Subscribe
Latest Activity
-
About
Dr. Del Tackett is the author, architect and teacher for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project, a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
-
By Month
-
- ►January
- ►2009
- ►2008
- ►2007
-
Links
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Response to Rich Re: My Blog on the Ben Stein Movie
Posted on May 17, 2008
Filed Under Worldview |
Thank you for your comments.
If I may summarize your remarks, it appears you believe the Ben Stein movie was false because, from your experience, you don’t see that kind of hostility. You conclude with:
“What is desperately needed is people who are truly dedicated to the truth and not just promoting ‘their side’. Believers in science are caught in the middle and while you think you are doing us a favor, you are not.”
I appreciate your comments and was excited to see that you are a regional board member of the American Scientific Affiliation. Because of that, I will assume you would be comfortable talking about this in a logical or ‘scientific’ manner.
It appears you are saying this:
Premise A is false because my personal experience doesn’t validate the supporting evidence.
However, I’m sure you would agree that our personal observations are not sufficient to invalidate a premise (except for a negative premise: i.e. “No one eats chocolate ice cream” can be falsified by “I eat chocolate ice cream”). Using our personal experiences to invalidate someone’s premise and research would be akin to saying that studies showing sexually transmitted infections (SDIs) are at plague levels in the United States is false because I see no evidence of that in my family or circle of friends. This is a common logical fallacy that, unfortunately, we all use occasionally. Many deny God’s existence because they haven’t personally seen Him.
So, the proper way to invalidate the premise of “Expelled” would be to show that the evidence brought forth is false. In other words, you would need to frame your argument this way:
–A. The movie’s premise is that there is hostility in the academic and scientific realm that muffles those who desire to question Darwinian theory, sometimes resulting in those questioners losing their jobs.
–B. The movie presents evidence for this premise by interviewing people who have lost their jobs because of questioning Darwinian theory and interviewing individuals who hold that hostility toward those who raise the questions.
–C. The movie’s premise is false because the evidence is false. Either Ben Stein made the stories up or the people themselves are lying or delusional.
Now, I could have misunderstood your argument. It is possible you were thinking more along one of the following lines:
–1. I agree that the evidence is valid, but I dispute the implication that it is widespread. If so, you would need to show from more than personal experience that it isn’t. The producers have a web site where they have allowed others who have been affected by this hostility to post their stories. Many have done so.
–Or 2. I agree that the evidence is valid and it is widespread. What I am arguing is that bringing up this problem just makes things worse. In this case we are dealing with a personal opinion. I think that most historical data will show that problems don’t get better if we ignore them (i.e. an alcoholic or spousal abuse).
By the way, I would be very interested to see some of the data you refer to:
“A large percentage of those who see evidence that evolution is an accurate description of nature are theists and even Christians.”
This kind of survey is extremely interesting to me and I would love to see the data. How many “scientists” hold to theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, or have serious doubts about evolution? Then correlate those answers with their various views of God, the Bible, etc.
Also, you refer to Alister McGrath and say “he is ALSO a theistic evolutionist…” If by that you are saying you hold to a theistic evolutionary position, then that could be one of the reasons you haven’t personally experienced any hostility. The hostility the movie addresses deals not with a hostility against Christian faith, but against those who question Darwinian theory.
So, regarding your statement:
“Most of the interactions between believing and secular scientists are cordial and believers like myself can express our Christian faith openly without fear of persecution.”
This could be very true as long as the expressions of your Christian faith don’t question evolution. And theistic evolutionists, by and large, don’t question the theory of evolution and therefore wouldn’t experience the consequences shown in “Expelled“.
Anyway, I’m simply offering a reason why your “personal experience” might not match the evidence shown in the movie.
One other comment, if I may. This is in regards to your statement:
“From my own experience, what is portrayed in the movie bears little resemblance to what is going on in the scientific community because the atheists are just a noisy minority.”
I’ve already dealt with the problem of falsifying a premise based upon personal experience, but it is the second part of your evidence that I want to address: “because the atheists are just a noisy minority.”
I don’t dispute that “atheists” are a statistical minority, but this implies that a noisy minority can’t exert a great influence. We have historical evidence to show that to be false. The homosexual community is a very small and noisy minority but they are having a tremendous impact upon our culture. Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion” was on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly a year. Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” were also prominent on the bestseller list. When Time featured a debate between Dawkins and Collins, they made this statement: “The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God—with science winning…”. Surveys point to the alarming reality that 50% to 90% of the Christian youth who go to college walk away from their faith. We may not like to talk about this “battle”, but ignoring it ignores the tragedy of the casualties. I get to know 88 students every semester who come from universities all over America, and I can tell you horror stories of their “battle” on the campus. I interviewed one girl who was so openly criticized and belittled and harassed by her professor because of her Christian faith that she had to finally drop the course. I know another girl who was told by her major professor that she needed to either drop her Christianity or drop her major in Social Services. This is the reality of the battle. It does exist. A recent survey showed that 53% of university professors hold an unfavorable/hostle view toward evangelical students (Institute for Jewish & Community Research).
If there isn’t a battle going on here, there is a lot of evidence that is very puzzling at the least.
Well, I truly do thank you for your comments. If I understand part of your argument properly, I heartily agree that the debate must be carried out with civility. The Christian’s responsibility is to be attractively winsome in every interaction with outsiders. I hope to hear from you again…especially to see some of the survey data.
My last comment is this. You state that the movie has failed to bring about an open and honest debate on this issue. I somewhat disagree. You and I are doing that right now. I would hope that every Christian in the scientific and academic arenas would be able to discuss this issue. I would hope that every Trustee or Board member of every college in America would ask this question: “Is this going on in our university?” I hope that someone will develop a survey for non-tenured professors that asks these three questions:
–“Do you feel that you or your colleagues can openly question Darwinian evolutionary theory on this campus without fear of reprisal?”
–“Do you think such a position would be allowed to be published in refereed journals?”
–“Do you think such a position would have a negative effect on being tenured?”
I would love to see the results. Maybe that is something the American Scientific Association would want to conduct. Who knows? It may support your position. It may not. I’d like to see.
Thanks again!
Comments
41 Responses to “Response to Rich Re: My Blog on the Ben Stein Movie”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Comments on Del Tackett's blog may not refer specifically to any current electoral candidate, or any measure on a current ballot – at any level of local, state, or federal government. Focus on the Family is a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity, and therefore cannot take a position on specific votes. Nor can we display any such statements on our Web sites. Likewise, we cannot discuss here the personal viewpoints of people like Dr. Dobson or Jim Daly on political candidates or ballot measures. Any posts to this forum which violate these rules will be removed. There is an alternative venue for this type of discussion. Some activities of this nature are undertaken by Focus on the Family Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, and its media outlet, Citizenlink.
Del
I think your reply to Rich is ingenuous. If Expelled posited that there are, or have been, only some repercussions resulting from dissention by individuals to the theory of evolution, you might be right.
What Expelled attempted to portray was that there is a cabal within the science community which permits no dissention whatsoever.
A statement written by the producers of Expelled on the movie website says-
“Actually, the authentic victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely acknowledging that intelligent design exists within nature.
Our worldwide investigation over the last eighteen months revealed the real “miscasting.” Namely, to the role of “the unemployed,” or “discredited,” that the cadre of elite antitheists assigns any scientist or educator dissenting from the party line.”
Since the movie attempts to “reveal” this absolute condition of authoritarianism, Rich’s personal experience, when combined with the position of Reasons to Believe, who state that “In Reasons To Believe’s interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect.” should be, even to you, a perfectly adequate argument to the distorted picture painted by Expelled.
I was a Christian college student (who went to a Christian college, incidentally) who almost walked away from my faith because I had been given a lot of Creation science garbage at my Christian middle and high school, then went on to learn that it was a) a complete caricature of evolution, and b) not based on any actual research, but rather on revisionist and selective readings of real research. I did not need anyone to use a straw man argument on me because my defenses were already straw men. These sorts of attempted modern, scientific apologetics are extremely unhelpful to those who are attempting to know the truth instead of propping up that which they have unconditionally accepted. Is it not obvious that attacking one unscientific bias with another unscientific bias only strengthens the politicization of the issue? Isn’t the goal to pull the whole discussion back down to objectivity? If this movie succeeded utterly in everything it is attempting to accomplish, it would only succeed in making university administrators walk on eggshells and severely hamper the process of peer review (probably by bloating it with careful liberal diction) for fear of being accused of anti-religious or anti-Darwinian discrimination.
I have no problem with questioning Darwinian theory on scientific grounds, for scientific reasons, but doing so based on Genesis 1 and 2 to preserve an unreasonably literalist (and as I recall, rather recent) interpretation is just a misapplication of Genesis 1 and 2. If you want to oppose the attempts of science to usurp God, oppose the bogus philosophy behind it, not the research. If the research was stretched in order to grind an ax, then it won’t last if you take away the ax. If the emperor has no clothes, don’t just put up your own naked emperor - point it out.
I agree with Rich that we need people who are dedicated to the truth. We need careful thinkers who can parse out the difference between Enlightenment rationalism and necessary/self-evident truth (and who know the meaning of the term “post-modern”). I see why he cites Alister McGrath - a good example of a theologian who sees no point in going down with the sinking ship of modernity.
As a premedical and biology education major at Northeast Missouri State University (now Truman State University), I recall an evolutionary biology professor with whom I had a discussion on a biblical world view, asking me when I was going to leave (the university) in an unwelcome manner. There was, in my opinion, an undercurrent of belief in the science department that did not repect a worldview that allowed the possibility of intelligent design.
Greetings Del and Rich,
Thank you Del for the way you framed your response to Rich. And Rich I hope you will respond in a similar logical way.
My favorite sci-fi/fantasy movie is “The Lord of The Rings” trilogy. Gandolf’s struggle to unite the different “people” groups against the impending threat of Sauron is so similar of the quest to unite Christians to the one truth and the one Lord so that with one voice we can victoriously fight against the impending present darkness of this world.
If the Bible is true, if Jesus truly is who He said He is, then it must be true that faith in Him would lead us to a realm of infinite logic and reason. So obviously I believe that Christianity is the most comprehensive logical and reasonable belief in the world. The truth that sets men free isn’t merely abstract facts but ultimately is found in a Person, the One who is Himself the Truth.
In my response here, I would like to address my dilemma with Christian evolutionists.
If a person is going to say, “I believe in God”, but at the same time throws out Genesis by saying evolution is correct, that violates the logic of believing the Bible does it not? The New Testament emphatically declares that by Jesus Christ all things were made. A worldview that tries to embrace positions that are diametrically opposed to each other is less than intellectually satisfying to me, to say the least!
If the evolutionary fossil record is correct then we obviously have death and destruction before the sin of Adam and Eve. So now we can’t say that sin is the cause of death.
How long can Christians halt between two opinions? Either Genesis is true or evolution is true. Just as Darwin said that if certain things could be proven (which they have)then his whole theory would break down, so I would say that if we take out the creation account of Genesis so the logicality of believing the bible breaks down entirely. I want nothing to do with a faith that embraces stupidity, promotes insanity and glorifies delusional imaginations.
We as Christians are called to walk in the company of Daniel and his friends who excelled in the areas of wisdom and knowledge. BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH IN GOD. When we agree with the world that faith is in an arena devoid of reason and logic or at least it is inferior to “real science” why should we expect anyone to believe it?
Thank you Del for reminding me of Daniel.
God bless,
Mike Weaver
I very much enjoyed reading this response. This is my first exposure to your work and writing, Del.
Since becoming a Christian at 21 years of age, the intellectual realm of the Biblical truth has always been most important to me.
Also, my area of work at our university, engineering, puts me in a position to appreciate and have a good understanding of science. However, it has continued to be my opinion that much of the time both Christians and scientists overlook the necessary connection between philosophy and science.
Although I have not done a thorough study of this connection, my own thinking leads me to believe that the presupositions of science are not themselves scientific. Rather they are philosophical, and one must start with a philosophical system which maintains consistency and explanations of what we observe. Science does such a good job of predicting and explaining many things, that people are often taken off guard when it is used (poorly) in areas like creation and evolution.
Biblical Christianity seems to provide sufficient and consistent presupositions concerning our universe in ways that other systems do not. In fact, science rests upon those presupositions and always has, I think.
I think the typical scientist feels that the kinds of “God’s existence” presupositions Christians would use will put an improper and random fudge factor into science. We need to talk more about why this is not so.
Others write about these things much better than I can, and I must stop with this. So much more can be said. –Phil
Mr. Weaver,
You and I are in complete agreement on this subject and you’ve stated the issue very succinctly.
I also believe Christianity and (macro) evolution to be diametrically opposite beliefs. Yes, we can believe in God through revelation through His Creation but to know and share His story of salvation, we HAVE to use His Word as the basis. His Word and story starts in Genesis 1:1; you can’t bypass or discount Genesis and have a coherent, believable scripture otherwise.
If Darwinian macro-evolution is proven true, I see no way to reconcile it to God’s Word which must then be rendered false. The struggle to attempt to reconcile seems fruitless and, for Christians, only comprimises the position back to man’s ways which is ultimately a hopeless cause.
As a staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ for the past 22 years, and a college biology teacher for ten yers before that, I can assure anyone who is interested that the hostility towards Christian thought, whether it be in the sciences or the humanities, is widespread throughout the nation’s campuses. I hear/see it almost everyday. I hear about it from other staff all the time. I experienced it myself 22 years ago from my fellow faculty members. And it is much worse today.
I do not know Rich’s bredth of experience, but I can positively state it is not the norm.
Mike and Jim,
One may, with glib reasoning, rule out all options besides 6-day Creationism and Dawkinsite evolution without really thinking about it, but it does no favors to Christ, His followers, or those seeking Him. It only precludes reasonable dialogue.
One is not “throwing out” Genesis, Mike, if they attempt to understand its Creation story as a different genre than the book of Numbers. It seems arbitrary to interpret it literally. Why, for example, is there evening and morning before there is a Sun? And why, moreover, is there no evening or morning on the seventh day? As one who believes the word of God to be true and not simple, modern, or easy, I think it’s clear that the Creation account does not lend itself to literal interpretation any more than Ezekiel’s prophecies or Jesus’ parable are to be interpreted literally. It just seems absurd interpret it that way when there are so many more parsimonious ways of looking at it.
So instead of saying those who think evolution is possible and Genesis 1 is figurative are not honest Christians, why not consider the merits of the position that interpreting something literally means you’re being more true to the text? It’s a ridiculous position, and it has caused more than a little bit of unnecessary anguish for people like myself.
Del, I recently watched the video indescribable, and it talks about the universe and the thousands of light years away different galaxies were and how many light years away things in our own galaxy are. That does not add up to our 6 thousand or so year old planet. Is it that God made earth after all the other universes? or that the speed of light is not calculated correctly. Just curious.
Del, thanks for your considered response. Due to the length I will address only a couple of points.
“This kind of survey is extremely interesting to me and I would love to see the data. How many “scientists” hold to theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, or have serious doubts about evolution?”
A grad student, Whitney Gray, decided to contact the list of skeptics of evolution from DI’s list. He limited himself to the biologists and bio-chemists. He asked them all a simple question.
Do you believe in common descent?
All but two answered yes.
Michael Behe gave the following more extended answer:
“Yes, I think we share an ancestor with other primates. However, I don’t believe that the process leading to the appearance of humans was Darwinian.”
Clarifying question: Would it be correct to say that you feel we share a common ancestor and through guided mutations and natural selection, humans arose?
Answer: Yes, that’s right.
Dr. Fred Sigworth denies rejecting Common Descent and recommends TE Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God.
Dr. Dan Kuebler denies rejecting Common Descent and evolution and asked unsuccessfully to be taken off the list.
Professor Paul Koval said in the many public lectures he has given in the last 15 years he recalls never saying evolutionary theory is wrong.
You continue, “Then correlate those answers with their various views of God, the Bible, etc.”
The major books that go against the New Atheism are all by theistic evolutionists (Keller, McGrath, D’Souza, and Collins). Yes, Alister McGrath from Expelled is a Theistic Evolutionist as well as John Polkinghorne. Here is what Polkinghorne has to say about evolution and intelligent design:
“Evolution clearly happens and there is very strong genetic evidence for the evolutionary connection of most animals including man. …
Similarly, the idea proposed by some ID advocates that certain biological systems couldn’t possibly have evolved is almost certainly wrong.”
The new Evangelical Manifesto says the following:
“All too often we have disobeyed the great command to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and have fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today.”
For further historical information concerning evangelical support of evolutionary biology I would recommend the book by David Livingstone called “Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders”.
You have asked a very important question because at the heart of who we are as evangelicals is fidelity to both the living and written Word. As brothers in the Lord we must always challenge each other to find the truth as iron sharpens iron. So, in that spirit, my question to you is why do you promote the work of Jonathan Wells who is a Moonie?
Your Brother,
Rich
I agree that there are instances where Christians are treated unfairly in academia. Gonzalez treatment at ISU was particularly unfair. But I don’t buy Epelled’s claim that this is endemic. My evidence is primarily anecdotal as well so this is probably a he-says, she-says situation.
However, the movie is about more than just academic freedom. It is a package of 3 ideas: 1) evolution is morally bad 2) there is not sufficient evidence for evolution and 3) opposing evolution is bad for an academic career. My point is that #1 and #2 are simply untrue. So in fact, it is somewhat understandable that #3 happens. (Do you think a physicist who opposed heliocentrism should be allowed to teach this in our universities?)
Over the next week I am publishing a series of articles on “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics”. This is a collaborative series with 7 other Evangelicals like myself who believe our acceptance of evolutionary science in no way compromises our faith in the Creator God who revealed himself through the incarnate and risen Christ. Many of the articles will address the claim that academia is a hostile place for Christians. Two of the articles include: “Is the scientific academic community a hostile environment for Faith?” and “Is teaching evolution in Christian higher education faith shaking or faith affirming?”. The series introduction is published at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelicals-evolution-and-academics.html
Here’s some more on you question of how evolution relates to ones view of Scripture and God, etc.
“I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”
– B.B. Warfield, considered to be the father of 20th Century Inerrantism
I will not witness on the basis of evolution/creation arguments, because Jesus Christ commands a higher witness in the Great Commission: Acts 1: 6-8. If someone would like to believe in Jesus but has a problem with the idea of creation in 6 days of 24 hours each, I will describe the possibilities that I can accept as consistent with the Bible and the natural world that we know. I will emphasize the most important thing: that mankind was created by an all-powerful and loving Creator who daily nourishes and sustains the human race, and desires Salvation for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4).
– Billy Graham
Thanks for your interesting letter of the 8th:—I can’t have made my position clear. I am not either attacking or defending Evolution. I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you and I differ. Thinking as I do, I can’t help regarding your advice (that I henceforth include arguments against Evolution in all my Christian apologetics) as a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue: and also on terrain very unsuitable for the only weapon I have. Atheism is as old as Epicurus, and very few polytheists regard their gods as creative.
– C.S. Lewis
Rich Blinne
Wow, Del, just Wow!
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your reasoned and calm countering of the gentleman Rich’s comments.
I’ll be reading this several more times to help myself learn how such discussion can be held.
Keep up the good work.
Jacob,
Perhaps you and I come from different experiences that have shaped our beliefs in very interesting and opposite ways. I was a public school (and university) attendee and most always only exposed to Darwinian views on origins. I didn’t find Christ in full until I was 23 and only then started looking at origins through different “glasses”.
Neither one of us could “prove” to the other how we originated and any research into the past either one of us could share that supported our viewpoint will not be 100% convincing either way. Unless it is observational science of the present processes, we can’t know what REALLY happened in the past.
I think you find the research by very intelligent sources from the Darwinian side of things to be so convincing, you don’t want to believe any other way. You find it hard to reconcile that with a Creationist’s model or evidence. You may be right but then again, you may not be. Personally, I will not put my trust in man’s interpretation of the evidence. I will start with the inspired Word of God and filter everything through that.
I have not given short shrift to the evidence by any means, however, to me it is simply this: any sin before Adam renders God’s salvation story (as described in a literal reading of the entire Bible) as intellectually unsatisfactory. It is by faith I believe this.
Again, I give due respect to your position and your experience but this happens to be mine.
I am further proof that academia has a distinct distaste for non-evolutionary points of view. In my required science course at a secular university, I was given the opportunity to participate in some research being conducted by some of the PHD candidates. The questions were, literally, “Do you believe that man has evolved from a primate-like ancestor?” and “Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?”. I was excited to participate, believing (as a brand new freshman in college) that my input would be valued. When my answers to the above were “no”, I will never forget the questioner’s face as she got so angry at me and proceeded to ask me how I could be a logical person attempting a college education and believe anything else. By the end of the survey, I was lead to believe that my thinking (through direct comments from the person conducting the survey) that I was a completely unreasonable person. My materials included Dawkins’ comments (including those that indicate that people who would shun evolution as a viable theory are ignorant and stupid). I can promise you that at the end of that class, I sold my textbook back to the bookstore thinking that even the small price they pay on repurchase was too good for that book.
I won’t even begin to delve into how well my papers (which must have been colored enough by my biblical views of who man is) for my anthropology class were received. To sum up - I was told that my thinking was outdated and was given a “C” in the class.
It’s real. To deny it is (in my opinion) like not going to the doctor when you have cancer just because you don’t want to hear the doctor say the words. Sometimes the answer is confrontation. That is the example of Christ and the money changers. Did he respectfully agree to disagree and go about his day? No - he brought the whip. And - if what He did was perfect (which is for another discussion but I believe it was) it must mean that some issues require stern response.
Del - thank you for your service in this blog. If anyone thinks that the Christian community is “intellectually brain dead”, they aren’t reading the lively discussions herein.
–“Do you feel that you or your colleagues can openly question Darwinian evolutionary theory on this campus without fear of reprisal?”
–“Do you think such a position would be allowed to be published in refereed journals?”
–“Do you think such a position would have a negative effect on being tenured?”
There is a poisonous atmosphere in both the secular and religious academy. Not only can the above happen but also those who accept Darwinian theory can be similarly silenced. Almost none of the people documented in Expelled could get a job at Biola because they require a denial of Common Descent and as I showed most ID proponents who are biologists accept this.
As an alumnus of Iowa State I found the case of Dr. Gonzalez deeply troubling. A number of us in the ASA sent letters to President Geoffries both when Dr. Alvarez (and Patterson who I had the distinct displeasure of meeting when I was a student at ISU) were starting their witch hunt and while Dr. Gonzalez was appealing his tenure. The good news is that Dr. Gonzalez found a position at Grove City College. He got a position where there is not the hostile work environment and they got a world class astronomer to help create an Astronomy minor.
My point (and the ASA’s point) it is not just ID proponents where academic and religious freedom is at risk. Recently the journal Science profiled the paleontologist Steven Godfrey:
Trying to articulate where his religious beliefs stand now, Godfrey’s eyes fill with tears. “It’s been so long, a lifelong struggle, to sort out,” he says. He has flirted with atheism but found it too depressing. Several years ago, he stopped attending church for a year before returning. He
believes in God today, he says, but tomorrow may be different.
Complicating matters are the people he most loves and their stance on creationism. Godfrey and his wife met as teenagers in a church youth group. They and their five children have always attended an evangelical, young-Earth creationist church. About 6 months ago, Godfrey seethed through 12 weeks of a DVD presentation on creationism. During an early session, he raised objections in front of a church youth group that included his 15-year-old daughter. The group was not brought back for later showings.
“I was really torn,” he says, “because I would have loved to have been given the opportunity to say, ‘Okay, I’m now going to do a presentation on
the other side.’ But they don’t want to hear it. It’s too threatening and it’s too upsetting.”
Like many creationists-turned-evolutionists, Godfrey is conflicted about how, and how forcefully, to press his case. In 2005, he and his
brother-in-law Smith published Paradigms on Pilgrimage, a book describing their own transition and making the case for evolution. His father prayed that it would not be published, and Godfrey did not send his parents a copy. He thought his book would change minds among creationists but isn’t sure it has.
—
Here’s what the conflict thesis has wrought. Last week there were two letters one from a scientist hardened by the debate and another from a fellow ASA member. The latter letter shows where my heart is.
—-
I found the News Focus story “Crossing the divide” (J. Couzin, 22 February, p. 1034) to be particularly disturbing and unworthy of publication in Science. Three full pages were dedicated to paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, who (finally) rejected creationism and embraced evolution and “is still recovering from the traumatic journey.” Give me a break! Had
Science magazine been around during the 17th century, would we have seen such consolatory text for those “traumatized” by the fact that the Sun
does not revolve around the Earth? Or earlier, would we have seen such gentle treatment of those “devastated” by the realization that the Earth
is not flat? While Dr. Godfrey’s escape from the ignorant shroud of Biblical literalists is praiseworthy, Science magazine is not the place to
give even a hint of respectability to those who would deny the fundamental fact of evolution. There is too much at stake, for our children and our society, to give any credence to those promoting unscientific nonsense (creationism or intelligent design) and justifying irrational beliefs under the guise of religion.
Craig W. Stevens
Department of Pharmacology and Physiology
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences
Tulsa, OK 74107, USA
—–
The News Focus story by J. Couzin, “Crossing the divide” (22 February, p. 1034) accurately and respectfully describes the crux of the challenge that our scientific understanding presents to members of faith communities.
With more than 20 years of experience in teaching biology to evangelical undergraduates, I can state with a high degree of confidence that the
situation within evangelicalism is to a great extent just as Couzin presented. The worldview in which so many conservative Christians are raised and trained gives them but two stark choices: Either there is a God, the world is a few thousand years old, and therefore evolution cannot
have occurred, or the scientific community is correct, evolution occurred, and there is no God. The heart of the matter revolves around meaning in
life, not around scientific knowledge. If we can understand the tremendous cognitive and spiritual stress this presents to the faith community, then
we as truth-seeking scientists should be willing to listen to the concerns of those holding such positions.
We within the scientific community must continue to present the demonstrable evidence from the physical realm and clearly express how that
evidence supports our current interpretations. This effort is not served well at all by dogmatic pronouncements such as “Evolution is fact,” even
if such statements are accurate. Furthermore, for members of the scientific community to make theological statements in the name of science
is philosophically illegitimate, and destructive in our truth-seeking efforts. In this short essay, Science has published the only example I
have read in the leading scientific literature that takes the time and effort to understand and express what really drives the concerns of the
majority of evangelicals, and does so in a manner that respects the integrity of both the scientific endeavor and the integrity of the faith
commitments within the evangelical community.
Allow me to suggest that this serves as a call to us in the sciences to be more humble as we interact with the faith community. We as scientists ought to be those most keenly aware of the tenuous and ever-changing nature of human knowledge, even as we build on that which has stood the test of time. We ought to behave as though the faith community poses no threat to the integrity of science, just as the faith community ought to behave as though science poses no threat to the integrity of faith. That is the challenge to us brought forth so eloquently in this piece, and is a major focus of organizations such as The American Scientific Affiliation.
Let us all humbly seek for truth as we respect one another’s efforts to do so.
Andrew Whipple
Department of Biology
Taylor University
Upland, IN 46989, USA
At it’s heart, this debate comes down to a question of worldviews rather than science per se. This is not about evolution vs creation. This is about materialism vs theism.
This seems to be poorly understood on all sides, and was not well addressed in Stein’s film.
Materialism leads to certain conclusions. A true materialist holds to certain “truths” about the world. These are not generally open for debate (especially among those who have not carefully examined their own presuppositions):
Presupposition 1: The material universe is all that exists. Thus, there can be no reality to the commonly held theistic notion of a transcendent being.
Presupposition 2: Science, as the study of the material universe, is the sole epistemological tool available to humanity. Claims of other epistemological tools, like revelation, must therefore be no more than a means to insert opinion with pretended authority.
The logical extensions of these presuppositions appear all around us. For example:
- Any knowledge not ascertainable by science, or beyond the reach of science, is simply not possible–i.e., it’s not knowledge.
- Claims to knowledge of a transcendent being may be some combination of amusing, sad, alarming, or even dangerous. While theists may be personally likeable, their views are not legitimate, rational arguments.
- Therefore, “theism” equals “irrational.”
Since ID is a serious claim which admits the possibility that a transcendent being not only exists, but acts physically in the material universe, ID is by definition fundamentally irrational. And you certainly don’t want someone teaching a science class at a major university that is unable to control her irrational impulses. This would simply be an unimaginable abrogation of responsibility to the university.
Thus, it’s not necessary for any sort of conspiracy on the part of the Darwinian establishment. It’s simply a logical expression of materialism working in the best interests of science, and students of science.
We see lots of variations on this theme. Science, which started out as the study of the natural world (or, in more theistic times, the “created order”) has morphed into finding naturalistic explanations for everything. IF materialism is true, then everything MUST have a purely material explanation, whether we have any idea what it is, or not.
But science is self-correcting, and the data continues to pile up–biology is teeming with structure and complexity that random mutation cannot possibly have created. It may alter or recombine existing information, but simply hasn’t had sufficient time to create anything approaching this level of complexity.
As a computer scientist with most of a career invested in the development of information and complex control structures, the data is becoming overwhelming that SOMEONE had their fingers in the soup, intentionally generating the right outcome.
For those who haven’t read it yet, see Behe’s latest book: Figure 9.3 (p. 193) shows a small, recently mapped portion of one such complex control structure. With additional research of this kind, materialists will find it increasingly difficult to cling to their faith commitment. The future is bright.
I will add in my two cents.
I was also a student in a secular college where my views on creation were challeneged. I was on the deans list, made excellent grades in all my classes. Yet in my biology class, and my bot. class (different semesters) I made d’s and c’s. Both teachers expressed dislike for me due to my Christian beliefs, in front of the other students in the classes. My papers were graded much harder then my fellow students, test answers were marked wrong when they were not. One prof. refused to grade one paper because it was full of “junk” and not worth his time. It was on something crazy like why flowers are pretty. The other prof, decided to give me a failing grade in the class, just “because that is what I deserved” even though the grades he had assigned me did not add up to that. I had to go to the head of the department to get the test graded, so that I would pass the classes. I have written statements from other students in the class that this is what happened. I also had copies of their answers and mine, which were very similar, and the other students where given A’s and I was given d’s.
You can’t tell me that the difference was anything other then my confessed belief in Christ. I am not a bible thumper who tells everybody I meet either. I tend to just be quiet and listen.
I would just like for those in Colleges and Schools to allow some discussion on both sides, since Evolution is not proven, it should not be given as fact. ID should be given equal time and effort to teach.
Mr. Theilman,
What about original sin and the fossil record? This is a far more personal issue than how was there day and night before the sun was created.
I think we have to be careful that we don’t allow smaller, however legitimate, questions to over-rule the larger ones. The smaller questions must be filtered through the over-arching declarations of God’s word. Science by itself has no answer for miracles. Science in a box is a dog chasing it’s own tail.
I am not ashamed of the authority of God’s word in any realm. While it does not give me all the answers, it certainly gives the most important ones and does so in a more logical and comprehensive way than any other belief. Except for the question, Why would an omnipotent God put himself in a position to suffer pain on my behalf?
Love to you and yours,
Mike Weaver
I am an engineer, on a team that designs machines. While it has been a while since I was in school, my recollection is that the scientific method requires three verifiable - and reverifiable - points before raising a theory to “fact”:
1. The event must be observable by the investigator, either directly or through appropriate instruments.
2. The event must be repeatable, so that the observation can be redone to confirm the results.
3. The event must be predictable - that is, if the same components occur in the same sequence, the same result will occur.
Since neither evolution nor human views of creationism meet any of these, how can either be taught as science? Perhaps we should have theory teachers instead of science teachers, if the origins of life are being studied!
As neither of these extremes, or any blending in the middle, can meet the rigors of true science, we humans are left with accepting our favorite theory by faith, pure and simple faith. And I personally don’t have enough faith to accept Mr. Darwin’s; I can much more easily believe the Genesis account, literally. The second law of thermodynamics and all of mans’ verifiable experiences say that evolution can’t happen.
Steve L,
A great analysis! The materialists are logical, in their own way, even though they seem crazy to us.
You’re familiar, probably, with Theodore Kuhn, and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions book. He posits that predominant theories (paradigms) build up “anomalies” over time — things they cannot explain or account for — so that scientists or researchers look for alternative theories.
There will be great resistance, Kuhn says, from those scientists/researchers who are invested in the dominant paradigm, but eventually, as anomalies add up, and the new paradigm explains what the old paradigm does not, there is a scientific revolution which overturns the old and brings in the new.
The problem — I predict that the scientific community will embrace Intelligent Design gradually, because they cannot deny it in light of the evidence. But, because of those materialist biases you refer to, they will increasingly push the theory called Panspermia, where they presume that if there was an intelligent designer involved in Earth’s development of life, it must have been aliens from another planet — if you can’t fit the square peg of evolution into the evidence we see here, then it’s easy to presume it will fit elsewhere, and then they can explain away the evidence of design with a materialist answer.
You are correct — their materialist worldview will push them, inexorably, toward the only remaining materialist answer to intelligent design, no matter how implausible (and we saw the beginning of this in Expelled!).
Mike W.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve hit it out of the park again! I believe Christians (including myself) have to mirror what you are saying: don’t be ashamed of God’s Word in ANY situation. For those that might feel you are standing alone in certain circles I might add an apt saying I once heard: You plus God equals a majority.
Steve Laufmann’s analysis of the axioms of materialism is accurate, but can be extended a bit. The materialist world view’s axioms cannot account for the observable existence of the quantity “information”. Information is not material, yet clearly exists. A blank CD-ROM has the same physical constituents as one containing the encyclopedia Britannica. The difference between two such CD-ROMs is “information” and not physical, thus violating materialist “presupposition 1″. Thus the materialist world view is itself irrational. The fact that that the information on such a CD-ROM results from intelligence does not salvage the materialist world view.
The topic of origins (biological, geological, and astronomical) has been a key part of my study since college. As a chemistry and biology undergraduate major at Wheaton College in the ’70s the instruction given implied that evidence for evolution should be accepted and one’s faith in the Biblical account should be re-interpreted through the lens of modern scientific thought. This instruction caused me to leave Wheaton a noisy theistic evolutionist. I was very dogmatic in my thinking and not sympathetic of others who “blindly” still held to a literal view of Genesis or other old-testament stories that seemed illogical. My argument in churches was that one must NOT put Biblical interpretation (which is as likely to be flawed as the scientific)above the purely materialistic one (obviously not God-minded, but no less truth telling). If anything, the Biblical position on how to view Genesis was less certain than evolutionary thought.
I continued on in my scientific studies at Oregon State and elsewhere studying chemistry, biology, botany, meteorology, oceanography, astronomy, and geology at the graduate level. My highest degree in these pursuits was only a Master’s degree but I have been teaching these sciences now for nearly 30 years. Somewhere along the way my dogmatism toward materialism wained and my doubts started overwhelming the so-called evidence. I witnessed research evidence that was distorted to suggest macro-evolutionary change had occurred when in fact the fossil evidence had been pieced together from various unrelated specimens that had lived at the same time. This was then packaged and written by a select group, of which I was originally a part, to teach high school students that evolutionary history was a fact. Being a chemistry major and instructor it was disturbing that radiological dates and the fossil record were made to appear to teach untruths as factual. When I have approached some teachers at the high school level who use these materials I am amazed that using deception and outright untruths does not bother them. The goal is to teach what is known to be “true” and the kit does a good job. But most do not have the breadth of background in various science disciplines that I have to know how much each discipline has let bias determine the way they interpret reality.
This circular reasoning and blind acceptance of evolutionary thought as fact brought me to a crossroads. Either fully accept and continue promoting evolutionary philosophy (from anthropology to chemical origins) or become open to another world view, namely a creator God as revealed in the Bible.
That one step, being willing to believe that a creator God existed, led me to make an about-face in my world view. As the years have passed I now rationally accept by faith that non-repeatable events have occurred at specific times in history to alter the way our world looks today and to create the anthropological, biological, and astronomical connundrums that science now wrestles with (and in some cases denies ever occurred). Indeed, the mass of evidence seems very clear to me now. As the years have passed my newly “biased” eyes see more than enough evidence to say with assuredness, Genesis did occur. But this time I choose not to make a nuisance of myself and instead use every opportunity to expose the assumptions and illogic in present scientific reasoning. I teach in a public sphere and so do not include Genesis in any of my teaching–but that is indeed my lens today.
As a result it is clear to me why the movie “Exposed” is hated by many. Many continue to believe they have in materialism a better philosophical base on which to stand and that theological truth does not need to accept a rather literal view of Genesis. In fact, all sorts of theological reasons can be trumped up to support why the dismissal of most Old Testament stories is historically acceptable and even mandatory. My son is even now beginning his doctoral studies at a major theological seminary and has come to believe just that (very dogmatically). I am dismayed by his youthful acceptance of scientific thought as fool-proof evidence against a literal interpretation of Genesis. But the evolution of my own stance on such matters only helps me to realize that God reveals Himself in a time and a way that is unique to each of us. I do not doubt that my son is genuine in his search for truth or that he has genuine faith. Perhaps he will one day realize the shifting sand that his philophical foundation is built on and will become not just a little nervous about what he is teaching so dogmatically.
I have enjoyed reading through this blog and of course my emotions go up and down as some of my favorite ideas are challenged.
I did find one statement about which I thought I had something (reasonable/rational) to contribute.
Rich, you listed a series of quotes to re-enforce your theistic evolutionary position. One of them as follows:
“‘The new Evangelical Manifesto says the following:’”
“All too often we have disobeyed the great command to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and have fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today.”
Rich, in my view, this has nothing to do with evolution-creation debate. This is a well thought and written statement about anti-intellectualism in the (American?) church. I’ve recently been re-reading “Love the Lord with all you mind” by J.P. Moreland. My impression is that he is not an evolutionist; yet his views so parallel the above statement that he could have written it.
Your brother, Jess
Steve Laufmann wrote,
“Materialism leads to certain conclusions.”
One of the logical conclusions of materialism is that our thoughts and volition are caused by electro-chemical reactions in the brain, thus we think and act in a materialistically determined way.
This of course, leads some atheist scientists like William Provine to dismiss human free will.
Philosopher Richard Popkin comments,
“Another criticism of the materialistic solution to the mind-body problem is that if it were true, the materialist theory itself, which presumably is a mental event in somebody’s life, would turn out to be nothing but one more set of physical events in the brain. Similarly, any alternative theory would merely be some other physical event. In that case, how can one set of motions in the brain be said to constitute the truth, whereas others would be said to constitute a falsehood? If any metaphysical theory is just a physical occurrence in somebody’s head, why should one of these occurrences be taken seriously and the others discounted as wrong?”
This implies a deterministic necessity of our beliefs. We don’t believe in God or evolution because of the merits of each case, but because of brain chemistry. Materialists are materially forced to believe materialism.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft concurs,
“But this means that the conditions for rational judgment have been eliminated. To judge means to be free to consider or weigh the merits of the thing we judge; no judge in court, for example, can ever be part of the group of prisoners on trial. But if materialism is true, there can be no freedom to weigh or to consider, and therefore no real act of judgment.
Materialists want us to judge that their doctrine is true. And yet their doctrine eliminates the possibility of making any true judgments at all. In other words, if materialism is true, it cannot be judged to be true by anyone, including materialists.”
Dear Dr. Tackett:
People are not being expelled from the scientific community for subscribing to or promoting the intelligent design hypothesis. Intelligent design is controversial because some proponents of ID assert that the ID hypothesis has been verified and is therefore a scientific theory. That false assertion is the source of controversy. See http://web.mac.com/scottbeach/Site_2/ID.html
Sincerely, Scott G. Beach
I’m glad this discussion seems to have come to a point where most people recognize that the debate is a philosophical one. The materialist position is a strong one (the dominant paradigm for the last three hundred years), but not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination (well, maybe by a stretch of the imagination). I would encourage those present to recognize the difference between the philosophical and scientific debates. Intelligent Design is, as I understand it, essentially a modern, scientific view. It is based on the premise that observation of certain physical phenomena allows you to conclude God’s existence, or perhaps to posit it rationally. You might say that in this sense, it is positivistic and materialistic - privileging the senses as the most basic building blocks of our theories. Theology is not modern and not scientific. You do not start with yourself and work your way to God. You start with God’s divine revelation about himself and work your way to your own situation.
I always get unsettled when it seems that Christians premise their belief in God on the observations of science. It is very hard to accept Enlightenment thought in a less-than-wholesale way. As Chesterton pointed out in Orthodoxy, the materialist position is a maniacal one, requiring the satisfactory explanation of every phenomenon, lest one crack in the dam doom the whole point of view. This is how many approach God, and there is no faith involved.
I’m not certain that the materialist worldview is demonstrably less rational than the Christian one (as we tend to find ourselves in Cartesian circles, gnostic heresies, and idolatry whenever we try to prove the existence of God). It seems to me that all worldviews have an inherently irrational element - that knowledge is unavoidably personal and subjective to a certain degree. Doesn’t mean there isn’t common truth - just that we have a lot of trouble demonstrating it due to our obvious limitations.
In philosophy, the best defense is not a good offense. It’s the other way around. We need to know the terms of our Christian position inside and out before we venture to attack other points of view. Let no one resort to belief in God.
Everyone,
I think it would be very interesting to begin a discussion about the famous Scopes Monkey Trial.
The transcripts are readily available on line. I think this would add greatly to the discussion. I am a scientifically trained professional working in the environmental field. However, although I am a Christian who always questions (faith without doubt is no faith at all) I really don’t feel that science presents all that much evidence for God. It does, if you already believe in Him. It does not if you don’t.
The true evidence, in my opinion, lies in the existence of a moral code. C. S. Lewis explained this very well in his book Mere Christianity.
Let me state this premise, perhaps too simply, like so….
We can all agree that the moral code is relatively the same across all major cultures. Does the majority of human behavior lead anyone to believe that most people follow such a code to the letter? Or is the general rule that we all break the code?
The search for God should not begin with the question “Did an intelligent agent create the universe?” but rather “Where did we come up with a moral code that no one can adhere to?”
I humbly suggest that we are looking for God in the wrong place. We are looking for his fingerprints in nature, when we should be looking for his fingerprints in the nature of our behavior.
Dear Scott Beach,
Either your first sentence if false, or all of the victims interviewed in “Expelled” as well as all others who have claimed similar accounts (and there are many) are lying. Since many of these incidents are matters of public record and the persecution is undeniable, I think I’ll side with the observational evidence and conclude that your sentence is false.
Also, when did it become necessary for a theory to have already been “verified” in order to be a “scientific” theory? I think you’re a bit confused. The real core issue in all of this is the recent attempt to redefine science to require methodological naturalism.
Dear Mr. Walker:
According to Ben Stein, intelligent design is a “hypothesis”. He asserts that an “all-powerful designer” created living things. His hypothesis cannot be tested by the methods of science. His hypothesis cannot be verified. His hypothesis cannot become a scientific theory.
I do not object to Mr. Stein’s hypothesis. I strongly object to the lie that his hypothesis has been verified and is therefore a scientific theory. Scientists who propagate that lie should expect to be “expelled” from academic institutions. “Academic freedom” is not a license to commit academic fraud.
Mr. Bleach,
I apologize for the intrusion into the discussion you are having with Mr. Walker but I would like for you to define the term “verified” for me.
If a theory is verified would it not then become a working principle of science and not a theory?
I agree with you that the ID theory has not been verified. I would also assert that evolutionary theory has not been verified.
Dear Vaughn:
You are not a genetic duplicate of either of your parents. Instead, you are — to borrow a phrase from Charles Darwin — an example of “descent with modification.”
The process of evolution is an observable fact. In contrast, the assertion that evolution has been proceeding for several billion years is a hypothesis. That hypothesis is supported by the fact of evolution and by the fossilized remains of deceased organisms.
The fact that evolution is occurring and the hypothesis that evolution has been occurring for several billion years are both components of the theory of evolution. That theory is also supported by the fact that we can force evolution to occur in a laboratory setting by subjecting living (reproducing) organisms to selective pressures.
Ongoing genetic analyses are adding weight to the aforementioned hypothesis. Such analyses support assertions about common ancestry among various species. For example, such analyses support the assertion that the great apes (humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas) had a common ancestor.
You wrote, “I would also assert that evolutionary theory has not been verified.” I have accepted the aforementioned evidence as a verification of the theory of evolution. I am a Christian and I am comfortable with the proposition that my distant ancestors were small, hairy quadrupeds.
I am also a natural-born scientist (an INTJ) and I am comfortable with the tentative truths that science gives us. However, people with different temperaments are not comfortable with the uncertainty that is inherent in the tentative truths of science. In general, I have found that people who are not comfortable with the tentative nature of scientific truths will not accept the theory of evolution. If you are not comfortable with the uncertain character of scientific truths then please feel free to believe whatever absolute truths you may find intellectually and/or emotionally satisfying. To each his own.
Scott,
Thanks for the response. I work as an environmental professional in Tennessee so I am quite comfortable with tentative nature of science and observable operation of theory all the time.
Believe it or not, I am quite willing to be wrong. I hope I did not give the impression that I was a “dyed in the wool” young Earth Creationist that wants everything to be neat and tidy and understandable. I am not.
I have spent a lifetime thinking and studying about what I would call “origin science” in astrophysics and geology and biology. What I have found is that we often assume we can infer what we see as “operation science” or observable processes, and sort of back track to arrive at a nice comfortable theory about origins.
I have the following problem with evolution:
The tendency of a species to respond to an environmental change (such as DDT resistance in certain insect populations) and then quickly have the population settle back to “pre-crisis” mode in a few generations (reverting back to sensivitity to DDT in insect populations after several generations of no exposure to the chemical) I guess this example is me guilty of seeing operation science and making a wild inference about origin science. In any case, I do not see any examples of mutations or response to environmental change actually adding to the genome. Well, not positively anyway. There is Down Syndrome but that is hardly advantageous is it?
Would you share your thoughts on this?
By the way, please don’t feel that I am offended by your comments about my temperment but I want to reiterate that I am comfortable with science not being an “exact science”, pardon the pun.
I look forward to your response.
Vaughn:
Your reference to DDT reminded me of an article that I recently read about cancer chemotherapy. According to that report, after chemotherapy for cancer about 2 percent of cancer cells survive because they have molecular pumps that run constantly and rapidly expel the chemotherapy toxins that are intended to kill those cells. Insects that have similar pumps might be the ones that are resistant to DDT. Later generations of insects, which do not have to run those metabolically expensive pumps constantly to expel DDT, would have a survival advantage. They would be able to put more of their energy into growth and reproduction.
Downs Syndrome is a genetic “disorder”. According to an article that I read many years ago, a person with DS makes twice as much superoxide dismutase as is warranted from a metabolic perspective. This condition usually causes brain damage and diminishes the probability the person will reproduce successfully. This information about DS might someday be useful to genetic engineers if they undertake to design and engineer humans who can survive in environments where there are high levels of ionizing radiation. A person who can make lots of superoxide dismutase and catalase might be very well adapted to living on Luna or on Mars.
We are on the verge of taking control of our own biological evolution. The exercise of such control will pose numerous ethical questions and I have enjoyed reading discussions about the ethics of exercising such control. We need not implement eugenics programs in the Hitlerian, murderous manner that Ben Stein complained about in “Expelled”. We can colonize the Milky Way without turning ourselves into immoral monsters.
I didn’t know that about the insects. I learned something. Thanks.
I found Rich’s reply to be very unsatisfying. He fills his response with personal points of view from various scientists rather than addressing directly Del’s points that anyone who objects to or questions evolution is shot down in our current academia environments, which is exactly what Del spoke about in his response about “falsifying a premise based upon personal experience”. It doesn’t matter if you are using your own personal experiance or someone else’s. It’s still not a valid way to falsify a premise.
Bonnie,
The question of the speed of light is the one thing that’s really stumped me over the years. I was encouraged to learn that there has been evidence discovered to suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and that theories of relativity and quantum mechanics may one day adequately explain the apparent ‘old’ age of the universe. All of the technical arguments are WAY over my head, but I would suggest starting with a book called Creation and Change, by Douglas Kelly.
In Christ,
Al
By the way… Everyone starts with faith-based presuppositions.
The most fundamental presupposition conservative Christians (creationists) make is that the Bible is God’s Word. As such, it is completely True (inerrant), reliable, and authoritative.
Everyone else (liberal theologians, secular scientists, athiests, etc.) also have a presupposition… Which is that the human mind is the autonomous arbiter of Truth. Like the ancient sophists, they believe that “Man is the measure of all things”. This view always leads to irrationality and despair, because in the end, we simply cannot know FOR SURE what is true if we can only rely on empirical data and reason. So we either sneak God in through the back door for pragmatic reasons (Lessing, Kant, etc.) or we simply succumb to despair (Sartre, Camus).
So our two choices (presuppositions) are ultimately:
1) The Bible is God’s Word… inerrant, authoritative… and we will submit to what it teaches.
2) We are autonomous. Our own human reason trumps everything else.
(Honestly, which is more arrogant?)
When it comes to science, we are always learning new things. Things that sometimes seem to contradict Scripture. But they always seem to work out to validate scripture (heliocentricity, archeological findings, etc.) in the end. Questions of old earth / young earth will work themselves out in the end, because all Truth is ultimately God’s Truth — and noncontradictory. The Bible has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so, because it really is Divine revelation. Without divine revelation, there really is no way to find out ultimate Truth — just ask the philosophers.
In Christ,
Al
Should we teach the Hebrew 3-tiered model of the universe? Do the mountains really hold up the sky? Does God walk on pavement in the heavens? Are there windows in the heavens which allow the rain to fall? Are our intestines really the center of our emotions? Did God really make the sun stand still (hint: No, He didn’t. It’s an Ancient Near East expression.)
The Bible is not a science book. That does not, however, negate the truth that is being presented. Until Christians rid themselves of Biblical ignorance we are going to continue to try and make the Bible say things that it doesn’t say and address issues that it doesn’t really address.
Arrogance is assuming that the original authors were writing with 21st century precision and addressing 21st century scientific questions. Study up on Ancient Near East culture and literature then go back and look at the creation story, and, for that matter, much of the Old Testament.
Do you realize that other ANE cultures had man being created from dirt/clay? Why? Because that’s how they saw everything else grow and come into existence. Think the talking snake in the Garden is unique to the Bible? It’s not. Other ANE literature had it as well. Think the 4 rivers describe as flowing out of the Garden of Eden are unique? Nope. Other ANE stories have 4 rivers flowing out of their god’s temples. A Hebrew concept of something “existing” was not based on something taking up space, rather, to their mind something came into existence when it was set apart and assigned a function.
Again, it is vital that we understand the culture in which the Bible was written, otherwise we try and make it say things it doesn’t say.
Dan (July 9),
Can the Bible be used directly as a science textbook? No, and clearly it was not intended to be. But I hold it to be God’s inerrant Word, therefore anything it does say must be true, or else the Bible is not truly inerrant. As such, it stands to reason that the Bible can serve as a filter for all other truth claims, i.e.: if the truth claim is contradictory to a biblical truth claim, it cannot be true, if the Bible is silent about a truth claim, that claim may or may not be true (this is a bit of a simplification of this idea, but hopefully everyone gets the point).
Is every statement in the Bible to be interpreted literally? No, clearly not. God describes himself as a mother hen. We are not to then assume that he has feathered wings and lays eggs. Even an uneducated reader can tell when language is metaphorical or literal. One quick guide is to see what type of literature it is. Is the portion poetry, or is it history, or maybe something else?
Your points about the writing styles of the ANE are somewhat valid. The other writings do suggest that even in history there may be a little exaggeration involved. But you would do well to consider the following: What is the reason that all of these writings contain such similiar stories? And it is not just the ANE that contains these stories, although the history is largely unwritten, the oral history and ancient artwork of cultures in the Americas indicate similar themes. The most logical and reasonable explanation is that all of these are different variations of one oral history (Yes, I realize that this is an example of micro-evolution, but no one is claiming that doesn’t exist. But keep in mind that these stories still originated from an intellegent design, and are still recognizable as something of the same kind as their original form). Thus, there are multiple very similar creation accounts, not because everyone somehow all seperately decided to write about a garden with 4 rivers and a talking snake, but because it happened. There are multiple very similar stories of a flood and a large boat which saved the lives of a very few people and a lot of animals, not because a bunch of widely seperated people decided independently to write the same basic story, but because they had received it from one common source.
The multiple stories are actually evidence that the events actually happened, and probably in a manner similar to that described in the various writings. And by the procedures commonly employed by archeologists, linguists, and literary experts, it is fairly safe to say that the biblical accounts are the most accurate and most reliable.