Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Science

All posts related to science, including those involving combinations of science and religion and science and politics.

  • Bruce Waltke Resigns from RTS

    Reformed Theological Seminary has announced that Dr. Bruce Waltke has resigned his position as professor of Old Testament at their Orlando campus. The blogosphere is pretty active on this story, including a story at Inside Higher Ed and a note on the BioLogos blog.

    The apparent starting point for this was a video of Dr. Waltke endorsing evolutionary theory in a conference sponsored by BioLogos. (Please note that the RTS statement does not mention this reason.) The video has since been removed. As noted again on the BioLogos site, Dr. Waltke stands by what he said, but was concerned about the way in which he expressed it.

    I want to note here that RTS is a confessional seminary, and I believe they have a right to hire seminary professors who will teach in accord with their confession. Others, of course, have the right to judge the education provided based on that criterion as well, and for those who support RTS, that sort of doctrinal protection is expected.

    I personally find it unfortunate, as I would like to see Christians agree to disagree agreeably on the issues of creation and evolution. Within the church we should, I believe, have some freedom to discuss this sort of issue. Since Dr. Waltke is by just about any measure someone more conservative than I am, I have to feel some concern about this kind of issue. (Note that I am self-employed, so nobody is going to ask for my resignation, and I’m a member of the United Methodist Church, which has many ministers who make me look very conservative.)

    In 2008 I reviewed, or more accurately wrote a few notes on Dr. Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology. My view was not entirely favorable, including some of his comments on naturalism and evolution. It appears that I may have been a bit more critical than I should have. I would note, as I did there, that it is perhaps a bit arrogant of me to be so critical of someone with Dr. Waltke’s stature. I keep his An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax within arm’s reach when I’m studying, and his scholarship is outstanding.

    I guess what I’m saying here is that if Dr. Waltke can’t be part of the conversation in evangelical Christianity, then we’re in some trouble. I certainly hope he continues to write and speak. I would like to continue to be challenged by his scholarship, and I’m sure there are many, many others.

  • Replacing Social Darwinism

    Well, the label at least. I think we’d like to ditch the concept as well, but that’s probably harder. I suspect ditching the label won’t work either.

    But Michael Zimmerman would like to do it and I agree with his reasons, even though I suspect people will continue to use the label that best advances their political agenda.

    “Social Darwinism” isn’t something Darwin advocated. It doesn’t result from his theory. It has a loose correlation at some points. What gets me is why one would consider the way things happen in nature a basis on which to determine what we, as humans, should do. For example, the earth shakes and destroys buildings, but if I arrange for an underground explosion such as to destroy a few buildings, it would–and definitely should–be a crime.

    In any case, if you’re more creative (or more optimistic) than I am, go help him out in the comments to his post.

  • La Sierra Board Makes a Statement

    I would say it’s a statement on creation and evolution, but I’m not quite sure what it is.

    Earlier (Seventh-day Adventist Education and Evolution) I wrote about the concerns about the teaching of evolution in biology classes at La Sierra University, a Seventh-Day Adventist school in California. (I was raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and educated in its schools, though I am no longer SDA.)

    The Spectrum blog has a link to the Board of Trustees statement (PDF), which does not seem to me to answer any questions. After declaring “whole-hearted support” for the SDA statement of beliefs, which includes an article affirming a literal seven day creation week, it includes the following two paragraphs:

    The Board of Trustees is committed to a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the university’s classrooms and laboratories. The Board intends that when varying viewpoints are raised they will be heard with due respect.

    In its commitment to the integrity of the university’s mission, the Board of Trustees is dedicated to inspire, challenge, encourage and support the faculty in their sacred academic work. Further, the Board embraces its responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment.

    These paragraphs, including phrases like “spirit of open inquiry and discussion” and “support the faculty in their sacred academic work” sound to me like a certain amount of support for the science faculty. In the end, one still has to wonder just what the faculty will be expected to teach and how this will be evaluated. “ongoing evaluation and assessment” seems to indicate the board will be watching (as they should) but doesn’t really tell anyone just what they’re supposed to do.

    It will be interesting to see how this works out in practice. It appears to me that the board has given the ball a vigorous kick down the field without any obvious destination in sight. This may be more comfortable for them, but it is very uncomfortable for students and faculty.

    (Note: My interest in this case may appear odd. There are two reasons for it. First, I follow issues in creation and evolution closely. Second, besides my own education in SDA institutions, family members have taught at La Sierra University and currently do teach in other SDA institutions.)

  • Managing Evidence for Evolution

    I think that nearly everyone who has debated issues about creation and evolution has been disturbed by the breadth of the topic. Sometimes you provide evidence X, only to have someone point out that what you just presented doesn’t prove Y, not to mention Z. The theory of evolution is many-faceted and really incorporates many theories.

    I’ve been really appreciating the Biologos Foundations Science and the Sacred blog. Today they’re starting to post on managing the evidence. I’m going to be following this series with interest.

  • Parents are Key to Science Education

    Jonathan Smith, Vice President of Florida Citizens for Science (of which I am a board member) presents a column on science education in Florida today in the The Ledger (Lakeland, FL):

    A key quote:

    Parents are the ones who must endeavor to help shape their children’s future by guiding them down the paths of interests and provide support and encouragement. It is strikingly obvious current trends have shifted in this generation towards the pursuit of science and not for the positive. “Science is for nerds” and” real cool kids don’t study” have become serious social clichés and do have a strong influence on our children.

    Just so!

    So parents, do you care just how well your children do in their education in general? Do you care how they do in science? Jobs are going to get fewer and fewer for people without a good education.

  • Todd Wood – the Evolutionist?

    A few weeks ago I mentioned that I had started reading Dr. Todd Wood’s blog (using the title Another Honest Creationist). The reason I call Dr. Wood honest (as opposed to some other creationists) is that he acknowledges that young age creationism relies on the Bible and specifically on a particular understanding of the early chapters of Genesis.

    I find it difficult to believe that someone can be a young earth or young age creationist on any other basis. The scientific evidence is simply much too strongly against it. Dr. Wood, like Dr. Kurt Wise, admits that there is substantial evidence for evolution, yet they accept young age creationism because that is what they believe the Bible teaches. I disagree on their interpretation of Genesis, but I can respect their stand and their honest statement of their reasons for taking it.

    Of course some other young age/earth creationists don’t like this approach. They believe that there really is no evidence for evolution and that there is some sort of conspiracy amongst scientists to pretend that evolution is true even though, they say, it is not.

    One of these, Joseph Mastropaolo, offers a $10,000 prize for evidence of evolution, and sends e-mails out to people and then if they don’t respond, he puts them on a list on his web site.

    All of this is fairly standard stuff in the creation/evolution debates, althought Mastropaolo’s twist of requiring his opponents to put up $10,000 of their own money, thus making this all more of a bet than a prize is interesting. I think that the prize offering thing is generally the last resort of those whose pockets are empty, but it’s all pretty common.

    But what’s humorous is that Mastropaolo sent an e-mail to Dr. Wood asking him to put up some evidence and then added him to the list of non-responding evolutionists.

    He says:

    170. Dr. Todd C. Wood, of Bryan College, who wrote, “There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.” Upon request and with the incentive of unlimited $10,000 grants for his Center for Origins Research, he did not send any evidence. Can it be that there is no scientific evidence to support evolution? Can it be that Todd C. Wood uses brass and bluff like the other 363,000 anti-science evolutionists worldwide? (12-30-09)

    So a young age creationist who is working on building evidence for creationism is now an example of an evolutionist. Who ever would have imagined it?!

  • Continuing Posts on the Weasel Program

    … from Dr. Stephen Matheson of Quintessence of Dust. This is a good series, and I’ve been missing the continuation. Welcome back, Dr. Matheson!

  • Wrong, Wronger, Wrongest

    Isaac Asimov on The Relativity of Wrong. I found this article extremely helpful in explaining theories and how they develop or are replaced. (HT: Abnormal Interests).

  • The Age of the Earth – Not a Minor Difference

    In the good old days when I used to have a seminar on this topic that I used in churches, I had an overhead transparency that showed the age of the earth (along with some of the various geological time periods). This was represented by a line that went the length of the slide. Beside it was the young age, represented by a dot.

    The BioLogos Foundation Science and the Sacred blog has something about this today. It’s not a minor difference, explainable by slightly different interpretations. It’s a massive. fundamental difference.

  • Welcome 32 New Planets to the Known Universe

    They were obviously there before, but they’re more important because we know about them. I do love this sort of discovery. (See Greg Laden’s Blog for more.)