Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Dr. Richard Colling Comments on Random Designer Review

    I wanted to call attention to a few of these, as Dr. Colling’s response to elements of my posts on his book is very important. He also makes some substantial points in his comments.

    I’m going to quote and link to two of these so that they are not missed.

    Chapter 14 almost did not make the cut for the book. One of my closest friends had read the manuscript just before it went to press. He had terminal cancer. When I suggested that I might take that chapter out, he was adamant that it needed to be included. He could see that his life was soon to end, but he was supremely confident that his life would never end. Only the physical was terminal in his mind. The spiritual had no end. One of his favorite sayings to me during those last months of his life was, ” All healing is temporary”.

    If I think about this, it is so obvious, but also deep. We sometimes place God before the litmus tests of our experimental designs, saying that if we experience some apparently inexplicable healing or recovery from physical disease, it is God. Well, my friend knew that God does not thrive or even appreciate that kind of notariety. All of us are physical beings, and mortality is common to us all. It is hard for me to believe that God cares a great deal about whether I live to be 60 or 80, but it is easy for me to understand that he cares how I relate to him and to others. In the Bible, Jesus repeatedly cautioned his followers about emphasizing physical health over spiritual.

    Are miracles real? My answer is a resounding “Yes”.
    But in the sense that every biochemical process that has been ordained within us, including the innate healing processes are miracles. Can these be tapped by spiritual means? I have not seen it conclusively demonstrated, but I know others who are very convinced, and I accept that reality as a possibility.
    That is faith, I guess.

    Glad you are finding value in the book.

    Thanks.
    Rick

    Source: Comment 99252.

    Hello Henry, and all.

    The answers to the questions posed in your discussions are, in my opinion, not to be easily had from science. They become matters of faith. I understand very well your thinking Henry, that the creation of intelligent human life may not have been so directly directed as we typically understand the word “directed”. It may be as you describe. The multiverse theory suggests something similar — that there are even multiple universes, and that within some of these, life can develop and evolve to reach similar point perhaps as we. But alas, the stretches of time and space preclude us from ever knowing such things for sure. So here we are, trapped in a sense, in our teeny tiny corner of one of hundreds of billions of solar systems existing within hundreds of billions of galaxies and knowing that we can never learn the answer for certain. All we can do it seems is consider what we do know from science (the physical world) and make the best resonance with our faith.
    I recognize that some of the extrapolations tread on what some consider to be “sacred ground’. but my thinking is that perhaps we have some things wrong in our classic Christian/religious foundations.

    One of you suggest that physical death/suffering does not enter the world before a human being’s sin. But adopting such a rigid explanation of the Bibilical text creates all kinds of problems. Not for science, but the the credibility of the Biblical text. For thousands of years, theologians did something similar when they suggested that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of all existence. But when science demonstrated that that was simply untrue, religion changed their interpretation of scripture. (But not without some weeping and gnashing of teeth.) Perhaps we are at a similar point now. The conflicts between religion and physical sciences has been fairly well resolved post galileo, but the showdown battle between religion and biological sciences appears to be only now coming to a head, at least here in the US. It is not a significant problem in most other areas of the world.
    So back to the fall (first sin.) If we look at the data, mankind has been around roughly between 60,000 years to 150,000 years. But the earths record is quite clear that death, suffering, and massive destructive forces have been ongoing hundreds of millions of years prior to that time.
    How is this information reconciled with the classic interpretation of the fall as being the source of death and suffering. Clearly, these things do not arise for the first time when Adam and Eve ate an apple.

    Also, if the classic interpretation is accepted that physical death and suffering enter at this time, and that Christ’s death reverses this physical phenomenon, then why did death and suffering not immediately cease when his sacrifice was completed?

    It seems to me that we must be consistent, and careful in our interpretation of scripture. I think it was Charles Hodge who said that to continue to interpret scripture in ways clearly inconsistent with nature is a sure killer for the credibility of the faith.
    Especially if there is a different (and in this case, I believe a better) interpretation. Just as Jesus taught, mankind has a tendency to experience and describe our existence in terms of physical, but he suggests over and over to focus on the spiritual. So, when the first man sins, this is spiritual death. When Christ dies, that sacrifice models God’s way, exposing physical death in a puny perspective when stood next to spiritual death. In other words, Christ’s death was not about the physical dying at all as much as it was perhaps about the willingness to give up oneself for another, or in his case for all! Wasn’t it his words? “No greater love has a man than that he give up his life for a another.”?

    So this humble scientist wonders if we are missing the bigger message of Christianity when we build the foundations of the Christian faith around physical interpretations that cannot possible be true.

    On another note, Henry. Yes, I am an unapologetic Christian, but these days, that descriptor often seems to connote something that I do not like, so I am more recently calling myself a Christ follower. A follower is not wed to preexisting interpretations or creeds, but is a traveler attempting as best as he/she can to listen, learn, love and explore the best and the deepest that life has to offer. When Jesus was asked what one must do to inherit eternal life, he responded, ” Love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength,… (and then that troubling little addendum) and your neighbor as yourself.” He said, do this and you will be saved.

    So I am trying to do the best I can to model and follow the example he has given, and try to offer hope to others that literal or classic interpretations are not necessarily directly from the hand of God. they are but teachings and sometimes poorly understood understandings of man.

    Thanks for your interest. I tried hard in Random Designer to make it clear that I am a believer, but also that non-believers need not check their intellect at the door of the church to consider the possibilities for faith and belief.
    As always,
    Rick

    Source: Comment 99253.

    Please go to the original posts for context.

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • Paying People to See EXPELLED

    Given the advance publicity, and now reviews from some friends who have seen the movie, I have almost entirely negative expectations. That is not surprising, considering that I’ve sold out to the Darwinist ConspiracyTM, and no longer believe in God.* :-;

    However, it seems that the upright and theologically correct** folks who produced the movie, have even less faith in it than I do. They apparently feel the need to pay people to see it (HT: Austringer and Glen D. at AtBC.)

    They are especially interested in getting middle and high school students to see the movie, which demonstrates yet again how much more anxious they are to bring their message before the uninitiated than to bring it before people who are qualified to critique it.

    I eagerly await exaggerated claims of ticket sales based on this particular strategy. The ID folks have taken a step down from “truth is determined by popular vote” to “truth is determined by those who can pay for it.”

    *I eagerly await the first time this is quoted by some humor-challenged individual to prove I really, truly am an atheist.

    **Political correctness is a relative newcomer on the correctness scene. Theologians just didn’t have such a catchy name for it. For centuries in many places one could get burned at the stake for not being theologically correct, rather than just expelled from a university, for example. Both ideas are, of course, destructive of freedom. That’s why, of all the epithets rained upon me, I prefer “Henry the Heretic.” It’s good to be a heretic!

  • J. Barton Payne on Theistic Evolution

    A friend of mine e-mailed me a link to this post on Higgaion. It’s an interesting discussion, and Payne’s attitude is far from dead today. To the excellent article, I would add only a couple of questions.

    First, on what basis do people determine that Genesis 1 & 2 must be narrative history? I am regularly asked to prove that it is something else, as though by default it must be considered narrative history. But the way one usually identifies a literary genre, especially in the ancient world where things didn’t come labeled “mythology,” “history,” or “fiction,” is to build an acquaintance with related literature. Ever since I became acquainted with a much broader range of ancient near eastern literature, it has always seemed to me that this process should be reversed. Why should something that looks so very much like other ancient near eastern creation myths be regarded as narrative history?

    Note here that I do not regard it as identical to those other myths, nor as directly copied from them. Rather, I regard it as the same general type of literature, which often shares common elements of cosmology and other symbolism. If we did not have the current Genesis creation account, and we found it inscribed on clay tablets in some ancient near eastern city, we would have no hesitation identifying it as a new creation myth. (Note also that I think the genre is more precisely “liturgy” for Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and “myth” for Genesis 2:4bff. See my essay Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)

    Second, and closely related is this: Why do we have a prejudice against fiction and myth as a way to convey spiritual truth/value? One potential answer to my first question is that we Christians believe the Bible is inspired, and it must contain truth (or be true), and fiction is false. For protestants, I think there is some loss through lack of exposure to the apocrypha. Reading Judith or Tobit can help one gain appreciation for the use of fiction in the ancient world.

  • Random Designer Wrap-Up

    I found the last several chapters of Random Designer quite attractive, I think partially because I’m from a Wesleyan background. We cross the “somehow” barrier and find that human beings, by whatever means that was accomplished, want to connect with their creator. In chapter 20, this is presented as “A Choice and a Chance.” The following quote (also used as an inset quote in the book) gives the flavor:

    An intimate, meaningful, and fulfilling relationship cannot be required. It can only be offered! Without the possibility of rejection, there is no opportunity for meaningful connection.

    Here I think Dr. Colling gets into one of the key potentials involved in looking at humanity from an evolutionary perspective, yet doing so as a theist, though I don’t know if he would go as far as I do. God takes risks by being the Random Designer instead of the complete dictator. There is the risk inherent in creation itself. Just what type of creature will arise that will think and connect? There is also the risk inherent in relationship. Will the person who seeks a relationship with God become a better person, or will he use the “specialness” of that relationship as an excuse to lord it over others? My own answers thus tend toward an “openness of God” theology. (Please be certain to distinguish my commentary here from Dr. Colling’s. Dr. Colling does not embrace the openness of God theology in the text.)

    Chapter 21, God’s Will: A Confusing Concept Becomes Crystal Clear promises clarity on a difficult topic, and here I have to express a bit of amusement. In general, once we come to an understanding of an issue, we think it’s crystal clear. I get caught here too. When teaching classes on the book of Revelation, I will inevitably be asked about some commentary in which the author says he has worked out the meaning of Revelation and it’s really very simple. I can point out that I have a row of commentaries on Revelation and several of them make a similar claim, yet do not agree on the meaning! So there are at least half a dozen crystal clear meanings to the book of Revelation.

    Understanding God’s will is rather similar, I believe. While I actually like Dr. Colling’s explanation, and I think he points in the right direction at least, it would probably take only a few minutes in a room with a Calvinist to get it all pretty confused again. Of course both Calvinist and Arminian would leave with a clear understanding–just different clear understandings.

    The chapter content is good. I think the subtitle is perhaps a bit optimistic, but then those who have no optimism don’t write books!

    Chapter 22, the rewards of perseverance builds on the spiritual view of humanity, while chapter 23 introduces the concept of “higher order random design.” I am not going to try to summarize this one. The key example is to be found in the human immune system. I think I followed it, but I am uncertain I can express it again myself. It does indeed express again the way in which randomness can produce order and design.

    Chapter 24 takes a step out into the unknown by suggesting that the genome may be as loaded as is possible and that we may well not move to greater complexity than human beings. It’s an interesting point, but one which I am woefully unqualified to analyze.

    Finally, chapter 25 deals with the call to relationship with the creator again. The form of expression and the theology here is very comfortable for me as it coincides closely with my own.

    Wrap-Up!

    This is the first time I have tried to blog through a book rather than read it completely and then write a few short notes or attempt a review. I see advantages and disadvantages. In once case, I re-read a section and commented on it further due to readers’ remarks. I think that second read had some value. So much for the process.

    What do I think of the book overall? I regard the first section as one of the best explanations of the basics of evolutionary theory for a layman that I have read. It does not involve the detail that a book like What Evolution Is includes, nor does it have the spice of Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, but it has substantial advantages too.

    First, I think it makes clear both the complexity of life and the power of the “random design” concept. Variation + Natural selection works. Dr. Colling is not afraid to look at abiogenesis and give us an idea of where the science is there as well. I think it is quite appropriate to separate abiogenesis from the biological theory of evolution for many purposes. At the same time, for many people the origin of life is the major question.

    Second, Dr. Colling is clearly an excellent teacher, and can explain complex processes simply. He apologizes to his colleagues in the scientific community for the extent to which he will simplify, and having read other materials, I know he is simplifying considerably, yet I do believe he gives an overall excellent picture. When looking at the forest one might misidentify a tree or two while still getting the shape of the forest.

    Third, Dr. Colling is talking about evolution in theistic terms, even when he is not talking about divine intervention. The recognition of God as the creator, and more precisely of God as the Random Designer underlies the entire book. The science is not divorced from theology, though science and theology are each given their spheres, their separate identity and their separate subject matter.

    Finally, these earlier points mean that this is a book for Christians and other theists who want to understand how one can still perceive God in an evolving world, as well as for those who want to understand how a theist can possibly manage that. One of my responses to the claim that nobody can be a theistic evolutionist is simply: And yet here I am. Well, now “here’s Dr. Richard Colling.” The second half of the book is a more explicit expression of the Christian faith that was always present even in the first half.

    One thing that struck me throughout was the basic honesty of this whole book. We have intelligent design proponents trying to pretend to do science without identifying their intelligent designer. Dr. Colling is unafraid to state from the start who he means by the Random Designer. That freedom comes with a lack of ulterior motives. This isn’t a sneaky way to get a specific type of “random design theory” into high school classrooms. It’s simply an expression of how one scientist who is also a man of faith sees God in random design.

    I would strongly recommend this book for any Christian who is considering the creation-evolution controversy, and also for anyone who wants to understand where many people of faith stand in terms of the relationship between science and theology. It is clear, informative, and challenging. I can’t ask for much more in a book!

  • Random Designer VI – Take 2

    After some comments that followed my post Random Designer VI, I decided to go back and re-read those chapters to try to make sure I was reading Dr. Colling correctly. I have also finished reading the book and thus am no longer in danger of responding to something which will be clarified in later chapters.

    I want to emphasize that I believe Dr. Colling is full orthodox in his expression of Christian faith in these chapters. The problem comes in when he tries to express how the material in the first part of the book, in which he has expressed a purely natural view of the evolution of life on earth, from abiogenesis through human beings. Human beings, by this account, are biologically related to all other life forms. Now while he expresses a natural view of evolution, God is always on the horizon, as the source of the laws and processes that are involved.

    When he turns to the relationship between God and these people who have involved, we have what appears to be a disconnect. Somehow we have been created to connect with our creator, at the same time as we have evolved as biological entities. I think that the place where many people have a disconnect with evolution is right there, with the word “somehow.” (“Somehow” is my term, but I believe the gap exists in the book as well.)

    I can’t blame some people from taking my description as expressing an unjustified dualism. God kind of pops in and makes man special at the very last moment, so we have an act of spiritual, not physical creation. But Dr. Colling doesn’t express it that way in the book. That element results from my abbreviation of the story. It’s true that he does not propose any sort of detail in terms of how God would accomplish that goal, but in so doing he seems to leave the “how” question here open. There’s this human creature that evolves, and then he desires to be in connection with his creator, the “Random Designer.” How did this happen? Well, we’re not precisely sure. Dr. Colling provides some metaphors.

    In a sense I’m much less excited with the second half of the book than I was with the first. Don’t take that as sharp criticism. I’m ecstatic about the quality of the first part, and it would be some accomplishment to keep me that excited about the second part as well.

    The first thing I would like to see is some better connection between evolutionary theory and the Genesis account, i.e. some explicit discussion of the scriptural passages. Dr. Colling does not do that. There’s an excellent excuse, in that one wants to keep a book like this to a reasonable length. But of the many hundreds of questions I’ve been asked regarding evolution, that is always the first one–how can I believe in evolution and read Genesis? Indeed, I recall me teacher in elementary school (during the 4 years out of my first 12 I was not homeschooled) informing me that we memorized Genesis 1 & 2 (and we did, every word in the KJV), because it would then be so ingrained in our minds that we would never accept evolution. Nonetheless is is not surprising that there is not extended discussion of these issues. One could write a separate book on that topic.

    The second issue is in dealing with the image of God, what it is, and how one gets the image of God. Perhaps someone whose training is primarily theological (or more precisely in Biblical studies/languages) would be hungry for more detailed theological integration of the material about humanity, where we fit, and how we connect with God. But despite a good deal of discussion, I still feel the “somehow” gap.

    For a non-theologian, Dr. Colling does a good job tackling the issues involved. I’m wondering, however, if there are not more theologians to the more conservative end of the spectrum who would look at this. We do have some good scientists from the evangelical camp working on it, and they are generally pretty good at theology, but I haven’t seen much in the way of solid work on science and religion from the evangelical side. This may reflect my reading habits more than availability of the material. I would welcome comments on what is available.

    From my own perspective, John Haught does quite an excellent job, but I’m not so sure that this would satisfy those in the evangelical community.

    As a final note, I personally believe that the creator would enter into communion with any creature who developed consciousness. I think it highly likely that he does so with many, many creatures elsewhere in the universe. I don’t think anything special is needed except God’s willingness to communicate. I think it is inevitable that if this universe is contingent, and thus there is a creator, that we would reach out to that creator. Thus I don’t envision any separate, special act of creation. That may, however, be too far out there for some of my more conservative brethren.

    I will finish this series with one more post on the final chapters of the book. I do intend to recommend it strongly. It’s a great contribution to Christian understanding of the theory of evolution.

  • Florida Science Standards Debate Heats Up

    I can’t seem to keep up with everything that’s happening in the debate about science standards here in Florida, but Brandon Haught, our Florida Citizens for Science communication director (I’m a board member) is doing an excellent job on the FCfS Blog.

    In particular, I’d like to call attention to two blog posts there:

    Those not in favor of good science education, raise your hand. These folks have identified themselves in opposition to the science standards. There are those who will say they are not opposed to good science standards, just the ones on evolution. It is impossible to have good science standards without learning to understand evolution. Make no mistake. Those who oppose the explicit and prominent presence of evolution in the biology standards are not favoring good science education, and their motives are not scientific.

    Here’s why you need to get involved. This looks at how the opposition is getting organized on this point. We’ll meet many of the same old anti-science forces gathering for the fight here.

    I will continue to keep folks updated on the Florida debate, though mostly through linking to the excellent work Brandon is doing on the Florida Citizens for Science blog

  • Biblical Inerrancy and Evolution

    It’s very easy to equate the creation-evolution debate amongst Christians with the inerrancy debate. Many assume that those who accept the theory of evolution will automatically reject inerrancy. But this is not the case. This confusion results from another incorrect equation–Biblical inerrancy with Biblical literalism.

    Biblical literalism is itself a difficult concept to get ahold of. In popular usage, “taking it literally” is often equated with taking it seriously. But the most common form of Biblical literalism means taking the Biblical text as the most concrete form of literature possible. This is expressed, for example, by Tim LaHaye in chapter 11 of his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself as: “A good rule to follow is try to interpret each passage literally. If this is obviously not the case, then as a last resort try to find the spiritual or symbolical [sic] truth it is communicating.” What this means in practice is that a Biblical passage gets interpreted as a form of literature that can be taken literally.

    Let’s take the book of Jonah, for example. To the literalist it appears to relate a series of events, and one can take it as a true story. Jonah did flee in a ship, get swallowed by a great fish, preach in Nineveh, and convert the entire population to the worship of Israel’s God. A non-literalist, on the other hand, can consider that the book might be a fictional story written to make a point. Thus it could express certain teachings, such as a willingness to show grace to foreigners, even if the actual events of the story did not happen.

    To illustrate this from a modern perspective, consider the difference between a historical account of a battle, a historical novel based on the events of the same battle, and a romance set in the time period of the battle. The first intends to tell you what happened in the battle. It may be in error on various points, depending on the quality of the research and what information was available, but its point is to relate a series of events accurately. The historical novel, on the other hand, does not purport to report events strictly as they happened in the actual battle. It may invent actions for lead characters, or attribute historical actions to fictional characters in the novel. It might be intended to portray the feelings of soldiers involved, or even to give a picture of the events based on history, but with more of a personal feel than the available information permits. The romance, finally, may be authentic in terms of costumes, attitudes, places, and connections to historical events, but is much more loosely tied to actual history.

    The Bible is a collection of literature of various types, and thus the interpreter is called upon to determine just what type of literature is involved with each reader. I cannot object strongly enough to LaHaye’s idea that you try to take it literally if at all possible. The first step is to ask what type of literature any particular passage is. If one interpreted a historical novel as though it was a work of history, then one might expect to find things like the home of the lead character in the place where the novel indicates the character lived. But one would be disappointed.

    So how does this relate to inerrancy? Inerrancy itself means different things to different people. But the standard definition amongst theologians can be summarized as “the Bible is without error in what it intends to convey.” Now if you think about it a moment, “fiction” is not “error.” Rather, it is intentionally written as it is for a purpose. Thus if a Biblical writer chooses to express a message in the form of fiction, as is indubitably done in the parable of the trees (Judges 9:7-15), that is certainly not an error–it is the intent.

    The assumption that a belief in inerrancy involves some sort of literalism thus results in some considerable confusion. In the area of origins, this involes assumptions regarding the interpretation of Genesis, especially chapters 1 & 2, assumptions that divide interpretations into two categories: 100% accurate narrative history vs an interesting ancient story that got it all wrong. In fact, most interpretations of Genesis fall somewhere between these extremes.

    Amongst these options are some kind of symbolic meaning, usually associated with Old Earth creationism. In this case, Genesis generally presents creation in phases without getting picky about chronology or other details. Just how picky one can get will vary with the interpreter. Then there is my own interpretation which suggests that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a form of liturgy, while Genesis 2:4b-25-4:26 is a form closely related to myth. These are designed to express the relationship of humanity to God in the context of an ancient near eastern culture, and their cosmology. A similar relationship can be expressed in a modern cosmology, something I think Dr. Richard Colling has accomplished in his book Random Designer; I blogged on the specific point here.

    As I understand inerrancy, someone who accepts that doctrine could accept either of these two alternatives. In fact, I’ve discussed my position on evolution with a friend who does accept Biblical inerrancy, and he indicated that the difference between my view and his does not involve Biblical inerrancy. If he found me convincing on other grounds, his belief in inerrancy would not prevent him from accepting the conclusions I express about origins (in general, that is).

    Why am I concerned about this, since I do not accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy? I would like debates to center on actual issues between those debating. The confusion between literalism, in the form of taking literature in as concrete a manner as possible, and inerrancy, as believing the text contains its intended message without error is unnecessary and unproductive.

  • Random Designer VI

    Chapter 16 of Random Designer turns a bit of a corner, though it is a logical progression. I get the impression that some of the non-Christian readers will turn aside at this point, as Dr. Colling progresses into the theological. The chapter titles are “Created for Connection,” “Cosmic Loneliness,” “Where is God, Really?,” and “Embedded Files.”

    I don’t mean that this negatively, but we need to be clear that this book looks at the science of origins from a Christian perspective. There’s nothing wrong with making extrapolations that go beyond what can be scientifically tested, so long as they don’t involve putting a stop sign in the road. It is important, however, to remember just where we crossed the border.

    Dr. Colling starts his answer to the question of purpose in these chapters. I am again afraid to summarize, because it is very easy to misunderstand these things, and is even more so when someone tries to summarize. I’m going to have to make some generalizations, however.

    These chapters address the question of whether God, as random designer, has created human beings for the purpose of connection. Since Dr. Colling has already told us that humanity is biologically fully related to other animals, just how does this work? He suggests that the answer to the question of where God is, is right inside our minds. I may be doing the explanation a disservice, but it seems very similar to saying that we have a spiritual nature that coexists with our biological nature, somethings known as the presence of a soul, combined with God within us. This is not as a natural part of us, but rather something from outside.

    While some philosophers such as Daniel Dennet explain human conscience and spiritual inclinations entirely on evolutionary grounds, and others would try to deny biology its role, Dr. Colling suggests a dual role for these functions. Yes, they can be selected for biologically. Altruism, for example, plays a role in the survival of population. But for him they also provide part of a connection between us and God.

    I may modify my own response here as I read, but I sense that my own theology on this leaves God a little bit more distant. I would not suggest that humanity is the specifically intended product of evolution, but rather that just as you will likely get life if you have enough planets with the right conditions you will also get intelligence in a certain number of cases. My theology then suggests that God would reach out to any such creatures. We are special in that we have those characteristics, but I stick with the concept of randomness in terms of where and when such a thing would happen.

    I’m glad Dr. Colling is reading this series of blogs, because he can correct me if I’ve misunderstood him, or simply misrepresented him inadvertently. I find his approach to this intriguing.

    In my next post we’ll be continuing with chapter 20. “A Choice or a Chance.”

  • Random Designer V

    With my previous post I completed reading the first section of Random Designer. Up to this point, while we have been touching on faith, the primary purpose of the material was to outline what evolution is, and the areas and strength of evidence for it. Obviously, in any reasonable sized book, Dr. Colling could not actually cover all the evidence, but he does provide us with the categories and with overviews.

    Having established that evolution is based on overwhelming evidence, he begins to look at how evolution relates to faith, primarily to Christian faith, though he does cover other elements. As I read it, however, the links have been established in the earlier chapters. Essentially, as a Christian reader, I have already been presented with the choice between the Random Designer, who created a universe with natural processes that would produce the variety of life we now know, and a “tinkering God” (my phrase) who does it all in detail. The overwhelming evidence of the world around us tells us that God is the Random Designer and not the tinkerer.

    Of course, any reader of this blog knows my choice. I already accepted the Random Designer before I read the book by that name, though I didn’t have that good of a name for him! Many Christians, however, will feel that there are many problems left open. For some it will feel as though they are being told that their faith, and particularly their Bible is absolutely wrong, and that they must make a choice between faith and science. I suspect that in that case many would choose their faith.

    But no such stark choice is presented. What Dr. Colling invites readers to do is to expand their understanding of God, and to see the beauty of the plan of creation which is revealed by science. To put this in my own words, we need to look at our faith and see where it can be improved and strengthened by what God has revealed in the natural world. Since both the natural world and scriptures are said by Christian doctrine to result from (or be) God’s word, we should find value in both.

    From the introduction to Part II:

    The problem, as I see it, is that we tend to squeeze God into small rigid boxes of our own making to keep Him conceptually consistent with our traditional religious beliefs. Unfortunately, this approach to religious faith is fraught with liability because it prevents God from truly being God–a creator capable of using any means He chooses for His creation. [emphasis in original]

    Now technically in Christian theology we can say that when one source of revelation (the Bible), conflicts with another, we can examine what we know from either. In other words, if science contradicts the Bible, one can check one’s science, or one can check one’s understanding of the Bible, or both. I would suggest its more important to check which one is the appropriate source for a particular type of information, but I’m using a more traditional formulation.

    In the case of evolution, however, we’ve seen that the evidence is overwhelming, and thus we have to look back at our faith, assuming that we’ve made some form of unscientific view of origins part of that faith, and we have to see where this really does fit. If we do so, I think we’re in for an enlightening journey. In Random Designer, that begins with chapter 12, “Who is Adam? The Birth of Humanity.” This chapter basically goes from biological development to consciousness, remaining with the basic claim that humans are biologically fully related to the rest of creation, but nonetheless looking at what sets us apart from other creatures on earth.

    Chapter 13 expands on consciousness and discusses our perception and cognitive abilities. I really can’t summarize it. It’s already short enough! Chapter 14, “An Honest Faith” talks about the problems of credibility and the importance of honestly admitting and addressing the evidence. He notes that the conclusion that there is a Master Designer, or God, is not a scientific conclusion. He is enlightened in forming that conclusion by science, but it is not something to be scientifically demonstrated.

    Chapter 15 then talks about the image of God. This is one of those very hard questions to deal with, because so many Christians attach the concept of God’s image to something physical. Often people who will deny it when asked directly, still think as though there is something physical about God’s image. But the concept of a Random Designer need not contradict the idea of God’s image in humanity; in fact, it can link with it very well.

    I’ll continue in my next post with chapter 16.