Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Science Education

  • Great ID Cartoon

    It’s at Faith and Theology, with hat tip to Metacatholic. Enjoy!

    Also, I’ve added Metacatholic to my blogroll, and my RSS subscriptions. I’ll probably be linking there more in the weeks to come.

  • Teach the Controversy about Geocentrism

    In my previous post The Danger of Teaching the Controversy, I suggested that one of the problems with teaching the controversy was just which controversies one should teach. There are always plenty of crackpot theories floating around not to mention sound attempts to modify existing theories. These need to be tested by scientists using scientific methods with accountability through peer review.

    In discussing this, I said the following:

    More importantly, however, let’s consider how this “teach the controversy” principle would work in public schools. Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? I know some people are just about to explode on that one. “Nobody believes that any more, or at least only a few kooks.” Well, that may be true, though I believe there’s even a kook with a PhD who tries to teach geocentrism. But this does illustrate the problem. We argue for teaching the controversy on creation and evolution or on intelligent design and evolution, but we are unwilling to invoke the same phrase for all controversial issues.

    And to prove my point, one Mark Wyatt posted this comment:

    “…Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? …”

    Yes.

    And Here are the recommended text books.

    Mark

    Well, well, well. Though I will often debate with people who probably should be ignored, even I will not bother debating geocentrism. But I think my point is made. Theories need to be tested scientifically before becoming part of the curriculum. No exceptions should be made, even for especially controversial ones, or we will dilute education. There really isn’t any idea so stupid that it can’t find advocates somewhere!

    For those who believe someone is being suppressed here, note that even a person so far out there as to advocate geocentrism has two books published and a web site. It’s getting very difficult to suppress ideas. The problem that creationists and others have is that it is also getting extremely difficult to blunt criticisms of dumb ideas.

  • Don McLeroy and his Big Creationist Tent

    I’ve written a great deal recently (here, here, and here) about the use of the term “worldview” to attempt to create a level playing field, particularly for young earth creationism. I don’t have a problem with the term “worldview” in a strictly limited sense. If we exclude particular possibilities a priori, and refuse to reexamine those assumptions, we can be locked into a worldview.

    One of my major problems with common use of the term “worldview” is that it tends to be used in a binary fashion. I don’t mean that there are only two worldviews, seen as mutually exclusive, but rather that each worldview is seen as totally exclusive of all others.

    Don McLeroy, newly named head of the Texas Board of Education (Hat Tip: NCSE, the Texas Freedom Network, and The Panda’s Thumb) gave a speech in 2005 that illulstrates some of my points very well, even better than I stated them. In a somewhat incoherent and disjointed speech, he managed to lay the boundaries of intelligent design creationism (IDC), to justify the inclusion of “creationism” in that label, to employ the scriptures extensively in support of his position, and to claim that it was all scientific.

    As a theistic evolutionist, I found his discussion interesting, and it affirms the most negative comments I have made about the intelligent design movement. There have been intelligent design advocates who have tried to include me in their camp, saying that theistic evolution is really a form of intelligent design. I disagree; so does McLeroy, thought it seems for different reasons.

    I want to focus just on McLeroy’s definition of the “big tent” of IDC, and just what it is he says they are in opposition to. Look at the following quotes from the speech:

    . . . And one other thing about these lessons, big tent, and this is, uh, in the big tent of evolution we all have disagreements, but we’re united in one thing, and we’re united in what we oppose. And you’ll see this later. This is the power of the deductive argument, but nature is all there is. We’re united against the fact that that’s a true statement.

    . . . and . . .

    . . . Actually, in intelligent design we are focused on a on a bigger target, and in the words of Phillip Johnson “the target is metaphysical naturalism, materialism or just plain old naturalism. The idea that nature is all there is.” Modern science today is totally based on naturalism, and all of intelligent design’s arguments against evolution and chemical origin of life it is the naturalistic base that is the target. . . .

    . . . and . . .

    Now I would like to talk a little bit about the big tent. Why is intelligent design the big tent? It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues. And that’s one thing that I really enjoyed about our group is that we’ve put that all in the big tent, we’re all working together.

    So what we have here is a big tend of IDC that includes just about everyone out there. Young earth creationists, old earth creationists, more general ID proponents, and one guesses even those who hold the gap theory. Thus on one side of the debate we are supposed to see people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and those who believe it is 4.5 billion years old. We are to combine people who believe there was a global flood and those who believe it was just a very large localized event. Within that range we have giant differences between the evidence required for each option.

    This is not the picture of a scientific movement. It is the picture of a political movement, involving a temporary religious alliance. I would warn the old earth creationists to beware. Should this “big tent” ever succeed in its goals, the young earth creationists who now accept IDC (and many of them do not) will be after you guys in a minute.

    But what is the goal of this diverse group? The defeat of naturalism, what else? Now notice that if naturalism is defeated, there will be some form of supernaturalism to take its place. In a philosophical sense, I’m fine with that. I’m a supernaturalist myself, on which more later. But let’s continue:

    So what is naturalism? It’s the idea that nature is all there is. . . .

    So now McLeroy makes it explicit. In his big tent belongs everyone who is opposed to naturalism, and he defines naturalism as the belief that nature is all there is. Now forgive me for being dense, but as a theist, I would think that I qualify as someone who does not believe that nature is all there is. In fact, every so often one of my atheist friends reminds me of that “weakness” in my thinking.

    So perhaps the main thing that keeps me out of McLeroy’s big tent is the fact that I have a hard time seeing how young earth creationists and old earth creationists belong in the same tent. From the scientific point of view, they don’t. At a minimum, one must recognize that different arguments are required against each one.

    But I would be wrong to think that’s the problem. Now let’s look at what is not included in the “big tent.”

    I’d like to make a quick comment about the option of theistic evolution, and it’s a very poor option. There’s not anybody in our group that’s advocating this. Because Darwinism doesn’t allow God to do anything. Consider natural selection of random mutations. If they’re random mutations, they can’t be God-directed, and if they’re naturally selected, you can’t hav, quote, “God-selecteds.” And so no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it. So, you know, there are some in the Christian camp that just say, “Well, I am a theistic evolutionist.” And there are some bright minds that are that way, but they aren’t part really of the intelligent design group. It just doesn’t fit.

    I hope you read that paragraph carefully. The problem is not whether God exists or not, or whether there is something other than nature–no matter how much someone tries to tell you other wise. The issue is about detecting and measuring God’s presence scientifically. If I say that the world exists because God brought the universe into existence, and that life appeared in accordance with God’s natural laws and then further diversified in accordance with those laws, I am not welcome in this big tent.

    The reason cannot be that I’m a naturalist. I just said God (something other than nature) is the cause of all of this. The reason is that I don’t believe that God’s fingerprints can be found where he tinkered with the processes. Unfortunately for my welcome into McLeroy’s big tent, I believe that the process God created to produce life and diversify it actually works, and doesn’t require periodic adjustments.

    This issue is not naturalism or not. The issue is whether the scientific method is to be called upon to measure the supernatural. I don’t think that will ever work. In fact, I would be unsurprised if in the scientific sense we ever found the point at which we say “God did it” because I believe that “God did it” in such a comprehensive and consistent way that we’re never going to find the seams or the fingerprints.

    One can wonder why I’m a theist, in that case, a point which I’ve discussed elsewhere, but in terms of science, “God did it” is never an answer, and should never be used as a stop sign for scientific effort.

    That’s why I totally agree with McLeroy that I belong outside his big tent, but I do so by disagreeing with the common element. It is not that they are supernaturalists. It is that they believe God must have left fingerprints on nature. They can’t agree on just what he left and where, but they’re willing to get together to push the rest of us out of the way.

    To me engaging naturalism does bring religion into the equation, though I think by bringing in scientific method some of the points – I hadn’t thought about that, so I really gotten a lot out of this discussion. That you can do it without bringing religion into it, so I think you can go both ways. . . .

    And this is simply ridiculous. Of course the intention is religious. The intent is to make sure that we get God into the equation. All this stuff about unidentified intelligent designers is a smokescreen, though the smoke is so transparent that everyone other than those generating the smoke are seeing through it. It is only the IDC folks who think that they have covered something up when they refer to an undetermined intelligent designer. The rest of us know who they’re talking about.

    McLeroy invokes the matrix in accusing evolutionary scientists of being hopelessly deceived by their worldview. But there is nothing about a methodological naturalism that prevents one from seeing any sort of evidence. I would suggest that the filter is much in evidence inside the big tent. It’s a filter that removes the abundant evidence of common descent. It also prevents people from seeing new evidence found regularly that advances our knowledge of evolutionary processes.

    I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, for someone to find God’s fingerprints showing his tinkering. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but I’m open to such evidence. Thus far, none has been forthcoming.

  • The Danger of Teaching the Controversy

    The Florida Citizens for Science blog has a post, Best practice with an integrated curriculum?, which looks at some approaches teachers might take to including both creation and evolution in the classroom. The FCS blog does a pretty good job of pointing out the discrepancies. (I should disclose here that I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science.)

    I just want to look at one aspect: teaching the controversy. Despite different vocabulary, that is, in fact, what these suggestions amount to. The question on many people’s mind is this: Why not teach the controversy? Isn’t that just simple fairness?

    But that is the wrong question. Why? Because we must first ask just how one should determine the curriculum for public school classrooms. Without some sort of standards for that, it’s very hard to answer such a question. I know it annoys people to have their principles applied to different situations, but that is an appropriate test of a principle. Will it work, for example, when the shoe is on the other foot?

    Should Christian schools, for example, teach the controversy? If the issue is fairness and sound education, both of which are given as reasons for teaching the controversy, should it not be regarded then as unsound educational practice not to teach the controversy in private Christian schools? I know many involved in these schools think they do, and I believe some actually are right, but many do not.

    More importantly, however, let’s consider how this “teach the controversy” principle would work in public schools. Should science teachers be asked to teach the controvery on geocentrism? I know some people are just about to explode on that one. “Nobody believes that any more, or at least only a few kooks.” Well, that may be true, though I believe there’s even a kook with a PhD who tries to teach geocentrism. But this does illustrate the problem. We argue for teaching the controversy on creation and evolution or on intelligent design and evolution, but we are unwilling to invoke the same phrase for all controversial issues.

    And that is actually as it should be, since “teach the controversy” doesn’t express any relevant principle at all. The real question is how much support some scientific view needs to have before it should be included in elementary school, middle school, and high school curricula. I believe the answer would be different in each case.

    We don’t just teach controversies in science. We teach methods and how to evaluate results, how to make observations and categorize them sensibly. We also do not have unlimited time in which to teach the things we need to teach. Thus we pick and choose. And that is where I get my principle for determining what should be taught: consensus science. What has undergone testing, evaluation, and acceptance in the scientific community? Leading edge theories need not apply at these levels. Let them be evaluated first, then include those that make the grade.

    There is, of course, prioritizing amongst those things which are consensus science, but considering that a large amount of well-established material will likely not get taught, those priorities need to be set for scientific reasons in order to prepare our children to understand their world.

    Intelligent design doesn’t meet the criteria. It should not be offered in high school classrooms. There is no theory of creation, either old or young earth, that has met this kind of testing. They don’t belong in the high school and lower science classroom.

    Now I don’t believe that discussion of these ideas should be cut off. There should be a free exchange of ideas. But a free exchange involves vigorous criticism, and as appropriate, even ridicule of ideas that are ridiculous. People today often complain about censorship because other people don’t like them. But I’m writing this blog entry on a very low cost web site using free blog software. It’s not hard to make ideas available. Getting people to pay attention? That’s more work–as it should be!

    And on that note one more point about the science classroom. People who want religious ideas included in the science curriculum often don’t think of the fact that these young people need to learn to evaluate, and that means criticizes ideas. Do you want your high school science teachers offering a critique of your religious ideas?

    My personal commitment to openness involves including discussion of these ideas in church programs and in the material that I publish.

    . . . there is considerable scientific evidence against the theory that everything occurred simply by chance, and in favor of the theory that there was some sort of intelligent design involved. (Source: Hushbeck, Elgin L. Christianity and Secularism. Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2006, page 28.)

    What is the importance of that quote? Well, I’m the publisher of the work in question. I do believe these ideas should be made available and should be discussed, especially those ideas with which I disagree. I’ve put my dollars into action in making that so.

    But not in high school science, unless the scientific community arrives at a consensus.

  • Lybia 6 Freed

    according to ABC News. These are the folks who were wrongfully jailed for 8 years. I rejoice, but continue to regard with horror the fact that humanitarians such as this could be imprisoned because of ignorance that ought to be criminal. People stupid enough to jail these folks shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars, much less have guns and run countries.

    I blogged about this before here.

  • More on the Cheri Yecke Story

    Wesley Elsberry has posted some additional information on this story on The Panda’s Thumb, and on his blog in which he states he believes the story is confirmed.

    . . . As far as I am concerned, the Princeton Union-Eagle is vindicated in this matter; at the time that they reported, Cheri Pierson Yecke was indeed saying that teaching “intelligent design” was a decision that local school districts could undertake. Both the quote from the Princeton Union-Eagle and the subsequent criticism I made of Yecke’s position on the issue are upheld by this source.

    Wesley is quite right to point out that Yecke has only to hold a press conference and state her change of view if she no longer supports teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms. If she does still believe it should be taught, that is information the public has a right to know.

    Since this whole issue resulted from Yecke’s use of ReputationDefender to look for negative material, I would like to call attention to this article on MSNBC, which reports on the other side of such activity. There can be a problem with negative information overwhelming the positive. It’s also quite possible for positive information to overwhelm necessary and important negative information. Search providers such as Google are right to battle spammy methods that try to get positive information into the highest search slots.

    There is an apparent bias in the MSNBC story toward “cleaning up” negative information. But there is no guarantee that the negative information someone wants to clean up is actually inaccurate. Accurate negative information, especially for those involved in the public sector, is important. The search engines cannot guarantee accuracy; they can only aim for relevance.

    In an age when information can be readily disseminated by just about anyone, and accessed just as easily, each reader needs to beware of lies.

  • Intelligent Design and Answer All Questions

    Through this week’s Christian Carnival I found two posts on science and religion that interested me. One I agree with completely, and I just want to underline a couple of points. The other, not so much, though it is still a good article.

    The first is An intelligently designed universe from Sun and Shield. Now since I scan Sun and Shield fairly often, I should have caught this one, but I didn’t.

    Here’s the key quote:

    I don’t believe that it is possible to prove that Intelligent Design occurred. (see here for discussion) I am also not persuaded that it is appropriate to teach about God’s design in the science classes of the public schools. However, it is certainly also not appropriate to teach that science proves that there is no God, or that there is no purpose in the universe, or that humans are only animals. Science has proved no such things, and can’t, as they are outside the scope of science.

    I agree entirely. I also think Martin has specified the question correctly. The issue is not whether the universe is designed. Theists generally and Christians in particular are bound to believe that God designed the universe. The question is the detection of design, and I would add, the detection of more design one place than another. My problem with Paley’s watch is not that the watch is not designed, but rather that the rocks, the grains of sand, and even the water are all where they are ultimately as products of design–ultimately. Distinguishing that sort of design is not a function of science.

    In addition, conclusions about what is beyond the scope of science are also not scientific. “I know X about the physical world,” is within the bounds of science. “I know the physical world is all there is,” steps outside those bounds. This doesn’t mean the person who says that is wrong. It merely means that their assertion is not scientific, any more than my assertion that God designed everything is scientific. Neither implies a measurable change in the nature of the physical universe.

    The other article is Science’s Overlooked Problem. Here’s a quote:

    Yet I have been a firm believer that science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life, purpose, or even God (despite rather poor attempts).

    Now Justin goes on to quote Huston Smith on the failure of science to answer the why questions. I don’t think this is a failure of science, however, but rather a failure of people who expect science to answer such questions. Science is well designed to study physical stuff. That it fails to comment successfully on other matters is simply a matter of its design. The problem occurs not because of the limitation, but because of the failure of some people to recognize that limitation. Thus they try to answer non-scientific questions using science with predictable results.

    In any case, I think it’s worthwhile reading Justin’s post and the Huston Smith quotes, because one way or another you’re going to need to think about that, either by recognizing the limits of science or by finding a way in which science can address those questions successfully. My observation thus far is that science is ill-equipped for the task.

  • Media Interviews, With Scientists or Anyone

    There has been some discussion amongst the science blogs about dealing with interview requests, in this case specifically for scientists. I had thought about saying something from my non-scientist perspective, but hadn’t really come up with anything. Then this morning, going through my Technorati favorites, I saw this story from Carl Zimmer. Now since I really appreciate Carl Zimmer as a science writer, I expected some useful information. I wasn’t disappointed. Besides his own comments he has some excellent material from Kevin Padian, someone who certainly is familiar with being misrepresented.

    One part of the problem with interviewers and how they report interviews is simply perspective. Let me give an example that comes directly from Carl Zimmer’s work. I mentioned that I really like his writing, no? Well, here’s a quote from my notes on At the Water’s Edge, the first book of his that I read:

    I personally dislike the journalistic style with many intermissions talking about the author interviewing various scientists. Those kinds of things feel like interruptions to me. For many readers, however, I think this view of the scientists personally may well be of interest.

    You see, I would be very happy if he had just jumped from discovery to discovery, telling me about the importance and how it fit into the story. Fortunately for the advance of science literacy, Zimmer was doing the writing, and he knows what people are going to read. Had I chosen the contents, there would have been many less readers.

    I do think many journalists are very careless, and I could cite a number of stories. But science, and facts in general, need all the publicity they can get. In the absence of interviews with knowledgeable people, the media will print and/or show material of even less quality. As a layperson I appreciate those scientists who take the time to provide interviews, and those journalists and science writers who put out the effort to popularize their material.

    The level to which the non-scientist needs to comprehend the subject is much less than that of a specialist, and in general any popularized material is going to appear inaccurate from some perspective.

  • Evolutionary vs. Scientific Thinking

    In a comment to my earlier post Why Talk About Evolution in Church, seeker said:

    You might enjoy criticizing my article Is creationism a barrier to faith.

    But I also think your assessment of creation science is too steeped in evolutionary, rather than scientific thinking.

    Well, you asked for it, so here it is.

    What seeker fails to do for me is provide a definition of what he means by “evolutionary” and “scientific” as adjectives describing “thinking.” I have this dream, far too wispy and insubstantial to be called a hope, that someday I will discuss with an anti-evolutionist who will give me credit for having read the Biblical materials, read a substantial amount of material on so-called creation “science” and thus address the position I actually hold, rather than some position they imagine me to hold.

    I’m going to comment on the post he suggests, but first I’d like to ask creationists for this definition. I grew up on young earth creationism books. I was taught it in school. It was the official position of the denomination of which my parents and I were members (I’ve since changed). Then I started to look at the scientific merits of young earth creationism, studying books from the other side. The people who first suggested this activity to me were theologians and Bible scholars. My uncle Don F. Neufeld, associate editor of the Adventist Review at the time, commented that he could tell that SDA geologists who led a field trip he’d been on realized that they could not explain all the formations in a young earth framework. He suggested I examine some other viewpoints for myself, and he was not the only one to do so.

    My starting point was not books written against creationism, but rather standard books on geology and paleontology, especially such simple materials as road side geology guides. Besides being a great deal of fun, this was quite informative, and convinced me that my uncle’s suggestion–something he never said publicly so far as I know–had been a good one.

    What I saw and still see in creationist literature is this: They pick at unanswered questions in evolutionary theory, call them “flaws,” and assume that the alternative must be creationism. What is their science? They start with the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate source of information on everything, continue by imposing a particular interpretation on it, and then force all science to conform to that particular interpretation. I have yet to see any piece of creationist work that does not follow that general pattern. Even when they try their best to present “creation science” from the ground up, one can read between the lines easily enough back to the same pattern.

    The best of the young earth creationist books, in my view, is Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time. Wise admits outright that the foundation of his thought is the literal reading of the Genesis accounts as history, and thus he must make the effort to create a scientific model. At the same time Wise finds it necessary to admit to many difficulties with the theory of creationism he proposes, and many gaps that need to be filled.

    So here is what I would be looking for from a creationist who wants me to take seriously the accusation that I am “steeped in evolutionary rather than scientific thinking.” First, propose an actual complete model of origins based on creationism (young earth or old earth, but make it consistent). If you include a world-wide flood it must be a part of your model. You cannot separate the two elements as Morris and Parker tried to do in What is Creation Science?. Second, give specific predictions about what should be found in the lab or the field, and show how such predictions are supported.

    This whole picking at the pieces of evolutionary theory on the assumption that if evolution loses you win is pretty silly. For a theory to win in actual science it has to be confirmed by making predictions and having those predictions turn out to be valid when tested. Then, of course, evolutionary scientists get to pick at the holes in your model, crowing about every question that is unanswered.

    And this is an incredibly important point: Unanswered questions are not a weakness in a scientific theory–they are the strength. They provide opportunities for study, for adjustment of the theory to new evidence, or for new theories to emerge. They are the sea on which the voyage of discovery can continue. There are always unanswered questions, thus there is always new research designed to answer those questions.

    But now to the specifics of seeker’s post which he said I might wish to criticize. There are several points on which I would like to comment:

    A CBS Poll published Oct 23, 2005 shows that most Americans believe in, *gasp*, special creation. Buahahaha! Silly evolutionists – either Americans are a bunch of boobs, or you are… hmmmm.

    It was interesting to me to find this in the first paragraph I read from someone who suggested my thinking was not scientific. I’m guessing that the number of scientifically illiterate people who disagree with their theories falls very low in the concern of scientists who are studying those theories. I would not call Americans “a bunch of boobs,” but I would question the average person’s scientific literacy. I regard my scientific knowledge as fairly weak, and I work hard to improve it, yet most people I encounter in daily life think I am quite scientifically literate. I don’t take that as a compliment to me–I have a lot of work to do. I take it as a negative reflection on science education in general. And after seeing my son’s 10th grade science text, I’m not surprised.

    What’s even more interesting, however, is the huge amount of people who believe one can believe in both God and evolution – 90%. So if all those people can believe in evolution and God, why do we push creationism? Why not just leave it alone instead of creating a barrier to faith, by adding something else they must believe along with the gospel?

    My position is not that we should ignore the issue of creation vs. evolution because a large number of people think you can believe in God and evolution. Rather, I think we should openly discuss the issue because it is a non-essential of the faith, but more importantly it is an issue that should be settled scientifically. I don’t want evolution enshrined in doctrinal statements any more than creation. A barrier to faith is created when we require a particular view of scientific data in order for someone to be Christian, something seeker certainly does in this post.

    Skipping over seeker’s point 1, let me comment on point #2:

    2. We must teach and show Christians that faith is about all of life, not just one’s “personal relationship w/ God.”

    Just so. But this does not make the theologian better equipped than the scientists to study scientific questions.

    3. Teaching a simplistic view of Christian thought causes many to leave or easily dismiss Christianity.

    On this point I would simply suggest that teaching something so unscientific as creationism is what is most likely to suggest simplistic thinking.

    4. Evolution is not a harmless idea, but a philosophy with grave implications for individuals and society.

    I’ll respond to this point in more detail.

    Evolution is science, not philosophy. Without doubt people will produce philosophical conclusions from observations of the physical world. This is no surprise. We do that from observed reality all the time. But the theory of evolution is science, not philosophy.

    First, in the realm of individual faith, many people are duped by atheism, missing the riches of a relationship with God – God’s love, forgiveness, and hope.

    And here we have the amazing bait and switch. Without a word of support, atheism pops into the discussion. The theory of evolution is a systematic explanation of the facts as we have them. Those facts can be, and are, read by people of any faith or no faith at all. That is how science should work.

    Evolution provides the atheistic world view with a key pillar to rest on – an explanation of our origins without God.

    Here, seeker (and Dawkins, IMV) gives too much credit to evolution. The theory of evolution itself doesn’t explain origins without God. That is supplied by the reader/observer. The ToE says what is. Whether God is to be found somewhere in there is another question. I believe it is equally valid to say that gravity provides an explanation for why objects fall (amongst many other behaviors) without God, and thus makes atheism possible. After all people once believed that God personally guided the planets in their tracks through the heavens.

    In fact, noted atheist and ardent evolutionist Richard Dawkins summed it up well when he said

    Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

    One of the chief ways we can keep people from the error of atheism is to tear away this pillar of falsehood so that they might come to see Christ and be saved, healed, and transformed.

    Of course, the problem here is simply that the “pillar” is not a pillar of falsehood–it is a well established theory dealing with the facts. Until creationists can deal equally well with the facts, they are placing a barrier to the faith.

    Let’s compare this to the problem of suffering (or evil). Very few people deny suffering, yet this provides an important argument for atheists. How can Christians believe in a good God who is also all-powerful, but who allows suffering. Something is wrong here. By seeker’s logic, I should deny that suffering exists, because it provides an opportunity for atheists.

    I would suggest instead that the best evidence is that if God created he did so through evolutionary means, and we’re stuck with that. Right along with that suffering we Christians have to deal with huge extinction events and millions of years of suffering for living creatures on this planet. Denying it so that our theology can hold up will, in the long run, be no more successful than denying human suffering would be.

    Second, many individuals reject Christianity because they believe that science and faith are at odds, and that evolution has disproved the Genesis account of the creation of man. We need to show that modern science was birthed out of Christian thought and reason, and that science (and archeology) overwhelming support scripture, and vice versa. All truth is connected. Science has not proved evolution, nor has it disproved creationism.

    If “faith” is defined as accepting a literal reading of Genesis, then science and faith are at odds. I do not believe that they are, simply because I don’t believe that Genesis is science, nor is it history. Something that is not science cannot conflict with something that is. I have no need to reconcile Genesis and science because Genesis makes no statement that can be regarded as scientific. (For purposes of discussion, I would accept any statement that makes a specific prediction about the natural world that can be tested experimentally, potentially falsified, but found to be true. There are a number of statements about the natural world in Genesis that do conflict with scientific data, if it is to be read scientifically.

    Third, regarding society, the idea that we are evolving into something better always leads to social Darwinism, i.e. eugenics. Eugenics, which begins with the goals of improving the gene pool via birth control, selective breeding, and genetic engineering, may inevitably lead to the evils of selective abortion and killing of the weak and “genetically damaged”, government control of who can have children, and forced genetic modification “for the good of society.” And sometimes it leads to genocide.

    Well, there’s a statement that starts out bad and deteriorates in a hurry. First, evolutionary theory doesn’t state that we are evolving into something better. Popular versions often express it that way, but that is not evolutionary theory. “Better” is not a term that can be defined broadly and objectively in science in any case. A creature can become better suited to an environmental niche, but then a change in the environment can suddenly make the “better” creature “worse.” As with almost any topic, the problem with the word “better” is that one must define better for what.

    Second, just because something happens naturally doesn’t mean we should enshrine it in law, morals, or philosophy. One could equally well argue that no medical should be provided, and that eugenics is positively excluded based on evolutionary theory. After all, the universe has a mechanism for inheritance, adaptation, and the creation of variety (without any implication of purpose), so who are we to interfere through neonatal care or through planned genetic culling?

    Lastly, there are many theological implications of evolution which are at odds with Christian theology. These differences can not be ignored if you want a coherent, integrated system of truth and thinking. Most people who believe in God and evolution probably have an unbiblical view of God in order to make a harmony of these two.

    In other words, evolution disagrees with one’s theology so one discards evolution no matter what the evidence.

    I disagree with that position. But further, I think that if one better defines one’s theological positions in consideration of new scientific discoveries one often improves one’s understanding of theology as well as science. It is not we overturn all theology; rather, we sharpen, refine, and clarify theology. Do I believe some different things about God because I now accept the theory of evolution? Yes. Did those cause me to reject essential doctrines? No. Of course, let me note that the issue here hinges on what one defines as essential.

    Further, I should point out that if I became convinced that I was wrong on an essential doctrine I would find it essential that I change, since following what I believe to be right is an essential of personal integrity, a most essential doctrine.

    For my list of elements of a Biblical doctrine of creation, see God the Creator.

    One further note here–I favorably comment on Kurt Wise and his book Faith, Form, and Time, at least in the sense that Wise is very honest about his presuppositions. But there is an extreme danger in Wise’s position, I believe, because he knows and has stated that his view goes against the best scientific evidence, yet he believes that he must believe what he does because of the way he reads Genesis. That is a position that must, at least, put extreme stress on one’s personal integrity.

    Evolutionary theological implications which differ from Christian theology include:

    I appreciate that seeker provides a list. Often I’m told that evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith and that if I don’t agree, I must know nothing of Christianity. Lists are helpful.

    Man’s Origins – an accident of chance, not created with a purpose

    Evolution is not actually a random process. Selection operates according to rules. Just as an object falls according to natural laws, so living things inherit characters and evolve according to laws. It is not the task of science to provide purpose. Science observes what is.

    For some reason creationists think that unless God interrupted all natural processes in order to create the first human being in a completely different way, human beings cannot be special and cannot have a purpose.

    How is it that being formed from the dirt–and God could have used agents to make that form–is somehow more dignified than evolving from a single celled creature?

    Man’s Nature – just a higher animal, not made in the image of God

    You may conclude that from evolution; I do not.

    Value of Human Life – same as any animal, not made special with immortal soul

    First, I would not expect science to comment on immortal souls, except to say that they have not been observed in the field or tested in the laboratory. Second, my religious faith teaches me to value human life. I cannot see even the slightest reason why the process by which human life came to be. An eternal God is no less involved in the process of millions of years than he is in the act of a moment.

    Man’s Purpose – to preserve our genes, not know, love, and serve God

    Again, science doesn’t determine purpose. Science observes what is. If “what is” constitutes the sum of our purpose, then we’re pretty pitiful. But I know of nobody who lives according to such a narrow definition of purpose.

    Morality – a human construct, not a divine law with penalties and blessings

    If God is necessary to morals, it would not matter how God brought human beings into existence. It would only matter that he did.

    In conclusion, what I don’t see in this post is any suggestion of a reason why my thinking is not scientific. I’d really enjoy seeing a creationist–especially a young earth creationist–point out to me how “evolutionary thinking” differs from “scientific thinking.” Thus far, I fail to see any scientific thinking happening in the YEC camp.

  • Why Talk about Evolution in Church?

    Watching recent commentary on the Answers in Genesis creation museum, that huge waste of $27 million designed to proved that dinosaurs lived with human beings and even were preserved on the ark has led me to believe that education on this subject in church and Sunday School is even more important than I thought.

    I do not believe the Museum glorifies God. It presents one rather lousy interpretation of Genesis, one that is at war with the facts, and in the long term will turn more people away from Christ by making Christians look as though they have no interest in honesty and integrity in science.

    There are two major problems that I see in terms of public education about science. The first is the quality of science education in public schools, which is not good, and the quality of the public’s knowledge about science in general, however acquired. Many people who claim to reject evolution, for example, reject a caricature of what is actually taught by professional scientists in the relevant fields. Often that rejection comes about because of conclusions drawn from evolution which are not part of the science at all. I’ve written about this before.

    A good, basic education based on the best scientific research available is essential. This is why I have regularly opposed the teaching of ID. My assessment of the scientific value of intelligent design (ID)–it has no value at all–is not the important thing here. The bottom line is that ID has not gone through the kind of rigorous research and testing required for a new scientific theory to be accepted as consensus science, which should be a prerequisite to its presence in high school science textbooks.

    But more importantly, I know that a very large number of Christians do accept the theory of evolution and are also very serious about their Christian faith. The problem is that very often they are quite vague both on what evolutionary theory is (see above), and on how it relates to their faith. The standard response to such a discussion is simply that they don’t take the Bible all that literally, but that leaves open the door for groups such as AiG to come in and claim that they represent the real “Bible believers.”

    It is not simply a matter of taking the language of Genesis less literally. One needs to carefully examine it to discover just what type of literature it is, and then interpret as one would normally interpret that type of literature. It is not just that AiG is taking Genesis literally; they are taking it as a form of narrative history. It’s not. Their interpretation is fundamentally flawed, and has created the huge clash they present between the findings of modern science and what they teach from the Bible. The clash is not necessary, however, if one simply deals with Genesis as what it is. (For introductory material, see my essays Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship and The Two Flood Stories. I link to many other essays from those posts.)

    When I try to talk to people in churches about creation and evolution, however, most are quite resistant, even when they accept evolutionary theory. It’s easier to be quiet and just hope that the extremists will go away. But many in the church need to know not only that pastors and teachers can accept the theory of evolution and still be Christians. They need to know how they do it. Too often I hear, “I don’t see the problem.” Well, having grown up young earth creationists–and I literally mean from the earliest memory I have of thinking of creation I was educated YEC–and having accepted evolutionary theory later in life, I do see the problem. Doctrines are stated in terms that seem to support the literal, narrative history view.

    Again, some have suggested to me that they don’t want to waste their time on such a non-spiritual issue. But here I agree with the young earth folks. Creation is an important spiritual issue. (For my view of a Biblical doctrine of creation, see the pamphlet God the Creator.) But even further Bible study is falling off in our churches today and people are losing Biblical literacy. Genesis provides an excellent workshop for teaching methods of Bible study and ways of discerning the literary genre of various passages. It can provide the foundation for a much more effective Bible study discipline for church members. Their Bible study will become much more enlightening when they understand how to handle various literary genres. What information can you get from them? What are they intended to convey? What value might they have other than conveying propositional truths?

    I think that we, as Christians, would do well to talk about this more, to preach it and to teach it in our Sunday School classes. And in spite of my own strongly held views, I do suggest that this happen no matter what your position. I no more want theistic evolution to become a Christian doctrine than I want young or old earth creationism to become enshrined in doctrinal statements. I think that we should use doctrinal statements to describe God’s relationship to us, and allow scientific study to determine how things work in the physical universe. I would be and have been perfectly willing to share Sunday School classes and even the platform with advocates for young earth creationism.

    But the discussion needs to get out in the open, especially in those mainline churches who tend to hope that such arguments will go away. If we in mainline churches are embarrassed by the creation museum, we need to get more vocal about how we understand science, our faith, and their relationship.

    Expect me to continue to be vocal on this issue for a long time to come.