Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Differences of Opinion, Lies, and Seeing the Other Side

    I got started this morning on this topic by reading this post at Quintessence of Dust. Dr. Matheson is looking for a good model to use in referring to creationists and their arguments. The temptation is to regard all false statements as lies. But at the same time we have to ask why people who are otherwise honest, and doubtless wouldn’t cheat on tests or steal from their neighbors nonetheless would say so many things that are simply not so.

    Matheson is looks at the model of folk science. I left a comment on his blog in which I question just how well this works. But I’m working on this one myself. I have to ask myself how a microbiologist, for example, could manage to believe in creationism. There is always Kurt Wise (paleontologist), who admits the strong evidence for evolution, but believes that the Bible must be true, and thus no matter what the evidence looks like, eventually he’ll find the proper evidence for young age arguments. Now I can at least understand the mental process in Dr. Wise’s case, though it still astounds me that one could look at the strength of the evidence and study it as a paleontologist and still come out not just a creationist, but a young earth creationist.

    I had already bookmarked his post for a link, if not a substantial response, when I came across this article (HT: It seems to me ….) In a weird sort of way, this article is making a point similar to what Dr. Matheson is making, though perhaps with greater humor and less finesse–there are some beliefs and viewpoints that are comforting to us, and we cling to any means by which we can avoid losing those beliefs.

    I think it’s quite possible that many creationists simply cannot imagine a world in which man is not a separate creation, especially put here by God with a unique and special relationship. It is quite possible that their lives would lose meaning–or at least they feel viscerally that they would–should any element of this prove wrong. If one’s identity is at stake, just how much might one be able to rationalize?

    Just as I was preparing to write this post, I found this post on Pharyngula, in which the Discovery Institute is shown to have taken e-mails out of context (gasp!) regarding the Gonzalez case as ISU. Here, of course, we have a greater level of interpretation involved, but it still is hard to see how the DI got what they did from their source. Liars? Good PR men? Different point of view?

    And immediately after that one, my RSS reader turned up another one, titled Gene Duplication and the GENE project’s … Duplicity?. Again, the author, generally a very polite man and one I respect after reading quite a number of his substantial blog entries, is having trouble finding out just what you call it. ICR is gathering scientists to study the genome, and their going to conclude–you guessed it–that humanity is not related to the other animals. And they haven’t even started yet!

    Now I know that it is very easy to regard a difference of opinion as good evidence of skullduggery on the part of one’s opponent. Sometimes opinions are simply so different that it’s hard for us to imagine that the other guy can possibly have good motivations or can be honest. After all, we know that we are careful with the facts, and our brains are all highly logical. So if we come to conclusion A, and they come to conclusion Z, it can’t be a legitimate difference of opinion–it has to result from questionable morals.

    Of course, sometimes things are what they appear to be on the surface. Not always, perhaps not even frequently, but sometimes. There are people who hold a particular position to keep their power, or because they just can’t admit to having been wrong. But I think there are relatively few people who consciously say, “I know that X is true, but I’m going to say I believe Y instead.” Whatever the motivation, one is going to think of it in some very different way. Which leads us to this question: Is it a lie if the person telling it deceived himself first, and believes he’s telling the truth? I do know one thing–if a person believes he’s telling the truth, it will be hard to influence him by telling him he’s actually a liar. “Truthful” is part of his self-image.

    I would say something to creationists, however. I once was one of you. I made it about half way through college. When I was a child, I started collecting creationist books and reading them. I was totally convinced that evolution was not only evil but stupid, so stupid, in fact, that only evil people could possibly believe it. To me, as is still the case for many creationists, evolutionists were great liars and conspirators, since the truth that God created the earth in a literal week 6,000 years ago was so plain.

    Now I first encountered the problems with the facts when I looked at Biblical genealogies. In doing so, I spent enough time with ancient chronology to see that the hardline young earth position, about 6,000 years (not 10,000!) was in conflict not only with geology, but with archeology, and even with written history. Civilizations would have drowned in the flood, civilizations that had clearly done no such thing.

    But then I was faced with the science side. Now I spend a great deal of time reading popular level science. But I’m a high school dropout, so I never had high school science. I took a GED test and took as little science in college as I could get by with, which turned out to be one year of chemistry. My college allowed one to make it up with math, which I did. So when I first started, the vast majority of the “science” I knew came from those young earth creationist books. How was I to judge the material?

    Well, I concluded I wasn’t very qualified to do so. What I was qualified to do was to see how well creationists represented evolution. What I found out there was that the presentation of evolution in creationist books bore no resemblance to the presentation in books favoring evolution. They were, in fact, talking about two things. Further, when creationists quoted scientists, they generally got the quotation wrong. For me, that was pretty substantial evidence that there was a problem in the creationist camp.

    Since then, I’ve found nothing to suggest to me any differently. One of the best arguments against creationism for the layman (in scientific terms) is that the creationists can’t get their facts straight about evolution. I personally think Dr. Matheson is right, and they don’t do so because they’re congenital liars, but rather because they’re engaging in some form of “folk science.” Or perhaps it’s Santaism as defined in the Ship of Fools article.

    Bottom line: differences of opinion, lies, and failure to see the other side? It’s damn hard to tell the difference!

  • Good Teaching or Mockery?

    This case should turn out to be interesting. As it is, it cries out for context. (See also this on MSNBC).

    A Christian high school student is complaining that his AP history teacher is mocking his faith. His mother became concerned when the teacher said that American was not founded on Christian values. Since I’d agree with the teacher on that one, I wonder a bit about the rest. Perhaps some of these statements were made simply to provoke discussion, and if that was the case, I would have no problem. If only Christianity was challenged, that would be another matter. If one religion was mocked throughout the class, that would also be a problem. I don’t like it when Christian teachers do this to atheists or other non-Christians, and I don’t like it when it is done to Christians.

    So my initial reaction is tentatively against the teacher. But we do need to hear the context of all this. I’m assuming the principal and school board will listen to the tapes and determine just what the teacher was doing. While the student should not be mocked, challenging discussion is good. I recall once in a Bible class challenging a student about his faith and doing so effectively enough that he eventually yelled, “You won’t believe no matter what I say!” So I pointed out that I was his Bible teacher and already did believe. He thanked me afterward for the challenge.

    I will be keeping my eye on this case for sure.

  • Two Paradigms for Church

    Many of us have discussed the problem, as we see it, of young people leaving the church when they become adults, and sometimes–too rarely–returning at a later time. Sometimes people have complacently told me, “Oh, they’ll be back when they have children of their own, but it doesn’t always work that way.

    In this video Bill Lizor uses a couple of Bible stories to provide a paradigm for our relationship to life in the world and to church. The reason I’m linking to this here is that it is such an excellent example of working with Bible stories and finding applications in daily lives.

    I think this presentation is excellent, both for its content and its method.

    HT (and a big thanks) to Hit the Back Button to Move Forward.

  • Christian Carnival #202 and My Highlights

    … has been posted at Lo-Fi Tribe.

    As usual, I want to highlight some posts from the carnival.

    • Since I’m an egalitarian, I read this post from Pseudo-Polymath with interest. The discussion that follows is also substantial and interesting. I hope I can find time to respond in a post. I hate making comments that are several pages long. Mark is always worth reading, especially when I disagree.
    • Rewriting Daniel 7 is definitely worth a read, but be prepared to spend some time thinking about it.
    • I’m not inclined to agree with this post, but since when has one’s inclinations had any value in determining the truth? Frankly, Jeremy is quite correct. I, an ardent free-willer, regard everything that happens as ultimately part of God’s will so that one can use both the terms “chance” (largely from our point of view) and “providence” to refer correctly to the same event. If God left it to chance (not to say that there necessarilyis any chance from God’s point of view) then the result is still God’s will. So much for inclinations!

    That will have to do for today!

  • Christian Carnival #302 Posted

    . . . at Lo-Fi Tribe.

  • Continued Database Problems

    I’m continuing to have considerable database problems. I’m keeping a close eye on the blog and I can bring it back up easily, but it’s not looking very stable. It’s possible I may change to a different provider for my server. In the meantime, I ask for patience!

    Update: I’m testing a change in the database access. I’d appreciate comments on any problems. If you can’t make comments work, e-mail me, henry at energion.com.

  • Inside Higher Ed on Dr. Richard Colling

    Inside Higher Ed has an article, Academic Freedom and Evolution which discusses the AAUP response, amongst others, to the situation at Olivet Nazarene University where Dr. Colling is no longer assigned to teach a general biology course he had taught for years, and his book Random Designer cannot be used as reading in any class. The article also notes the rather interesting lack of response from the Discovery Institute.

    Since I’m currently blogging my way through Dr. Colling’s excellent book, I thought readers would be interested. I will note that I do not object to privately funded, religious schools having theological requirements for their professors, provided everyone knows about those tests and can respond accordingly. In this case, it is not the theology of the denomination involved, nor a standing policy of the school, but rather a response to donor complaints that is driving the case of an already tenured professor who is simply teaching good science.

  • Of Trees, Forests, and Bible Study

    I was impressed recently while reading several different blog entries about the importance of the way(s) in which we look at Bible passages. Now I certainly emphasize looking at the forest–at the broad sweep of Biblical themes. One way of looking at themes is in terms of trajectories–which way is the Bible story going.

    For example, we know that as the Israelites leave Egypt, God doesn’t intend them to remain a nomadic band wandering in the desert. Slowly he gives them additional laws. Included in those laws are some that look forward to possession of the land. As Christians, we ultimately look at a trajectory that leads to Jesus Christ, and even through him to the church, which is to embody Jesus in the world.

    Another way to look at themes is in terms of doctrinal statements or confessions. In this case we look at the doctrinal statement of our church, for example, and look at how scripture fits into this larger doctrinal whole, which is a light form of systematic theology. I think this is so important that when teaching interdenominational classes, I ask the students to be aware of their own church’s doctrinal statement as they study. This gives focus from the community of faith to which someone belongs.

    But all of these elements can cause problems. When looking at trajectories, it’s quite easy to go off on a trajectory, and perhaps head for interstellar space without a guidance system. It’s quite possible for me to imagine that the intention of a Biblical writer is to go to some point that I prefer, while ignoring what the writer actually says, and where God’s people actually went. It’s quite possible for me to reinterpret scripture to support my preferred doctrinal statement, rather than going back to the source.

    Recently, Molly Aley posted this article on the Complegalitarian blog dealing with the Hebrew word “ezer” in Genesis 2, and how it should apply to male-female relationships. Now I should make it clear that I’m egalitarian, so I have a bias here, but I think both sides have tended to be more concerned with hearing what they want to hear in Genesis 1 & 2 than they are in listening to what the text actually says.

    Molly has broken out of that and pointed out what this text does and does not say specifically. Now can that answer tell us the answer to all debates about complementarianism vs egalitarianism? Hardly! What it does is get us one anchor point. How that unfolds in a broader theme requires further study.

    The study of a forest has to move from the individual cells in the trees to the trees themselves, to the ecology of the forest as a whole, and also to the many beasties, including human beasties, who use the forest. There is a place for word by word dissection of a passage, and there is a place for broad, sweeping overviews. But they have to be tested against one another on a regular basis.

    In terms of Bible study, this means that there is a place for reading the whole Bible, whole books, individual passages, individual verses, and even individual words. There is a place for spending hours, days, and weeks on a single word. But if we get unbalanced about it, we’re going to produce nonsense, and nonsense in the study of God’s word is a pretty dangerous thing. One important way to avoid nonsense is by sharing. A blog is one way of sharing. Commenters come by and point out your mistakes, or add pieces you never thought of to the puzzle.

    The forest ecology, for Bible study, extends to the church fathers, to other commentators, to your pastor and fellow church members, to members of the academic community, and even to members of other faith communities. I have received great blessing from reading Jewish commentary along with the Hebrew scriptures.

    Listen, read, change focus, change perspective, and then listen some more. It’s a great joy to find something new, or more importantly to find yourself in a new, growing relationship with the Word Giver as you do so.

  • Random Design and New Information in the Genome

    Last night I wrote a response to chapters 9-11 of Dr. Richard Colling’s book Random Designer, and I really thought my post was inadequate. Those chapters discuss the very core of evolutionary theory–variation (specifically mutation) and natural selection, including the balance between preserving information through accurate copying, but also allow new information through copying errors.

    Of course, this jumps right into one of the key objections of anti-evolutionists–the production of new information. They repeatedly make the claim that variation + natural selection cannot produce new information, and they produce substantial formulas to “prove” it. Sometimes people tell me that I can’t be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution. My normal response is, “And yet here I am.” In this case I’m tempted to respond, “And yet there the new information is!” Of course, that wouldn’t answer the question.

    But Dr. Steve Matheson has provided an answer on his blog, which I read shortly after writing the other piece. I was particularly glad that I read his piece right after reading Dr. Colling’s very simple explanation, because the basics of the process were fresh in my mind. It’s often hard for me to follow this information–they didn’t teach me about gene duplication in Greek class!

    In any case, Dr. Matheson goes to work on a gene duplication in yeast, in a case where we can observe the operation of yeasts that have the unduplicated and unmutated form of the gene, and others that do. I’m not even going to take a stab at summarizing the science, but it’s there. The weakness of Dr. Colling’s presentation is that there are few examples. Now his book is such that it would be inappropriate to fill it with lengthy examples. One would never get to the end. But of course there will be those who say, “We can’t just take his word for this!” Well, don’t. Steve Matheson has provided some of the science that backs this up.

    I should mention, of course, that for those with the stamina, you can find a great deal more in Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. The problem there, however, is that for someone like me who is not a scientist, it’s hard going. I had a dictionary in one hand and my browser open to an online encyclopedia (not Wikipedia!) throughout just so I could look up the examples. But folks like Drs. Colling and Matheson cut it down to size.

    What becomes clear is that it’s really quite easy for new information to appear in the genome, and that it has happened many times. The real question is what pathways are used. The mark of a scientists is looking for new answers. The mark of a non-scientists is declaring questions closed. Scientists expect peer review. It may not always be fun, but it’s generally beneficial. Non-scientists want to get their junk out to the public who are not qualified to check it. I particularly liked this quote:

    I’m a developmental biologist, and therefore partial to many of the arguments of evo-devo thinkers. I’m excited about the union of evolutionary and developmental biology, and I do think that many of the new evo-devo ideas are thought-provoking and potentially fruitful. But the debate is riveting and informative, and I find Lynch and Coyne and their talented colleagues to be alarmingly convincing. I’m worried about some of those cool ideas, but I do take some comfort in this thought: any idea that can survive the onslaught of Lynch and Coyne is a hell of a good idea.

    The public needs to realize that scientists are generally operating with this type of an attitude. If they actually realized this, I believe they would be much less susceptible to the blandishments of pseudoscience.

  • Random Designer IV

    This is a continuation of my series blogging through the book Random Designer by Dr. Richard Colling. The previous entry is Random Designer III.

    In chapters 9-11, Dr. Colling continues to present the basics of evolution and the history of life on earth in language that is comprehensible to the layman. I’m very glad to have found this book, if nothing else than for the clear explanation of what’s involved in the theory of evolution and the basic outlines. There is a certain amount about faith in this first section, but primarily these chapters are about the process of evolution and the history of life on earth, and the level of evidence involved.

    Chapter 9, titled “The Platform of Life” discusses the basic genetic material that all creatures have in common and how changes occur. The basics of evolution, mutation and natural selection are introduced. In chapter 10 we go on to discuss good, bad, and neutral mutations, and how cells manage to copy accurately. There is a balance between changes and stability that allows life to continue to diversity.

    Chapter 11 moves from a discussion of the mechanics and the details of cells and looks at the age of the earth and how life has developed. One thing that I noticed was that for 2 billion years bacteria were the sole inhabitants of the earth. I had known this, but it just hadn’t struck me before. The process of developing an oxygen atmosphere took a long time. In addition, I hadn’t realized that the cells had to develop a way to deal with one byproduct of oxygen.

    Dr. Colling strongly emphasizes the strength of the evidence for all of this, including the lines of evidence from multiple fields. This may contradict a literal reading of Genesis, but it is clearly true, and thus we need to examine how we understand the scripture passages.

    This takes us to Part II which deals with the issues of faith and evolution. I am likely to end up blogging more on that part than I did on this.