Since I write frequently on minimizing the number of essential doctrines, and maximizing lines of communication, I just had to call attention to this blog, Herescope. It’s “About” tells the story:
This non-interactive blog contains information revealing heresies and false teachings affecting the Church today. . . . [emphasis mine]
Need I say more?
I’ve been posting a good deal about evolution since the Florida science standards have been rewritten and it’s time for comments. Early next year we’ll be dealing with a vote. Generally people think the new standards are good, but as is not uncommon, a different standard is applied to evolution than to other scientific theories.
The issue is often framed either as faith vs. evolution, i.e. all who accept evolution are atheists, and atheists are bad, so we should reject evolution. As a subset the issue is framed as Christianity vs. evolution. Every aspect of that framing is wrong. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It’s unfortunate that one can smear a theory by associating it with a certain category of people, but in the case of atheists that seems to work. It’s wrong, but there it is. But one of the advantages to science is that its results can be replicated, and they look the same to a Hindu, a Christian, or an atheist. One’s religious beliefs don’t change the information. Thus who it is that produces the information is not the issue.
To back up some of my current writing, I’d like to point to some of my past post, taking on the religious issue first. There is not just one creationism. Even Christians subscribe to a number of different posts. In my review of What Is Creation Science? I commented on the attempt by the authors to separate the flood geology, the age of the earth, and what they call the “fact” of creation. This is an astounding claim. How can one make predictions about the fossil record without any timeline? How can one make predictions about it without regard to a universal flood? If such a flood happened, then it would certainly leave evidence. This situation is only made more complex by views such as old earth creationism, ruin and restoration creationism, and some minimal forms of ID that claim that perhaps God either tweaked the creation just a little bit here and there, or perhaps only created the first life-form with front-loading.
I wrote a series of posts early in the days of this blog outlining these various views and also relating them to basic Christian doctrines. The major posts in that series were:
For those interested in the religious aspects in particular, combine this with my series on my Participatory Bible Study blog. That series actually starts with Genesis 3, but it references my pre-blog (though updated) essay, Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship, and then continues with Genesis 3.
You can get the whole series using this link, or by clicking on “Genesis” in the tag cloud in the right sidebar (at Participatory Bible Study).
To the list of suggested readings, I would now have to add at least John Haught’s book God After Darwin, and Richard Colling’s book Random Designer, which I’m reading right now.
I blogged before about the firing of Chris Comer. PZ Myers now has a post that includes the full statement by Barbara Forrest about this. Comer was apparently fired for forwarding a memo announcing Barbara Forrest’s talk in Austin. It’s a good statement.
I’m continuing to blog through this interesting book by Dr. Richard Colling, and I’m enjoying it a great deal. I want to note that this isn’t a review; rather, it’s simply journaling the experience of reading the book. I’m doing this because this book appears to me to be a powerful experience in itself. It’s not about being a microbiologist, accepting evolution, and incidentally being a believer. It is clear throughout that Dr. Colling takes his faith seriously.
In fact, I get a bit of a feeling of retelling Genesis. That may sound odd to many readers, so let me digress. There are many positions on how to interpret Genesis, from taking it as narrative history, which results in the young earth creationist position, to a symbolic interpretation, such as taking each day as a long period of time, but trying to fit the days into the scientific facts. My own position is that Genesis expresses God’s message of involvement in the creation in the context of that era’s cosmology. God is not trying to convey cosmology; the writer provides the cosmology from what he knows. God’s message would come through clearly to those who accept that cosmology.
Modern Christians interpreters can be compared, I believe, to someone who receives a letter and gets all his information out of the envelope and the paper, missing the actual message. Now please be aware that this is my position. I do not know what Dr. Colling’s position is on Genesis. Perhaps he expands on that in later chapters, but I’m blogging as I read. In today’s reading I got the distinct sense of a writer perceiving God’s presence everywhere, and conveying that in modern terms. You can take that for what it’s worth, but that’s my impression thus far.
At the end of my previous blog on this topic, I mentioned that chapter 3 (I accidentally said chapter 2) discusses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and describes this not as a problem for evolution, and it is sometimes presented by creationists, but rather as the driver (that’s the title of the chapter).
I vaguely recall when I first encountered this issue, and someone explained how evolution could not possibly work, because everything tends towards maximum disorder, and evolution has it going the other way. My own thought was, “and yet here we are,” since living creatures, when they’re growing, certainly do appear to go the other way. Later I read some explanations that clarified things for me quite a bit.
In chapter 3, Dr. Colling discusses the second law in layman’s terms. The explanation is the simplest and most straightforward that I’ve ever read, and yet I don’t see any omissions of things that should be expected at this level. I’m sure this isn’t ready for a physics text, but it works for this Bible teacher! He continues (p. 27) with constructive synthesis reactions and their required input–energy, and finally describes these reactions as creative.
That really doesn’t do justice to the chapter, but I don’t think I am capable of boiling it down and still getting in the essentials. The next chapter is titled “Upon this foundation” and subtitled “The Universe is Born.” Together those pretty much tell the tale. This chapter goes from the big bang approximately through the formation of the earth, looking at how the various elements are formed and why.
I’m going to conclude by discussing chapter 5, in which we find a discussion of the ins and outs of the formation of life (abiogenesis, though Dr. Colling doesn’t use the term). This is the first time I’ve found a good introduction for the layman to this complex topic. Normally folks distinguish abiogenesis from biological evolution, and well the should. Biological evolution, starting with the presence of at least a living cell is much better understood, and one can assume the miraculous appearance of the first life, and yet accept the theory of evolution.
Dr. Colling details the major elements that have been studied, those cases in which we have possible pathways, and being very clear that this is not a field in which anyone has solid answers, or is likely to have any soon. Yet there is a good deal of material available that suggests that natural processes may be found given time. I like the enumeration of the pieces we need, those we have, and those we need, along with the caution that just because we have a possible pathway to the formation of certain molecules doesn’t mean that’s the only one, or the one that actually occurred.
This is a chapter that those who have problems delineating the boundaries of science. Many criticisms of evolutionary theory simply involve pointing out stuff we don’t know yet. But “stuff we don’t know” is the sort of stuff that excites real scientists, and sets them off on the path of discovery. I would say that a good way to distinguish a scientific attitude is by one’s reaction to the unknown. The person who views the absence of knowledge as a stop sign does not have the attitude of a scientist.
On that note, let me use a brief quote. After describing some of the complexity of biomolecules, Dr. Colling says (p. 39):
But obstacles like these do not discourage scientists. They have a profound belief, based upon experience, that the physical world will ultimately make sense. Therefore, just as a skilled detective pieces together the various elements of a crime scene to recreate past events, modern scientists are using he growing wealth of scientific information to knit together a relatively coherent picture of how life on earth developed.
Now that’s a scientific attitude. In addition, creationist criticisms of evolutionary theory are often based on the expectation that an answer will answer everything at once. Perhaps this expectation is based on the overwhelming breadth of “In the beginning God …” But in studying complex topics scientists often have to spend years studying minute portions of the puzzle, knowing that a broader answer will only result after their work has been combined with that of others.
For example, back in chapter 4, Dr. Colling cites the work of Stanley Miller. I have heard this experiment criticized over and over because, as some folks say, he did all that work and he still couldn’t create life. This assumes, of course, that he was trying to create life. Perhaps we’re also inclined to this kind of expectation by the movies. The hacker sits down at a computer keyboard, and in 30 seconds has hacked his way into a major government installation. The scientist clones a human in his basement, solving the question of cloning in one big package. But in fact each of these processes involves many complex steps. Miller provided one pathway. As I understand Dr. Colling’s summary, it’s not likely to be the right one, but he still provided the knowledge that there were conditions under which such complex molecules could form.
I’ve read a couple more chapters, but my normal tendency to be long winded is getting ahead of me, and I should probably not make this any longer. I’ll be continuing with chapter 6, “Magnificent Molecular Micro-Machines.”
Well, as I usually do when I try to be brief (a very rare event!), I stepped in it again and managed to set off some warning bells for some people when I posted about the teacher who was arrested in the Sudan for naming a teddy bear “Mohammed.” Actually, nobody accused me of hatred, but that just looked more provocative in the title.
First, let me confess that I do not have much sympathy for fundamentalism and the attitudes that seem to drive it. You will probably feel that as I post. The idea of a fixed understanding of the truth to which we must cling bluntly just seems silly to me. As I observe the world, while I still believe there are things that are true and things that are not, I believe that our understanding of these must constantly change as long as we remain imperfect. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I haven’t yet attained perfection, and using my best rose-colored glasses, I can’t yet foresee the time when I will be perfect. So yes, fundamentalism is, from the start, not my cup of tea.
So fundamentalism, as such, is something that I do oppose, whether it is Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, or any other variety. But there is a difference between opposition to something, and believing that it is essentially violent or at least physically dangerous. There are more characteristics than just doctrines that go into that additional problem. In addition, I would note that just what makes one a “fundamentalist” differs by faith. That’s why I will point to a different line at the end of this post.
As I said in the previous posts, I think the most dangerous variety of fundamentalism is currently most commonly manifested by fundamentalist Muslims. The violent reaction to the publication of cartoons of Mohammed, and the recent “teddy bear” arrest indicate a high level of willingness to engage in violence over opinions. That willingness to engage in violence over one’s beliefs is the key characteristic that must be added to fundamentalism before I become seriously concerned.
Thus John Calvin in Geneva steps across a line when he burns Servetus at the stake for his beliefs. Of course, we should give poor Calvin due consideration based on the social structure and beliefs of his era, where such a thing was more common, yet I would note that a reformation that corrected any number of alleged theological errors somehow failed to correct what seems to me the greatest error of all–the notion that we can torture and kill other people over their beliefs and words. But one thing at a time, I guess.
Similarly, groups in the United States that use the word “Christian,” however far they may vary from what I would regard as Christian, do advocate violence in the name of Jesus. Fortunately for us here, their numbers are small. I do not worry on a day by day basis that there will be a terrorist attack by Christian fundamentalists, or even that there will be one by splinter groups calling themselves Christians. The event is simply too rare.
Further, I see a big difference between traditional Christian fundamentalism–belief in the “fundamentals”–and the violent splinter groups. They may both accept the major fundamentals, but the difference is in their extreme us vs. them attitude combined with a willingness to engage in violence over what one believes and expresses.
I hate to use slippery slope arguments, because they can be used on just about anyone. Even a nice, center of the road position has a slippery slope on either side. But I think a slippery slope warning is in order. If one indulges oneself in an us vs. them paradigm, one is in danger at some point of becoming violent and dangerous. The problem is with “at some point.” All of us have some “us vs. them” factors in our lives. Why do I belong to a particular church congregation? Surely there are things there that I like more than those in another nearby congregation. It’s a bit of us vs. them.
If I start wanting to tear down the other church’s signs, yell at them out the car window, or otherwise harass them, then I am crossing a dangerous line. It’s easy to become more and more hostile as we remain separate because we simply don’t know one another well enough. Then there is the problem of repeated division. As we become so certain that our opinions are right and will never need correction, we become less willing to fellowship with people who differ from our position.
Within a few mile radius of my own house I can identify at least three major divisions of Baptists. I don’t mean denominations, but rather movements. There are Southern Baptists, in this area a very substantial number. (For what it’s worth, I don’t call them fundamentalists, but evangelicals.) Then there are independent Baptists, who quite generally regard the Southern Baptists as too liberal. Then there is the home church of Peter Ruckman, KJV-Only writer, who regards all of the above as way off the liberal edge of the map.
How far off the map does someone need to be before we get concerned? Well, within reason, I think we can express concern about any beliefs we regard as incorrect. As long as we are willing to hear other points of view and to be corrected as necessary, this is just part of life. I’m human enough that I will express myself with greater and greater vigor as I perceive someone to differ from my own position.
The line that must not be crossed, in my view, is the one where I allow violence over opinions held and somehow expressed. (It’s a separate subject, but I believe that any violence that is not strictly defensive is to be rejected, and even some defensive violence.) No matter how someone insults my faith, I do not have the right to respond with violence.
Right now, this violence is coming largely from the Muslim world, but that is not an eternal verity. Christians are not immune. We become incensed when people speak against Jesus or the Bible. I have heard such speech referred to as persecution with people calling for Christians to prepare to defend themselves. If such defense is to be done also with peaceful expression, that’s no problem, but in many cases I know that is not the case.
And I do not mean only unofficial violence. Violence engaged in against others because of their opinions is even more dangerous when done as official policy. Who sets the boundaries?
Again, lest I be misunderstood, I do not mean any of this to say that we cannot respond to terrorism. But it does mean that we must not engage in a war against Islam. For the most part, despite my profound objections to some of our actions overseas, I don’t see us engaging, at least intentionally, in such a war. I do, however, see quite a lot of sentiment here for it.
Finally, while I do not accept the idea that violence always begets violence, i.e. I do believe that there are times when the use of violence is required, I do believe that any time one engages in violence beyond the provocation, becomes the first to resort to violence, or uses violence when other options are open, one will only produce more violence. It is that boundary between between having strong beliefs, and having beliefs so strong that one can do violence because of them that is where I see the danger.
Hatred? I hope not! But strong opposition, and a willingness to respond vigorously–absolutely.
I’ve noted a tendency amongst both friends and enemies (hopefully this is hyperbole!) of mine to declare people heretics for some very brief statements, especially in matters of soteriology. People are particularly quick to pick up on any suggestion of legalism or Pelagianism.
But I notice that the Bible writers are not terribly careful to nuance their statements on such issues. There are, in fact, many places in the Bible where one could assume salvation by works if one took a small section at a time. Peter seemed to have some problem with Paul’s clarity, referring to “obscure passages” (2 Peter 3:16). One could get the idea that Paul was antinomian in some of his passages. Of course, he himself would respond with a me genoito should he be confronted with such a possibility.
Jesus might have been accused of preaching salvation by works when he says that those who simply say “Lord, Lord” or call him “Lord” will not necessarily enter the kingdom, but those who do his Father’s will (Matthew 7:21-23). Now I’m aware of many of the ways we fit these passages together into a coherent soteriology, but the fact is that the Bible has plenty of passages that pose difficulties.
Perhaps this should suggest to us that there is a little bit of flexibility in the way we express God’s plan of salvation, and if not flexibility, at least forgiveness.
I was reminded of this as I do a series of podcasts on 2 Peter 1:3-11. My attention was first called to this passage by Laura Curtis of Pursuing Holiness, and it has stuck with me. Today, as I was preparing the script for the latest installment, I noticed again this portion: “be all the more eager to confirm your call and election.” Confirm one’s election? Surely you jest, Peter! If one is elected, one is elected!
Well, perhaps not. There seems to be some tension here, and the flexible handle tension better.
. . . and I think they’re headed for an A. The writing committee is to be commended for their hard work. The National Center for Science Education and Florida Citizens for Science have issued a press release giving an evaluation of the new standards by one of the experts who participated in giving the old ones an F.
This is good news for Florida’s science education in many ways. There are those who are trying to make this all about evolution, and I won’t deny that I personally regard it as extremely important that evolution be included fully in the standards as an organizing principle of biology. It should be thoroughly understood by our students. But there is much more to these standards.
It’s time to increase our expectations in science education. At the same time, we need to be prepared to support our educators as they carry these out.
[Note: I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science.]
A while back I blogged a bit about Richard Colling, an evangelical Christian, microbiologist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. The major item of controversy at the time was his book, Random Designer, which seeks to combine his Christian faith with his acceptance of evolution.
I’m going to blog my way through his book, because I think he expresses some important points for Christians who are considering how to respond to the issues raised by evolution and other scientific discoveries on the one hand and their understanding of scripture on the other. Dr. Colling is exceptionally well qualified to comment on these issues.
In this first post I just want to make some general remarks on his introduction. I share some experiences with Dr. Colling in encountering and dealing with the issue of evolution in a church environment. As I understand his theology, he comes from a Wesleyan background, and teaches at Olivet Nazarene University, thus Wesleyan theology provides some connection
But to a large extent we come at this from completely different perspectives which makes this very interesting reading. He encountered creationism in a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist at the University of Kansas, and was shocked at the poor arguments presented by the creationist (p. 6). I was a convinced young earth creationist until I encountered material on evolution and started to compare the quality with the creationist literature I’d grown up on. There was simply no comparison.
The following quote gives the flavor:
This book, then, contains the ideas and perspectives of one broadly trained scientist who is not satisfied with religious platitudes or scientific dogma. I am just like you, attempting to fit the pieces together. The goal is straightforward–to develop a personal faith and cultivate a close connection with God, while at the same time fully acknowledging the scientific laws and processes that plainly govern our existence. [emphasis in original]
I think this provides a valuable perspective for Christians. It is also hardly threatening. I will make a more complete evaluation as I continue reading, but thus far this looks like an excellent book to put into the hands of someone who is seriously asking questions about this issue.
On pages 16-17, in discussing science and faith, Dr. Colling makes a strong case for teaching evolution in public schools saying that it is “an integral component of biology.” He also emphasizes that evolution and atheism are not necessarily connected. “The problem arises,” he says, “when the interpretation and meanings of evolution are extended too far.”
At the conclusion of chapter 2, Dr. Colling has laid out the claim that evolution is not necessarily theistic or atheistic; those conclusions go beyond the actual science involved.
When next I blog, I’ll be looking at chapter 2, in which he discusses thermodynamics in a way that is very accessible to lay people. For all those who think the 2nd law means that evolution is impossible, Dr. Colling would disagree–he says that the 2nd law is essential to evolution.
The Gonzalez tenure issue has bothered me considerably, and not for the reasons that the Discovery Institute would like. There seems to be a bias that suggests that academic freedom must mean that there are no constraints whatsoever on what a professor may teach or do, before or after hiring and before or after tenure.
It seems to me that this attitude would mean that one can’t evaluate the academic quality of a candidate, because to do so might reveal that he hold ideas that are truly stupid, and thus would disqualify him as a professor. I thought this was the purpose of tenure–you determined that someone could and did produce good work over a substantial period of time, and then protect them after that.
I personally even question the tenure system to some extent, simply because it can put a person in a position to produce less quality and nonetheless be assured of a job. But the protection given to freedom through the system is probably well worth it.
Mike Dunford of The Questionable Authority has written an analysis of the Discovery Institutes recent complaints in this case, and I think he is absolutely right. His post is titled The Discovery Institute and the Gonzalez Tenure Issue: Why Should Intelligent Design be Privileged?. Indeed why should it be privileged? It’s another case of the ID community wanting to get the respect without doing the work.
Go read and enjoy!
I’m working on a long post on 2 Corinthians 5, but in the meantime, try answering some of these questions.
