for a religious understanding that explains why we strive even evolutionarily to be ethical. John Haught is among the best contemporary theologians writing on the nexus of God and eviolution. Also see the theologian scientists John Polikinghorne and Arthur Peacocke. While they do not so much write on the moral dimensions, as does Nancey, the former writes of God’s causality within the quantum world (JP is a Cambridge theologian and physicist) and the latter (and late) more provocatively with God using evolution and chance as his mode of creativity (creatio continua/ongoing creation). David Bartholomew has written quite directly about evolution’s mechanistic processes and how a Darwinian explanation on those lines is simply insufficient; he ought to know, he and Richard Dawkins did dog and pony debate shows in England for quite some time.
Within all this discussion (I have barely scratched the surface) is the observation that the god Richard Dawkings adverts to in his advocacy of materialistic evolution and atheism is NOT the Christian God (and he should know better, having spent so much time talking with Bartholomew, et al). The Christian God-Trinity, about whom Haught, Murphy, and scores more write (I have done so myself), IS not only commensurate with an evolutionary creative process, one can well argue that a Trinitarian Christian would EXPECT something like the processes we see today. There’s much that needs to be said to warrant this claim, of course, and I can’t put that all here. Suffice to say that the few of the scores of writers I noted above do move in this direction (and, for what it matters, they include Catholic, conservative Anglicans, charismatic Christians, evangelicals, and all round emergent types. The argument for a religious version of evolution is not at all only in the domain of progressives).
A final note: evolutionary psychology and sociobiology among the sciences themselves have pushed the conversation withyin the scientific community beyond materialism to moral and ethical explorations; inevitably implying, then, the necessity of even more transcendental discussion. See what happens, for example, in the religion-science conversations within the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the premier guild of all general scientists in this country.
In sum, the robust conversation here demonstrates that the thoughtful and responsible conversations held in “the academy” for the last two decades, regrettably, have yet to inform well our daily faith life, and they can. It is up to many yet to write more practically about the matter, and for the many of us who participate in such conversation as these to give a careful read.
January 5, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Phil Wala
Thank you for these comments, Duane. In answer to Hous’s FB comment that “No one on earth has ever articulated why evolution needs a spiritual dimension. Or where God fits in it,” I also have shelves full of books that do just that. For casual reading there is Falk’s “Coming to Peace with Science” (a copy of which I have given to Hous) or Colling’s “Random Designer” (the subtitle of which is “Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator”). For those willing to dig into quantum physics, it’s hard to beat anything by John Polkinghorne (quantum physicist and Anglican priest), although nothing by him constitues “easy” reading. I also have quite a few books by John Haught, whom I had the pleasure of meeting a few years ago at a symposium at Wartburg College in Iowa (even though as an evangelical, I don’t always connect with his Catholic perspective).
The list goes on and on, both in terms of books and online resources, many of which I have listed on my own blog site, http://faithforthinkers.com.
I’ll give Hous the benefit of the doubt and assume that his “no one on earth has ever addressed this” comment to be a careless mistake 🙂
January 6, 2011 at 7:49 am
David Housholder
Problem is, evolution theory doesn’t need any of this and probably works better without the baggage. It’s the same problem with Microsoft DOS/Windows conflict. Better to get a unified OS like Apple. 🙂
January 5, 2011 at 8:29 pm
David Housholder
Duane, this is high end stuff. Much of it is new to me. Bless you for adding value to the discussion.
January 6, 2011 at 11:21 am
Phil Wala
“Problem is, evolution theory doesn’t need any of this and probably works better without the baggage. ”
Eliminate the first two words, and I agree. I just don’t see why this should be a problem.
The same statement could be made about chemistry, seismology, or orbital mechanics. These are also sciences that don’t need, and indeed work better without, the “baggage” of debating whether planets are upheld by God’s hand or by gravity. But I don’t see that as a problem. The “upward causation” discoveries made in each of these fields are exactly the same, whether the discoverer embraces, denies, or ignores the presence of co-existing downward causation.
I don’t see biology as being any different. Whether biologists embrace, deny, or ignore downward causation, they all (> 99.85%) see the exact same upward causation mechanisms.
I agree with and applaud your efforts to further develop a world view that integrates upward and downward causation. Go ahead and challenge disciples of evolutionISM when they deny downward causation.
But you haven’t provided any reason why it’s necessary to reject the validity of overwhelmingly accepted upward causation mechanisms in order to do so, and why the approximately half of all biologists – those who don’t have a problem accepting the upward causation mechanisms alongside their downward causation presuppositions – are wrong.
January 5, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Phil Wala
I’m finally realizing that we’re not making any progress because our philosophical differences are much more basic than any particular scientific issue. Here’s an illustration of what I mean:
An atheistic scientist, such as Dawkins, states his case as follows:
Premise 1: The scientific method should be able to detect evidence of God (downward causation)
Premise 2: Science hasn’t detected any such evidence
Conclusion: God does not exist.
The fundamental difference between us is in our response. Your response is, “We concede premise 1; therefore we must argue against premise 2 by getting you to admit that your science is faulty.”
My response is, “I don’t accept premise 1.”
I don’t accept premise 1 because science, by definition, is the study of upward causation. Let me repeat to be sure you got it: SCIENCE IS THE STUDY OF UPWARD CAUSATION. Now, you immediately pounce on this and say, “See? Science rejects downward causation!” I want to help you see that this is a logical fallacy. That proper scientific method recognizes its limitations – that there are things outside its scope which it cannot scientifically observe, measure, or otherwise speak to – does NOT mean it’s saying those things don’t exist. It quite simply does not address them. To say that science can detect downward causation is willingly granting to science the powers that atheists like Dawkins try to appropriate for it.
I also reject premise 1 for biblical reasons. In His word, I read about a God who reveals Himself to anyone who looks for Him, but remains hidden to those who choose not to see. It’s a necessary part of free will. To me, that means an aborigine in the jungle seeing downward causation in the sky, trees, and animals, is on a level playing field with the scientist in the lab seeing downward causation in viruses, quarks, and DNA. To say there should be an extra level of revelation only available with the advent of 21st century science, and readily apparent even to those scientists who don’t want to see it, seems inconsistent with what I believe about God’s character.
It’s been stated before, and well-documented, that something like 40% of professional scientists believe in a personal God with whom we can have a relationship and from whom we can expect answers to prayer. These are people who look to science to understand upward causation, and look to the Bible to understand downward causation. You seem to be claiming that finding upward causations for evolutionary processes rules out downward causation, a position I, the 40% of scientists who believe, and even a good many who don’t believe, thoroughly reject. “The clouds bring rain” (upward causation) and “God brings the rain” (downward causation) are not conflicting statements.
January 6, 2011 at 7:51 am
David Housholder
We have to come out of our silos to talk. None of us can play away games in other silos well. Without consensus on the centrality of spiritual force and design, there is no language that will work.
This is why I, an inerrancy Bible believer, have stepped out of my silo and am willing to discuss the issue without using the Bible.
January 6, 2011 at 7:53 am
David Housholder
By the way, we just crossed 60,000 downloads this morning. Thanks to all of you for an amazing discussion.
March 22, 2011 at 7:41 am
David Housholder
Is the sweetness of cane sweeter than the one who made the canefield?…behind the beauty of the moon is the moonmaker…there is intelligence behind the ocean’s intelligence–feeding our love like an invisible waterwheel…consider the skill of the one who brings forth eyesight from the jelly of your eyes…instead of gemstones, love the jeweler. -Rumi
March 25, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Dave Olson
I think that there are several things going on in this discussion. First, science is not trivial. Without extensive education in a specific discipline, it’s impossible to critique what is today the cutting edge in virtually any field of science. I’m a physicist, and it’s difficult enough for me to stay informed in my specific area of physics, to say nothing of being competent to discuss the details of someone else’s field, for example, biology. In having this and similar discussion with people, I’ve found that many are looking for a one paragraph answer that can be understood with a high school level background in the field. I’m sorry, but the trivial stuff in science was done a long time ago, and now it takes years in grad school just to be able to contribute to the discussion. This isn’t arrogance, it’s an acknowledgment that the universe is wonderfully complex and that the frontiers are so complex that very few have adequate training to be able to give honest critique of the work being done there.
That one can’t personally fathom how a bird’s wing could evolve through a few hundred million years of biological pressure to survive and out-compete doesn’t mean that biology is nonsense and is to be ridiculed or demonized. How many reading this can understand the details of the nuclear physics that are taking place in the center of the sun? Without an education in nuclear physics, is one to be given license to denounce the science that helps to explain what sustains the sun?
I don’t understand organic chemistry very well at all. Because I don’t understand it myself, must it be wrong? Actually, I choose to give some credibility to those who have spent a lifetime in the field, and will accept what they would tell me because of their expertise in their fields. Maybe if I listen to them, I can learn from them.
As we all surely know, theology deals with the questions of who and why, and science deals with the question of how. Scientists observe, experiment, and build models that attempt to explain the mechanisms of what we see around us. The models allow us to extrapolate to things we haven’t explored yet, so that we can push our limits further yet. In so doing, we continually refine our models to be better predictors of the behavior of the physical universe. Is this process ever complete and perfected? Of course not. Because we don’t understand it all yet, must it be trash-talked and ridiculed as some do? I hope not.
Darwin is the current whipping boy of the anti-science crowd because he didn’t have every answer a hundred years ago, and because some seem to think that trying to gain an understanding the mechanisms of biological evolution is an attack on their faith. Evolutionary science has more than a century of refinement since Darwin, and like every science, will never be “completed.” Because we can’t comprehend all of the details doesn’t mean that science is flawed, but only that we have more work to do.
I can’t claim to understand God’s mechanisms for setting this universe into motion as it is. Why is the fine structure constant equal to 1/137.04? It determines the strength of electromagnetic interactions and it’s actually quite important to our comfort that it have this value. As a physicist, I don’t attempt to answer the “why” question, but work on measuring its value and knowing what it tells me about how the universe functions.
I can claim to understand a (very) small splinter of a small part of physics, but am always humbled by the thousands of disciplines that I’m ignorant about and can’t yet get my head around at all. However, I’m deeply troubled with those who would see my work to be in opposition to their faith as that is NOT the business or interest of science. I suspect that God is a very, very clever creator and that we are slowly peeling back the topmost layers of the onion of understanding of what God’s mechanisms are. That hardly seeks to diminish God, but in my mind lifts God up.
Can we appreciate both the creation and the creator while seeking to understand the mechanisms by which the creation was accomplished? I believe so. My personal experience has been that a growing understanding of the elegance of creation helped to develop my nascent faith and led me away from agnosticism. I have found that when I look at a rainbow, I can appreciate its beauty while understanding the optics behind it’s formation. I can watch a bird in flight and marvel at its wing design while knowing just a little bit about all the evolutionary failures that preceded that design.
March 26, 2011 at 5:08 am
David Housholder
Hope I get time to respond to your excellent post. Thank you.
You seem to think that theology and science have different parts of the truth.
Problem is, science hogs the whole landscape.
May 31, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Phil Wala
Excellent post, Dave Olson. It’s good to hear from another scientist who appreciates (as I do) the subtle complexity of the created order as a window into the mysteries of God, and is disturbed (as I am) by voices within the church who trivialize, ridicule, and even demonize legitimate scientific inquiry. It’s no wonder scientifically educated people walk away from Christians who trivialize science with statements like: “If you can’t explain it to your intelligent but unschooled grandmother, it probably isn’t true.” No, über-training (as David Housholder calls it) isn’t necessary to address the philosophical ramifications of science. But it IS required if you want any hope of challenging the science itself.
The big problem (as evidenced throughout this discourse) is the inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish between the science itself and the philosophical conclusions people draw from the science. The statement “science hogs the whole landscape” is a perfect example of that confusion. Yes, scientists take theological positions. And many use science to support their position. The problem is, only 30% or so of scientists claim to be atheists. 40% believe in a personal, prayer-answering God. And the remaining 30% or so take intermediate positions, from deism to agnosticism. Multiple studies have confirmed this complete LACK of consensus among scientists on personal belief systems. At the same time, there’s a 99.85% consensus on the science itself. To continue to tie the science and the philosophy together by saying “science hogs the whole landscape” is to completely dismiss the evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, there are some good reasons why evangelicals so stubbornly continue to conflate science and philosophy. To begin with, this conflation is the only perspective many current evangelicals have heard in their lifetime, having taken root in the early 1960s when the evangelical church began co-opting Seventh Day Adventist creation theology. Secondly, it has been the atheistic scientists that have dominated the discussion, if not in numbers, then certainly in volume. (While I reject the concept that science itself has “hogged the landscape”, it’s certainly true that the subset of scientists who are atheists have “hogged the microphone.”)
Fortunately, the scenario is rapidly changing. Gabe Lyons and his “Q” associates, for example, have put out a call for churches to provide platforms from which believing scientists can share their faith, and provide an alternative voice to the vocal “new atheists”. See, for example, Lyons’ curriculum on “The Spirituality of Science: How Science Strengthens Faith in God”, or this online “Q Talk” by Alister McGrath: http://www.qideas.org/video/overcoming-the-faith-and-science-divide.aspx . (I’m pleased to see that Lyons and I are on exactly the same page regarding science and faith, and I look forward to hearing him at our church next week!)
And the call being put out by people like Lyons and McGrath is being heeded. More and more books are being published all the time by scientists who have been encouraged to share their faith. And much of that encouragement to scientists has come, unexpectedly, from Pentecostals. Witness, for example, the recent publication of “Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Engagement with the Sciences” and other works by Amos Yong. Or take note of the upcoming Assemblies of God Faith and Science Conference (http://faithandscience.ag.org/) at which Yong and other “evolutionary creationists”, including the president of the American Scientific Affiliation, have been invited to speak.
In spite of some differences, I’m gaining newfound respect for the Assemblies of God. It takes a lot of integrity for a denomination to put on a conference devoted, at least in part, to admitting and correcting mistakes of the past. Knowing that I left their denomination after 54 years, in part due to the prevalence of anti-science rhetoric, they have invited me to speak at that conference as well, on subject of “Churches That Push Scientists Away”. I’m humbled and honored by the opportunity to be one of voices speaking out in defense of faith AND science, and I pray that the trend will continue: that more believing scientists will be given opportunity to speak out, and that anti-science rhetoric from churches will soon be a thing of the past.
May 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm
David Housholder
Wow, Phil, you’ve been gone so long I had to re-approve you! 🙂 Welcome back. Hope to see you in MN this weekend….
June 8, 2011 at 5:16 am
Phil Wala
It was great hanging out with you at the Lift Conference this weekend, Hous! I’ve written the first of two posts on my own blog about my wife’s miraculous healing from Multiple Sclerosis eight years ago today, I’m approaching it from the viewpoint of a skeptical scientist, and am looking for as many skeptical comments and questions as possible. Forward the link to your own skeptical friends! http://faithforthinkers.blogspot.com/2011/06/let-me-be-more-explicit-part-one.html
July 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Phil Wala
This thread hasn’t been very active lately, but I thought I should follow up with a report on the discussions that took place at the Assemblies of God Faith and Science Conference held at Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri, June 27-28. Having left the Assemblies of God, in part because of anti-science rhetoric and attitudes, this was a healing experience for me, and an opportunity to encourage their leadership in the steps they have taken to restore engagement with the scientific community.
The clearly expressed position of the Assemblies of God leadership, including their committee on doctrinal purity, was that young-earth creationism (YEC), old-earth creationism (OEC), and evolutionary creationism (EC) can each be associated with valid interpretations of scripture, and that believers do not need to fear, nor should they dogmatically dismiss, the scientific study of origins. A majority of the presentations at the conference did, however, highlight EC as the most scientifically solid of the three theologically acceptable positions.
Plenary speakers reflected all three viewpoints. John Mark Reynolds (Biola University) addressed YEC with refreshing humility (his position was, “I believe in a young earth, and I’m wrong. But so are you. We’re all wrong. All we can do is try to be less wrong.”) Hugh Ross presented his OEC model which, in my opinion, provides a concordist perspective that is much stronger on astronomical than biological science (he is, after all, an astronomer). Most of the other presentations I heard reflected an evolutionary creationism viewpoint, including Jennifer Wiseman (lead astronomer for the Hubble Telescope), Christina Powell (Harvard Medical School researcher and ordained AG pastor), and Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong. What surprised me most was almost no mention of “Intelligent Design”. When asked about it, the response was that intelligent design (lower case) isn’t a separate theory – all three of these positions embrace the concept of an intelligent designer – and that Intelligent Design (upper case, i.e. the Discovery Institute) is a political movement, not a scientific one.
Most importantly for me, I had very healing and affirming conversations with Dr. Yong and the Assemblies of God General Secretary Jim Bradford (PhD in aeronautical engineering)about my journey away from their fellowship, and our mutual hope that things are turning around. Although it’s too late to undo the already inflicted damage, it was at least comforting to know that these genuine, Spirit-filled men of God are committed to ending the dogmatism that has infected the movement for the last 50 years.
My presentation seemed to be well-received, although the sheer number of papers meant I was given only enough time to cover a basic outline of my subject. For those interested, the complete paper can be downloaded from: http://walamn.com/documents/Wala_Churches_That_Push_Scientists_Away.pdf
July 20, 2011 at 8:21 pm
David Housholder
Phil,
Very blessed that you got this opportunity. I run in a lot of Foursquare and Assemblies circles (rare for a Lutheran, but I’m sure it doesn’t surprise you).
Thanks SO MUCH for sharing your experiences with the thread.
It will be heating up again….
I have contacted a friend who teaches at Oxford on this stuff.
May fly there to have some conversations….
July 21, 2011 at 2:51 am
Phil Wala
For those who may be interested, a recent article in Christianity Today provided a very objective summary of the state of the discussion, in particular as it relates to the historicity of Adam and Eve. Lots of options out there for reconciling the scriptural account with genomic science. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html
July 27, 2011 at 9:14 am
David F.
It’s been a long, long time since my last post but i finaly have an opportunity to get back on a computer and make a post so here goes.
Phil, you spoke of Hugh Ross who you saw at an Assemblies of God conference earlier this year. I to have seen this man live (about 7 or 8 years ago) at the EV Free church in Fullerton, CA. He and another guy went heads-up vs. Dr. Jason Lisle and another guy. Ross made it quite clear then (as he still does to this very day) that “NATURE” is in effect the 67th book of the Bible.
In the year 2004 Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D wrote a nearly 400 page book called “Refuting Compromise” A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationisim” (Billions of Years). as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross. I strongly urge you to find and read this piece of literature. It breaks down and refutes all of Ross’s teachings and shows how belief in the the PERFECT God and a very falible man can lead to some very jacked up ideas.
Hous, with all due respect to all the schooling you have and I’m sure thousands of hours of even more study you have devoted to your study of the Bible I must say that because of the statement on this post dated 01-06-2011 at 7:51 a.m. “This is why I, an inerrancy Bible believer have steped out of my silo and am willing to discuss the issue without using the Bible.” ……..AD HOMINEM PHRASES EDITED OUT. MY CASTLE MY RULES, PLAY NICE OR DON’T PLAY. -EDITOR…… I sir will wear the full armor of God in this discussion. Why? Because if the non-believer can use his weapons I’m bloody sure to use the ULTIMATE weapon… the Word of GOD!
Seriously, all you Christians out there reading this blog or whatever you want to call it, is our God a deciever? Is he going to purposely lead little kids into lies by saying that he made this on day one, this on day 2 …..all the way to God resting on day 7? Is God going to lie to children about covering the whole earth with water by 15 cubits if he didn’t mean exactly that??? If God is bullshiting us on ANYTHING in his WORD then the whole book is a bunch of crap! We might as well turn to any religion at that point!
The ultimate question on this blog is do you trust our PERFECT God ? Or do you believe a very messed up man?
House, you know my boy Louis Jr. very well. You and I have spoken briefly a few times. Got questions about me? Jr will be happy to tell you anything you want to know.
July 27, 2011 at 9:58 am
David Housholder
David, I edited out your ad hominem comments. My castle. My rules.
No calling anyone names on this blog. Period.
And I use the Bible all the time. I trust the Bible all the time. Just as much as you do.
But it is of no use in arguing with people who don’t accept its truth.
We can win the argument without referring to a book that atheists don’t accept.
We can win this argument as a home game (on our terms with the Bible)
Or on their terms (without the Bible) as an away game.
If you just want to play home games, be my guest. I like to win away games too.
July 27, 2011 at 10:56 am
David F.
Hous,
The WORDS of GOD win! I don’t win, you don’t win, “science” doesn’t win, GOD’S truth wins. If you refuse to stand on that you have nothing to stand on! This is why the I.D. movement is silly! They refuse to start with the God of the Bible. If you fight on a fools terms what are you? I rest my case.
July 27, 2011 at 11:07 am
David Housholder
I agree that the Word will win. We have no argument there.
You are just using flawed logic when arguing with others.
I’m just doing what the Bible tells us to do.
When Paul met pagans at the Areopagos (Mars Hill) in Acts 17:16 and following. He appealed to their poetry, their way of thinking. He played an away game and didn’t base his argument on the Bible with people who don’t know or believe in the Bible.
Are you saying I shouldn’t follow Paul’s biblical example? Your way is better than Paul’s way?
Your results are better than his? Help me with this…
July 27, 2011 at 11:28 am
David F.
Paul was refering to “the unknown god” here correct? If the answer is yes then you have made my poInt.. Paul took these guys right back to the SCRIPTURES!
In the grand discussion of ” where did we come from” you either have Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21 or you have……what? Oh yea, I know the big bang or some other idea that is so much more improbable than the account in Genesis. The first half of Acts 17:24 sounds to me like a condensed version of Genesis1.Paul went back to the begining!
Come on Hous! Yer a smart guy!! A whole lot smarter than a knucklehead who ended up with a G.E.D. But on this point sir you are wrong. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to set a mans heart straight. It’s our job to give him the tools on how to get to that point….on any subject!!
if you take a man to drink water how can he drink if he’s infront of a sand dune?
July 27, 2011 at 11:48 am
David Housholder
Nice analogy with the sand dune.
But Paul, very simply, didn’t refer directly to scripture even once at Mars Hill, and didn’t insist that they accept scripture as infallible before debating them. He paraphrased Christian truth, quoted their pagan poets, and didn’t insist they believe in biblical inerrancy before any discussion could take place.
If you think that you first have to convert everyone to inerrancy before you discuss anything with them, good luck. I don’t mean that sarcastically at all. If that’s your M.O. go right ahead. Missionaries with that M.O. don’t get very far, however. Those with Paul’s Mars Hill M.O. reach nations.
Please don’t scold missionaries and evangelists with other methods than yours.
Your way is one way to get it done; I personally think it’s the hard way. Your criticism of other (useful and often effective) methods is less helpful.
And also, it is not helpful to say or imply that others don’t trust the Bible just because they don’t follow your methods. There is not one syllable of the Bible I see as untrue at any level.
I led 31 people to the Lord last year (2010) and baptized them; shooting to surpass that this year. How are your methods working?
You shall know them by their fruit.
July 27, 2011 at 11:59 am
David F.
I’ll let GOD count the cookies in my jar.
July 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm
David Housholder
Can’t let you off the hook on that one, Bro.
The Word says “YOU shall know them by their fruit.” Not “God shall know them by their fruit.”
It’s absolutely fine that you’re strident about your methods. God bless you.
Just don’t call other Bible-believing evangelists with results and fruit “fools.”
Capiche?
July 28, 2011 at 9:52 am
David F.
If yer not gonna let God’s words be the guide in a discussion then what do you have? How can you talk about the problem of evil (is evil even real?) if you don’t use the Bible as your starting point? How can you talk about cancer, or death or any other wrong on this earth if you choose not to use the Bible as your lead?
If the discussion is “where did it all come from” you only have two very different starting points. It’s either Genesis 1:1 Check that John 1:1 followed by Genesis 1:1 or before the begining there was nothing and out of nothing something became something out of that nothing. Option #2 is what the unbeliever has. This is exactly where the INTELIGENT DESIGN movement runs into trouble. They refuse to go into the “who” part of the problem! For these guys it could be budda, allah, or any other other god. But we as believers have the answers.
There is a guy who has written a few books whos name escapes me at this time, He’s from either New Zeland or Austrailia and written a few books. He believes that the only way to lead someone to Christ is through the Four Spiritual Laws. I think thats a great way to do it, but is it the only way? I now a guy who came to Christ because he heard (Dr,) Kent Hovind speak on creation/evolution. While some people (including me) may have problems with Hovind personaly and how he runs that particular ministry how can anyone say that his method is wrong?
The common element with these guys is that they start with the BIBLE!! Go at it anyway you want. My issue is with the start line.
And yes i can get off that easy with “I’ll let God count the cookies in my jar.” My friends know me, the people at the church i go to know me, most importantly God knows me even better than I know my self. At the end of the day I’m a redneck, hillbilly, NRA loving, TEA party suporting 41 year old out of work guy. But you and me have at least one thing in common. When all is said and done one day each of us is gonna end up at the Bema Seat. And yea, I’m willing to bet that my fire will be hotter and brighter than most any other and that will be a very humble moment for me. I know that there won’t be much gold in there. But in the end it’s all about Jesus.
July 28, 2011 at 10:00 am
David Housholder
Seriously appreciate your heart on this.
Let me put it simply.
a) The Bible teaches that we were designed and created.
b) Without using the Bible, it is also possible to prove that evolution is not true. It is possible to introduce the high probability of design.
c) Secular scientists don’t believe in the Bible. It is not an authority for them. We don’t get to vote on that.
d) Given “C,” which of the two: “A” or “B,” would be most convincing to the scientists?
e) Once the secular scientists are convinced of “B” there is a very good chance they could get “A” in a way they were unable to before they got “B.”
f) If you insist on everyone getting “A” before you will discuss anything, the discussion is over, and we lose. Look at our schools; evidence that we have lost. Look what they teach on the origin of life. How’s that working for you now?
July 29, 2011 at 11:39 am
Phil Wala
“d) Given “C,” which of the two: “A” or “B,” would be most convincing to the scientists?”
If it’s a choice between A) or B), I have to agree with David F. The answer is overwhelmingly A). You don’t have to guess on this one. You can look at the statistics I’ve quoted umpteen times already, but that most participants in this discussion seem to ignore.
Fact: The percentage of scientists who believe in the Bible, in a personal prayer-answering God, and that we were designed and created is 40%. Fact: The percentage of scientists who believe evolution is not true is 0.15%. Any thinking person’s conclusion from these facts: a scientist is 267 times more likely to believe A) than he is to believe B). You don’t have to agree with how 40% of scientists could possibly see God’s creative design in the evolutionary process itself. But I think you have to accept the fact that they do.
If a scientist is 267 times more likely to accept A) than B), then starting with B) only creates an insurmountable stumbling block to 99.85% of scientists. Take B) off the table, and you have a chance of reaching those in the non-believing 60% for whom B) was the one stumbling block keeping them from considering the truth of the Gospel.
It seems to me that the answer is so obviously and overwhelmingly A), that I’m completely baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that B) is a better starting point. Yes, there are those, especially those in the Discovery Institute, that think this is a good strategy. But a politically motivated group with a conspiracy theory mentality isn’t going to generate the most well thought out evangelism techniques.
I do agree with Hous that conversations with non-believers are best initiated by first connecting in the manner of Paul at the Areopagus, and then bringing it around to the Gospel message. I just think that disproving evolution about the worst starting point you could choose.
What’s more, the issue is completely independent of whether or not evolutionary creation is ultimately true. Whatever your personal opinion may be, convincing 99.85% of scientists that their science is wrong is a horribly counterproductive way to start a conversation about God.
July 28, 2011 at 10:49 am
David F.
Hous, maybe you and I are finaly no longer butting heads but I think we’re still banging shoulders pretty hard here. I can’t buy premmise B. I’ll go a step further and say that. I nor anyone else can PROVE special creation as explaind primarily in the first chaper of Genesis. All any of us can do is take the data we get and put it into a framework that best fits our own personal world view.
If you were to argue that the math makes evolution a near 0% probability then I would agree to that. (Getting into the speciffics of genetic mutations and their + or – effect on a given organisim is not my stong point.)
Without the Holy Spirit the scientist will refuse to see “B”. We as Christians lead the way to the Holy Spirit working in the scientist. So yes, in my mind “A” will come before “B” in this mater.
July 28, 2011 at 3:55 pm
LOUIS
I never imagined I would be sitting here in the middle of 2011 still reading and commenting on this post. What a great read.
David F. and I go back a long way. And I must say I love his passion but I’m going to have to agree with Hous on this one.
I don’t like the idea of coming down to someone else’s level when it means not going with option A first (the Bible). But I feel it is so important to start a dialogue first to get them to that point.
If we, as Christians, can’t converse with a group of people then we need to go back to Sunday school.
Example: not just on the topic of evolution/creation but on all things, such as Islam. We need to be able to speak without offending, listen without judging and give them the opportunity to hear the good news. If we try and cram the bible down anyone’s throat from the start will go no where, and we have done a great disservice to our Lord.
If Jesus took this approach he would not have been special. He would have been just like everyone else that had an opinion. And he is the only person that could have done it and got away with it. Can you imaging him in middle school bragging about his dad. How can you compete with that?
He had a genuine love and compassion for all people. The good, the bad and the ugly.
We would be wise to follow in his footsteps.
David F, you are 100% right and way wrong.
You can lead a horse to water but he won’t drink if he doesn’t want to. Sound familiar.
We have to be loving and kind and honest and sincere when speaking on behalf of the almighty. We have an awesome responsibility to be like Christ. We fail miserably every day but we can and should learn. Little by little we should get better.
If we throw the Bible at everyone in the first couple of minutes we will miss the mark. Jesus didn’t do it, why would we.
September 22, 2011 at 4:41 pm
David F.
I just took parts of three days and reread (is that a word or is my spelling just that bad?) everything that has been posted here. In the morning I plan to once again read the original post by Hous and then chime in once more. I’m in a pretty dark place right now so this ought to be fun.
September 23, 2011 at 9:00 am
David F.
I have a lot to say this morning after getting a good nights rest. I’m sure that eveyone will get a little ticked at me for one thing or another but frankly I realy don’t care. This is what I believe, this is what is in my core.
Going back to Hous’s original post I love two particular thoughts,
A) Your deffinition of science. I think it’s spot on
B) EVERYONE has pre-suppositions. We all have our starting points. Is that starting point Biblicaly based? Is is based in some form of humanism? If it’s not Biblicaly based then it WILL boil down to something man created.
An item i have some issue with is the micro/macro evolution idea. Micro evolution with-in a species does happen.
The length of a beak of a given bird on an island vs. the same bird on an island just a few miles away. this does happen. It is observed, it is tested, it is the same bird. The bird does not change from a crow (or whatever it may be) into a dove. The crow will always be a crow
The deffinition of “life” is a tricky thing. People have long been asking this question. Star Trek asked this question many times. (Yes S.T. is based on evolution but I love almost everything Trek.) Can a computer (Commander Data, S.T. The Next Generation) ever be considered as having life? What about the rock creature in the Original Series? (title: The Devil Inside ??)
Today most (all?) scientists will say that plants have life. I find this intresting. Personaly I’m going to refer to the Bible on this one and leave it up to God. Genesis 6:20 (NKJV) “…..birds after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after it’s kind….” We also need to look at the deffinition of the word “good” in Genesis chapter 1. IF no one is good but God and then take that back to Gennesis 1 “good” would in my mind mean perfect. If the world God created over six literal days was inded perfect then one could view the earth as having had no death.
Adam was not given permission by God to eat the animals. But he was given in Genesis 1:29 (NKJV)”….every herb that yields seed witch is on the face of the earth, and every tree whos fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.” If God gave Adam the herbs & fruits to eat in a place that was perfect would then God be introducing death before the sin of Adam? I don’t think so.
Now if life is not defined as someone or something as having a soul then I would argue that plants & Commander Data have life. By no means am I going to get anywhere near dogmatic on this issue. There are way, way to many rabbit holes to go down on this, just my own personalLy held beliefs.
Lastly regarding the original post Hous posses the question of “what are we doing here?” This is more of a theological question than a scientific one. I would respecfully submit that Hous does have the answer and that while he and I aggree it would be far better for him to answer than for I.
Now to get to some of the posts that have been laid out over the last few years. (Talk about a rabbit hole! Hahaha)
Phil W., I gotta admit some times I love what you say and at other times it perplexes me to a point i can not describe.
The population forms most of it’s opinions from their schooling, be it private, public or other. All public schools (K-12, through college and grad schools) teach evolution as fact. A local college here in Orange County (Chapman University) will not consider ANY form of inteligent design. I know this as FACT. I attended a public meeting there earlier this year with a Christian friend who is an O.E.C. & another bud who sits on the fence. It was a forum that introduced (sp) a new professor of evolution to the school.
Even in most Christian schools of higher learing students are taught evolution (or some variant of theistic evolution). It is EXTREMELY rare that you will find Biblical creation taught anywhere in the American educational system. Thank God that my sister is making sure that at home she is teaching her 5th and 7th grade son & daughter about what the Bible teaches on origins! YES! The school books are cooked, cooked to the point that states are not even alowed to put a sticker on the inside of these textbooks stating that evolution is only a theory.
I’d also like to thank you Phil, on July 28, 2011 Hous wrote,
“A) The Bible teaches us we were designed and created
B) With out using the Bible it is also possible to prove that evolution is not true, but possible to introduce the high probability of design.
C) Secular scientists don’t believe in the Bible.”
Your answer to Hous was dead on! Bottom line is I can not prove special creation hapened (6,000ish years ago or otherwise) and no one can prove evolution to be fact either. It all comes down to our original suppositions as to where the science will lead us. It is our job as Christians to show the unbeliever what is right and to let The Holy Spirit work with in them to lead that person to Christ. Then A can work it’s way down the alpabet.
One last thing Phil, can you show me ANY beneficial mutation that adds information? Information that comes from nothing? The birds beak that I spoke of earlier is a minus in the information. That bird and it’s offspring will never be able to get back the original long beak with out being reintroduced to a population of the same bird that does have the long beak.
Pastor Tom, I like your writings and we aggree on most issues (the whole what a day means in Genesis 1 is an issue we have already discussed in this blog).
I think it’s great that you brought up the issue of the Catholic priests (Pope) in the middle ages. Here in this blog most people have failed to see the difference in the church that was the middle ages and the church(es) that are in 2011. I don’t wish to go Catholic bashing here but thank God for the men like Martin Luther who helped start the reformation. Without Luther, Usher and the others would we have the Baptists? The Luthrens? Methodists? The Calvary Chapels? I think we would still be listining to the priest read from the Bible and not doing it on our own or with our friends. We would be slaves to the church just as most Catholics are today.
You also brought up the issue that the paradigm of evolution has ruled out God as a working hypothesis. So true….so sadly true.
Ryan M, I like your posting. An author you may like is Lee Stroble. Lee was (still is?) an investigative reporter who did not believe in God. His wife was a Christian and he wanted to prove that her faith was in nothing. Big suprise! He came out of it as a believer and has since written a few books you might find of value. “The Case for a Creator”, “The Case for Christ”, “The Case for Faith”. All these books come from the view of the type of reporter that he is. Hopefully you’ll see this post and look for his work.
Someone also posted that a creation museum aggrees with natural selection. What creation museum is this? I for one would like to know.
This post is way, way to long and i feel like my head is gonna explode so I’ll finaly stop here.
Sidebar…..House, I hope that all will is well with the issues of a few Saturdays ago. It was nice to have that quick little chat with you.
September 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm
David F.
Check that last paragraph……..I hope that the issues that arrose a few Saturdays ago are taken care of with out to much trouble or expence.