Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Richard Colling Letter

    A few days ago I added Steve Martin’s blog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution to my blogroll and subscribed to it’s RSS feed. I have mentioned frequently that there are a number of evangelical Christians who accept evolution, and I’m glad to see more of them involved in the debate.

    Today Steve posted a letter from Dr. Richard Colling, which was sent to the Olivet Nazarene University’s newspaper who, not surprisingly, did not publish it. The letter is good reading for those who believe Christian advocates of evolution are not also committed Christians.

    Steve’s concluding comment is particularly on point:

    This is the kind of testimony that exposes the “evolution=atheism” lie and the “evolution=compromise” slander. It is the credibility of Colling and other deeply committed Christians who uphold the integrity of scripture and the integrity of science, which will ultimately stop Evangelicalism’s self-damaging war on evolution. This personal credibility is a much more important factor than any argument from the scientific evidence. It was for me. So Richard, from all of us that have traveled this journey, thanks.

    I will continue to watch the feeds and other sources for information on Dr. [tag]Richard Colling[/tag].

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/26/07

    Well, this is rather quick for another round, but there have been some more good posts I’d like to call attention to.

    • Aetiology has a good post and updates on the community college teacher fired apparently for calling the early chapters of Genesis a myth. I referred to this event in an earlier post
    • I found this post at The Questionable Authority very helpful in understanding fossilization and its relation to reconstructing the history of organisms. The principles are very similar to those in archeology, and make good sense to me.
    • Ed Brayton has this article on the Louisiana Family Forum to which Louisiana senator [tag]David Vitter[/tag] wants to give some of your tax money. It appears there are less savory activities than employing the services of prostitutes, such as taking your money and giving it to groups that will use it to harm your children’s education..
    • A post from Florida Citizens for Science reports that Cheri Yecke is in the top three for the Florida Education commissioner job. I have blogged previously on why she should not be selected.

  • Defining my Position on ID and Creation

    A couple of questions have arisen about my position on these issues, and though I’ve stated all these things before, they have generally been in longer presentations. So I’m going to try to state my position.

    I see three easily demarcated positions on design:

    1. The universe is designed as a fully functional system, and the origin and diversification of life can be explained by natural processes within that universe. A theist in this sense believes God created the universe, but is not required to interfere.
    2. The universe was established in such a way that a particular result would occur through apparently natural processes. This is an approximation of “front-loading” which some equate to intelligent design.
    3. The origin or life and/or its diversification cannot be explained by solely natural processes. The designer (God, despite claims to the contrary) interferes at particular points. This is the ID position, and is the one I was addressing in my post The Common Thread in Modern Creationism yesterday.

    The second option might be divided between those who think God’s interference can be detected, and those who don’t, but I don’t think that is of great consequence for my purposes here.

    When I say that I believe the universe is designed, I mean in the sense of #1. God ordained the universe to exist, including the natural processes of variation by whatever means and natural selection, and that is an adequate explanation. I do not mean that variation and natural selection explain everything, but other elements to the explanation will also be natural. My statement that the universe is designed is in no sense a scientific statement. I’m not a biologist. I am not professionally involved in any of the natural sciences. I’m a Bible teacher. That statement is theological and faith based.

    I do not exclude the possibility of option #2, but I have no expectation that God’s action will ever be detected, and I see no difference between completely indetectible (even in principle) interference and no interference at all. Certainly one can never actually know in an objective sense.

    I think there is a strong desire to find this interference, either through front-loading or through ongoing interference because there is a desire in Christian theology to believe that the existence not just of life, but of intelligence, and specifically human intelligence was foreordained. I do not believe that must be the case. Should intelligence appear on another plant in an arthropod form, I would regard that creature to equally bear the image of God.

    I believe the universe is bigger, less predictable, and more risky than we in the theological world have ever believed. On this topic I would commend to your attention the book God after Darwin by John Haught.

  • The Common Thread in Modern Creationism

    It’s hard for me to work with the terms “creationist,” “creationism,” and “evolutionist,” because if I’m completely honest I consider myself to be a creationist who accepts the theory of evolution. The two do not clash in my mind in any way. The term “evolutionist” seems to suggest that I accept evolution as some sort of philosophy of everything, which I do not. I accept gravity, but do not call myself a gravitationist. I accept creation, but to call myself a creationist would invite confusion with the likes of [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag], a fate diligently to be avoided.

    When I teach comparative literature, which is much closer to my own field of study than biological evolution, I always remind students that in order to produce valid comparisons, one must consider both the similarities and the differences. If one ignores differences, one can make very dissimilar things appear almost identical. The reverse is also true.

    Thus I do have some problem with those who call intelligent design merely “warmed over creationism,” if by creationism. There are differences as well as similarities, though most of the differences appears in the presentation, not in the substance, and one of the major differences is that ID tries to say so much less than either young or [tag]old earth creationism[/tag].

    But there is a common thread between all of these varieties of creationism, including ID, and it was illustrated by Dembski’s comments on the flagellum at the University of Oklahoma, discussed here by Dr. Philipp Klebba, here at ERV, and also at The Panda’s Thumb.

    The key point in which I am interested was made in the Panda’s Thumb article:

    Klebba’s relentless questions forced Dembski to admit that

    … [N]o amount of detail would ever convince him of evolution. No matter how much evidence you had, he wanted ‘evidence + 1’. I shit you not, Dembski retreated to the YES [sic/YEC] fossil defense– For every fossil you find, you create two more gaps. Dembski modified this to for every step in the evolutionary process science discovers, it creates two more half-steps to explain. He even pulled a classic-quack move, and made a plea to quantum mechanics.

    And here is my major point. The common thread through the three varieties of creationism is that they are all looking for the break in the natural processes of variation and natural selection such that God must intervene in the natural processes in some way. Whether that intervention is at the biochemical level or whether it deals specifically with speciation events, there needs to be a gap showing where God is “necessary” to the universe.

    In contrast, as a “creationist” who accepts the theory of evolution, I believe that the entire universe is designed. That universal design is the biggest problem there is for IDC, because IDC requires places that are less and more designed so they can detect the differences. IDC doesn’t try to demonstrate that the universe is designed, as many people, especially Christians, believe it does. Rather, it is attempting to prove a variation in God’s involvement.

    Of course Dembski will not admit an evolutionary pathway no matter how many steps you discover. Why? Because that would mean totally abandoning everything he has worked for. If all the animals truly are equal, and none are more equal than others, then what is there for Dembski and his ilk to detect? The field is different, but the method is the same as the constant attack on new fossil discoveries by the young earth crowd. One new specimen, in their propaganda, simply means two new gaps that must be filled. And of course they have no similar requirement to fulfill.

    When the United States set out to send a man to the moon, there were those who believed it couldn’t be done. Their task was very easy–just say “no!” The folks who went to the moon, and those who made that trip possible had a much harder task. They had to actually produce the appropriate hardware and make the trip.

    Scientists are faced with a similar situation with IDC. They must fill in every gap, while the ID crowd stands by and announces that they can’t. Every time they fill one in, someone mentions how many more there are to fill in. But the only people who are actually doing anything are the working scientists who are filling those gaps, and of course making two more in the process. Because that is what scientists do. They make discoveries, but almost always a discovery simply opens up a whole new array of things we don’t know. That is the strength of science, and it is also what IDC tries to present as its weakness.

    I understand the desire to find God’s fingerprint in nature, a desire shared by all these branches of creation. But that search involves finding holes in God’s creation, places where it didn’t quite work. No matter how much you change the field of study, the method is still going to look very similar, as [tag]Bill Dembski[/tag] showed at the University of Oklahoma.

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/24/07

    Here are a few links related to the creation-evolution controversy that I saw over the weekend, with only short comments.

    • Besides consorting with prostitutes and lying about it, Senator [tag]David Vitter[/Tag] of Louisiana appears to have taken up the cause of federal funding for creationists. Now we not only get to have our public school science curriculum corrupted, we get to pay those who corrupt it.
    • Some followers of convicted felon and creationist [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag] would like to prevent his videos from appearing on YouTube.
    • Case Luskin appears unable to comprehend that just because some materialists are evolutionists does not mean that all evolutionists are materialists. I know logic is tough, Casey, but give it a try. (HT: The Panda’s Thumb.)

    I’ve got a couple more, but I want to comment on them a bit more extensively.

  • Danger in Silence

    There’s an excellent, thoughtful post on An Evangelical Dialog on Evolution, titled When the Acceptance of Biological Evolution has Personal or Professional Repercussions.

    I think this strikes closer home to those who are evangelicals in the United States, because their institutions are more likely to be subject to fundamentalist pressure on the issue of [tag]evolution[/tag]. Let’s face it, United Methodist schools like Emory, SMU, or Duke are not likely to be subject to this kind of pressure from the right–pressure from the left is more likely there.

    But I do think that silence on controversial issues is dangerous. It allows people to assume that you believe something you don’t, and can deny cover and fellowship to someone who might be forced to take a stand on things about which you are keeping silent.

    I must add the balancing point, however. There are so many controversial issues, and so many outrages committed in the world that to comment on all of them is quite impossible. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution can each keep a Christian writer busy full time simply answering angry comments, leaving little time for anything else.

    On balance, however, I suggest that speaking up is most often appropriate, even if it is only to let people know where you stand without getting fully involved in debate.

  • Barbarians? What Barbarians?

    Mark Olson responded to my post Why the Creation-Evolution Controvery is Important with a post of his own, Barbarians at the Gate. It appears that was his gentle way of telling me that I’m a bit over the top, at least about my comment on the assault on the integrity of science. Kudos to Mark for method! I don’t see any barbarians, or at least I see only barbarians acting in a very civilized way, but I do see some danger.

    I would first like to point out that I said what I said in the context of the case of Dr. Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University (start with Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited). I didn’t specify that in my own post, because I was responding to some of the responses I received to my posting on that issue. Where precisely is this “assault on integrity” going on? I believe it is happening in Christian churches.

    I’m not, however, talking about the dearth of Biblical knowledge, though I do think that is a problem. I’m talking about the way in which some Christians try to pressure other Christians into accepting a war between religion an science–a war which is quite unnecessary. The most guilty parties are advocates of young earth creationism, but old earth creationists join in when the target is theistic evolutionists, and the ID crowd joins right in.

    I’ve already expressed by view on this a few times before and particularly in more recent discussions of the situation at Olivet Nazarene University. But I lived this in my own life. There was certainly no effort to “teach the controversy” in my Seventh-day Adventist education. The entire effort was to indoctrinate me as a young earth creationist. I had very little idea what evolutionary theory actually was even after I received my graduate degree.

    But there is something faintly amusing to me about getting painting as one proclaiming there are barbarians at the gates. The ID movement is one of the noisiest “suppressed” movements out there. They are truly claiming that the barbarians are at the gates–in this case “Darwinist” barbarians. But is that cry justified?

    I think it is not. First, of course, they seem to have an abundance of ways in which to make themselves heard. Second, they are not taking the appropriate road to scientific recognition, which is the production of science.

    There are two ways to obscure truth. On the one can attempt to suppress those who speak it. But on the other hand we can present so many untested things as truth that it’s hard to determine what is valid and what is not. In order to prevent the second of these, we have peer-reviewed journals and we have results that can be replicated by other scientists. Those are the proper gateways through which thing should pass to become part of the general body of science.

    As a counter to that restriction we have free flow of information generally. The ID advocates who feel that they are being suppressed can write and publish books, they can write blogs, and everyone who wants can read. They can assault the gates of science all they want. That is freedom of speech. But it is essentially also freedom of speech for those scientists who peer-review the literature and who try to replicate results to say, “No, this doesn’t meet the standard.” The rest of us get to decide who we will believe.

    Someone is bound to ask then why I don’t think Olivet Nazarene University is within their rights to suppress Dr. Richard Colling? Of course they are within their rights. They are a privately funded university, and they can set their own standards. They might fall afoul of accreditation committees, but that has not proven too much of a problem for many, many schools who would not allow the teaching of evolution as valid.

    But this is the church. You see, I care more about the church than I do about the rest of the world. I’m a Bible teacher. That’s where I live and work. It’s important to me. When I see there’s a problem with integrity in the world, I am concerned. When I see it in the church, that’s striking close to home.

    People who have gone to secular universities rarely understand my point on this. They feel that they spent their lives fighting for recognition, and that any religious ideas are suppressed in that atmosphere. Personally I suspect them of being a bit over the top, but I can’t be sure. You see, I never spent a day in a public school classroom. I’m part home schooled, part private schooled, and all Christian schooled.

    I would like Christian education to be ahead of everyone else, and to represent the very best that there is to offer. I’d like to see better training in all fields, but especially in science. If there is any place where Christians should demonstrate a sound education, rather than a thorough indoctrination it is in our church educational systems, from Sunday School to church sponsored universities.

    To do that we need to model free inquiry. Exploration not indoctrination.

  • On Design

    I try to keep my eyes open for clear discussion of information and design written so that non-experts, such as me, can understand them. Jeffrey Shallit’s post On Design seems to suit. It’s part of a discussion with Michael Egnor, but I think it will stand alone quite well.

  • Rejecting ID, but is it a priori?

    On a previous post Ray commented:

    A religion or naturalism arrived at as a result of following the evidence where it leads, is quite acceptable, and even to be expected in most cases for it is a conclusion arrive at after an objective analysis of the evidence. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion.
    Naturalism or a belief in ID, arrived at as a conclusion read into the evaluation of the evidence by, amongst other things, the exclusion of other potential conclusions on an ” apriori ” basis is quite another.

    To either assume or exclude a Designer on an “apriori” basis, seems to me, to be fatal to an objective analysis of the question.
    Nevertheless, I see that I will only be repeating myself and irritating the rest of you( not my intention). I’ve said my piece and I wish to thank all of you for your time.
    God bless.

    I don’t mind this topic at all, and as I commented in response, I don’t believe my rejection of ID is a priori (with a specific exception noted below). I immediately need to clarify that I do not reject a designer as such, but rather intelligent design as a scientific concept. From a theological point of view, I hold that the universe is designed and that God is the designer. I simply believe that the design is consistent and that it does not show “wrinkles” in the natural universe. I (intelligent design) and its claim that the designer can be detected scientifically at particular points in nature.

    The problem seems fairly simple to me. One could say that science deals with two categories of processes or entities, which I will loosely call “things.” There are things that scientists do understand and things they don’t. Good scientists would like to improve their understanding of things they already understand and learn to understand those they don’t.

    ID proposes to divide the things that we don’t understand into two categories–those we can theoretically hope to understand and those that must be attributed to a designer. Now as a scientific layman, I am mystified as to what benefit is to be derived from this new division. All it does is attempt to put a stop sign in front of certain processes for which it is assumed we will never find answers in the natural world.

    And it is an assumption. Everything we understand about the natural world was once not understood, and in many, many cases there were people who assumed it could never be known. One of my frustrations in reading Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box was in the number of discoveries that Behe relates, and even does such a fine job of explaining. Yet he uses this progress of knowledge to support the claim that there’s a roadblock in the way now. Saying we can’t know something we don’t know is silly–after all, we don’t know.

    Let me also dismiss the notion of a non-supernatural intelligent designer. There are two reasons. First, if the intelligent designer is itself natural, then it will simply require explanation as well. How did it come into existence? Second, if we are looking for a natural designer, it makes sense to try to discover the nature of that designer in order to be able to guess capabilities, limitations, intentions, and so forth. One piece of evidence that ID is not scientific is simply that its proponents show no curiosity about the nature of the designer. This very lack of curiosity indicates that they do know who they are proposing–God. But in the United States they need something that will pass church-state muster.

    So now if we are looking for a supernatural designer, what exactly happens? First, we must assume that this designer is one who intervenes in the natural world and who does so in a detectable way. There is no reason that the designer must be detectable. The best design of a universe might well run its course (assuming it has one) without any intervention at all. Intervention need not be detectable. Supposing that some element of nature was made to appear completely random. With any care, our hypothetical supernatural designer could altar the random input in such a way as to be undetectable.

    Second, if we assume that the designer is supernatural, it automatically operates outside the natural laws. Should a scientist come upon one of these unexplained processes, and attribute it to the designer, then he steps beyond something he can investigate using the methods of natural science. Here is where I could properly be accused of arguing something a priori. I think that by design and definition, scientific methods are not suited to studying the supernatural. If it is truly supernatural, then you cannot limit it by natural laws, thus it can do anything, and can be fitted anywhere. But that does not exclude a designer a priori, merely the detection of the designer by the methods of natural science.

    If we have an intervening designer, what we will find is that there will be a number of points in nature that are not explained. We won’t know whether they could be explained naturally or not. Every system which has a Darwinian explanation for its development was once a system for which there was no such explanation. ID has not added anything whatsoever to our knowledge. Without a designer we have some things that are explained and some that aren’t. With a designer–same thing!

    ID does have a massive disadvantage, however, in that once you claim something cannot theoretically be explained, you reduce or remove the motivation for studying it and learning what can be learned. And considering that there are things once declared irreducibly complex that have since been “reduced” so to speak, that roadblock in the path of knowledge is not a good idea.

  • Evangelicals and Evolution

    One response I get to my teaching and writing on creation and evolution goes something like this: “You’re just a liberal who’s trying to do away with the Bible, so it’s natural that you go along with the secularist society around you on evolution as well.” But that isn’t the case. For example my company (Energion Publications) publishes Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. who would best be described as an Old Earth Creationist. You can imagine that as I edited his books for publication, not to mention in our personal friendship and dialog that has gone on for a number of years longer, we have engaged in a few debates on this. But the fact that by almost any measure you choose, Elgin is more conservative than I am, in the area of creation and evolution, there is no difference in the way we would handle the Biblical materials.

    That’s my long way around to get at the point that creation vs evolution need not be a conservative/liberal issue in Christianity. I may be a liberal (though I prefer “passionate moderate”) but you can’t determine that by my stance on evolution.

    Steve Martin, an evangelical Christian, has a blog titled An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. He left a comment on my previous post linking to a post on his blog Evangelicalism and Evolution: Why the Discussion Matters. I agree with the additional points that he makes there, and would like to call this to everyone’s attention.

    I had an experience with my pamphlet God the Creator that supports his point. A college student told me that he was talking to a fellow-student who was interested in Christianity, but whose scientific training convinced him that evolutionary theory was the best explanation for the diversification of life on earth. The Christians he talked to were telling him that he had to give up that belief in order to be a Christian. This young man had attended my seminar “God, Dinosaurs, and You” (I’m not responsible for that title), and told him otherwise. At the time he shared this with me, several more people were attending church simply because that barrier to faith had been removed.

    I would add also that as I believe the primary Christian witness is the individual Christian (and Christian congregation or community) through whom Christ is shown to others, a lack of individual integrity is critical to the gospel.

    OK, enough rambling. I’ve gotten in my commercial plugs. I don’t do that much all that often on this blog. Really! I’ll be adding Steve’s blog to the blogroll.