Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Theistic Evolution

  • Joe Carter’s 10 Ways Darwinists Help ID

    I found these 10 ways rather amusing (part 1, part 2, part 3. Perhaps we should all take advice from the opposition and say just the things they’d like us to say. Here’s my response, briefer than my usual!

    1. Well, if ID advocates would just define an actual theory and quit trying to disguise the religious intent, perhaps people’s perception of your work would match yours. I’m not required to be deceived, however, and thus I represent it as I see it rather than as you would like me to see it.
    2. It is stealth creationism. It’s religiously driven. ID advocates must be delusional if they think their activities would be driven by scientific concerns. It’s that large body of creationists out there that keep ID going. Just look at the efforts to market “Expelled!” to churchgoers–an open admission of the religious nature of the controversy if I ever saw one.
    3. “Science in the gaps” is almost cute, but unfortunately completely lacks validity. You see, the “God of the gaps” is constantly receding, while science keeps advancing. The fact that we find ever more complex stuff and then come to understand it is a positive thing about the power of scientific investigation. You’ll have a parallel when you find science retreating and God filling in the space. It’s not going to happen. In reality God is never retreating. He’s unthreatened by natural explanations and science will continue to grow. There’s always going to be something more, at least “always” from a limited human perspective.
    4. Produce some science and scientists will publish it. Until then, quit complaining! Oh, and by the way, it’s not science because–wait for it–it’s not science–not because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed science journals.
    5. Sexual selection is a topic of controversy in evolution. Why not provide some scientific discussion if you think that helps ID. The reason ID advocates won’t do that is that if you adjust the factors a bit you’ll still have evolution.
    6. Learn how words are defined and used in different contexts. In other words, instead of trying to plug your idea of design into a scientific discussion, use the author’s definition.
    7. I’m not an atheist. But I neither want to regulate who gets to be vocal, nor do I want to. If you’re not sufficiently perceptive to hear the many religious voices in favor of the theory of evolution, such as Francis Collins, John Haught, Richard Colling, Kenneth Miller, and many others, perhaps you have a discernment problem.
    8. Where you divide the questions is an interesting point. Richard Colling, in his book Random Designer, deals quite directly with origin of life issues, but the fact is that they are logically somewhat different. Common descent, an old earth, and the mechanism of variation+natural selection are not dependent on explaining the origin of life. The reason creationists want to combine them is that common descent has been largely explained in broad terms, while the origin of life has not. Combining them makes a better target. Scientists, on the other hand, have to investigate the topics, and the different states of the science suggest they need to be looked at separately.
    9. Pot, kettle, black. Oh, and many creationists are liars, especially young earth creationists. That’s not an argument against creationism, but it sure does complicate things. It’s annoying having to hunt for the honest creationist so you can argue with him.
    10. You started by accusing us of attacking a strawman, then you end with a strawman yourself.

    My suggestion to other defenders of evolutionary theory: Don’t take Joe Carter’s advice.

  • Book: Evolution and Christian Faith

    I’m constantly on the lookout for books on evolutionary theory aimed at the general public rather than specialized audiences, so when I saw this little book on the shelf of the local university library, I took it home to check out.

    My response to it is a bit mixed. There are a number of good things about it. It’s simple, it presents most of the basics of evolutionary theory at the most basic level, and it deals with intelligence design briefly and vigorously. On the other hand, its approach to Biblical interpretation is vague, its theology is a bit soft, and its assumption that these arguments have any hope of reaching fundamentalists or even conservative evangelicals is frankly just a bit naive.

    The author, Dr. Joan Roughgarden, is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian and a member of the Episcopal church. She begins by discussing the relationship between science and religion. She suggests that the conflict between religion and science is fostered by the fact that we don’t discuss the two together. Her favorite topic of research is lizards, and she laments that evolutionists rarely discuss God and anti-evolutionists discuss God and rarely discuss lizards (p. 6).

    Unfortunately she really doesn’t do very much of discussing the two together. She does draw a few lines of connection between the Bible and science, but these can be divided between the naive and the distantly metaphorical. I don’t mean to be too cruel here, because there are a number of wonderful passages in this book, especially in describing the basics of evolutionary theory in non-specialists terms.

    In this early chapter she also intends to draw a distinction between what is solid and what is still questionable or “squishy” in evolutionary theory. That promise is very interesting, as is her distinction between the “real” controversies, which are in the details and in the leading edge of evolutionary theory, as opposed to the fake controversy created by intelligent design.

    In the second chapter, Dr. Roughgarden discuss the first “solid” element of evolutionary theory which she rightly calls a fact, common descent. She argues that there is nothing in a literal reading of Genesis that would deny this. The then continues in the third chapter with variation, which again she says does not contradict a literal reading of Genesis. I happen to agree with her on this point, as I state in my earlier blog post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds. The problem, as most people who have discussed this issue will see, is that with these two elements we’re pretty much out of literal readings of Genesis 1 and 2 that will support evolutionary theory, and most conservative Christians will not even agree to those.

    Thus it is no surprise that chapter 4 deals with reading the Bible literally, and suggests essentially that Jesus came to change a rule-based approach to one based on principles and relationships. Most interpreters would have some trouble using that point to suggest that we now have permission to read certain things literally or not literally based on whether they agree with our scientific understanding. The connection there is a bit vague. Further the dividing line is also a bit vague. How do you decide?

    Dr. Roughgarden doesn’t tell us. She leaves us with the literal reconciliation of common descent and variation without a “kinds” boundary in living things, while suddenly rejecting such a literal reading of the days of creation based on the changed approach brought by Jesus. I don’t think this will provide a consistent approach to hermeneutics, and I don’t think it will impress the fundamentalists.

    In the fifth chapter she carries this point to the other extreme, using the vine and the branches (John 15:1-6) as an illustration connecting natural breeding (which she prefers to natural selection) in the Bible. This is such a metaphorical connection that it strains my reading a bit, and I’m quite an advocate of metaphorical readings. But she goes on in chapter 6 using Mark 13 and the parable of the sower as a connection to random mutation (p. 45). The explanation of random mutation is pretty good, however.

    Chapter 7 is a discussion of direction in evolution which, in my opinion, doesn’t deal adequately with the challenge presented by the theory of evolution to the older Christian understanding of the way in which the universe works. This is followed by chapter 8 which is occupied by a discussion of Roman Catholic theology. In it, Dr. Roughgarden acknowledges that the challenge to evolutionary theory and the impetus to teach intelligent design in the science classroom are not largely driven by Catholics. Those who are pushing it are, to a large extent, not going to be moved by statements by the Pope, however good those statements are.

    Following this is a chapter on the things that evolution has not accomplished yet which is largely dedicated to discussing the definition of an individual, and where natural selection operates, individual or group.

    The chapter on intelligent design was quite good. I was surprised that after a call largely for peace, this chapter is a pretty vigorous attack. On page 94 Dr. Roughgarden provides four things that intelligent design proponents need to do in order to get their views examined scientifically (p. 94). These are good criteria that would require the ID folks to do some actual science, an unlikely prospect. She further describes the controversy proposed by ID (as in “teach the controversy”) as “concocted” (p. 95), and finally calls ID “junk religion” (p. 101). She says it should be discussed in religion classes in order to point out just how bad it is as theology. She doesn’t think it has any place in science classrooms. On this, of course, I agree!

    Chapter 11 is given to sexual selection, and I have a hard time seeing why it is in the book. It makes little sense to me, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist. If it does have a purpose, that would seem to be to suggest that we shouldn’t present natural selection in such a competitive fashion. I’m not sure just how this works. Natural selection does involve a fairly heavy competitive element.

    The last chapter points to new directions. These could be summarized by saying that scientists should present themselves less like Richard Dawkins, and theologians should avoid referring to a wrathful God so much. I’m pretty much in agreement with that, but I don’t think either Dawkins or Falwell and Roberts (who she uses to illustrate what’s wrong in religion) will follow the suggestions.

    My overall impression is that Dr. Roughgarden is a good scientist who has a liberal view of religion, but has a limited understanding of the type of theological ideas that drive evangelicals and fundamentalists. She expresses a peaceful and experiential faith that I can truly appreciate. If my review sounds rough, it’s because I don’t think that she has engaged the controversy that is actually going on. She’s hoping for peace.

    I enjoyed this book, but I don’t feel I can add it to my list of recommended reading for those who are trying to get acquainted with the creation-evolution controversy.

  • Expelled! and the Atheism-Evolution Connection

    There is something I want to clarify from my previous post on the topic. Nobody has mentioned this to me, but it is a common enough error that I think I need to say something explicit.

    I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.

    I regard Nazism as ethically repugnant and pretty much without redeeming value. It’s manifestation in Germany was particularly evil. The passage of years, however, has resulted in a variety of people comparing just about anyone they disagree with to the Nazis. If you get by with it, it guarantees a win. I regard the comparison of scientists denying tenure to a professor with Nazis as a slander. It also demonstrates a lack of ethical judgment, and specifically devalues the true evil of Nazism.

    I think it’s quite possible that for the producers of Expelled, the connection to atheists is more important. Atheism is more present and real to modern Americans, and it is the one thing they expect Christians of all denominations and believers from other faiths to be able to agree on–atheism is bad. So if you can hammer the concept into people that belief in evolution is the equivalent of atheism, they will viscerally reject evolution as they already do atheism.

    It’s a fairly standard propaganda ploy. Find something that is already in disrepute amongst your audience (and polls on the perception of atheists will show the basis for this), then all you have to do is completely (subconsciously if possible) relate the idea you dislike to the one people already dislike. Unfortunately, all that is necessary to accomplish this goal is to repeat it often enough and loudly enough.

    So my problem with “evolution is atheism” is quite different from my concern about Nazism. Nazism is nasty, and it is slander to connect it with evolutionary science. Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else. There’s a big difference between a group of people who believe as a tenet of their ideology that you ought to be killed, and a group that disagrees with you on certain philosophical points, even very basic ones.

    So I want to make myself clear. I do not object to the connection of atheism and evolution because atheism is nasty, and you shouldn’t smear evolution in that way. I object to this connection because it is incorrect. The theory of evolution describes the natural world, and is not incompatible with theism. It is also not incompatible with atheism. It is simply organized information about the natural world. Connecting it with a philosophy is completely unrelated to determining its truth value.

    Nazism is an ideology with an ethically repugnant set of actions inherent in it. It is slanderous to connect evolution with that ideology.

    It remains true, of course, that both connections are inappropriate propaganda ploys and the producers of Expelled! should be ashamed of themselves for both.

  • Suppressed and Talking about it Everywhere

    After reading this review of Expelled!, (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) based only on the 10 minute trailer, I decided to go view the various trailers for myself.

    This is a movie that I have very little interest in seeing. Let me explain that. It’s not that I don’t want to hear about ID, but I need something that at least purports to provide some sort of information, some sort of argument in favor of it. I might reject that argument after reading, but I’m not going to be attracted to the material unless such an argument is made. For me to read something, or even more for me to view something, I require some sort of reason, and since I dislike watching informational videos in general, I need an extraordinary reason to go watch one. In the case of something like Expelled!, I also rest in the knowledge that I have friends who are attracted to these things like motorists to wrecks, and they will write about it.

    Having watched the trailers I can now tell you that not only do they not give me any reason to watch the movie; they give me numerous reasons not to bother. I certainly won’t shell out money for it, and I like the energy to arrange to get my name on the list for a free showing as PZ Myers did (unsuccessfully) and Richard Dawkins did (successfully). Incidentally, I should mention that I don’t accept the explanations of the Expelled! crowd that Myers and Dawkins were gate crashers. I fully support what they did in that case. More importantly, I think it is indicative of the mindset of the producers that they did not welcome people whom they interviewed to see the finished product. Both men should have gotten in to see the movie and without such effort on their part. Myers more recent telephone escapade, on the other hand, falls outside my ethical boundaries. I confess that I laughed when I read about it (shame on me), but still, I could not do it with good conscience.

    Why did the trailers have such a negative impression on me:

    1. Misrepresentation of evolution
      It’s difficult to explain a theory properly in a short period of time, but there was no attempt made to correctly represent the theory of evolution. References to a totally random process or to lightning hitting some mud are misrepresentations intended to ridicule, not to inform. The ridicule is in no way surprising. This is constant in creationist materials on evolution. It was, in fact, one of the major elements that drew me away from creationism. This problem is especially egregious in a movie that complains about the way intelligent design (ID) advocates are ridiculed in science.
    2. First amendment issues are badly confused
      The first amendment doesn’t provide you with the right to have a particular scientific magazine publish your article, nor does it protect editors from the consequences of not following the rules (Sternberg). Peer review exists for a purpose, and that is to exclude articles that do not provide sufficient fodder for study by those who will read the journal in question. It assures readers, not that the material is all true, but that the material has enough scientific merit to be considered. Further, the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you a job at a particular university, or tenure, nor does it protect you from ridicule. In fact, the first amendment protects the right of others to ridicule you.
    3. Academic freedom doesn’t guarantee you a job or tenure
      Tenure is given to people who uphold certain standards and will advance the university. Personally, I’m not all that excited about the tenure system, but that’s because I think freedom is better protected by the variety of institutions of higher education than by a fight at a particular one. A person denied tenure is not automatically denied free speech. He can go down the road. I’m fairly sure the Expelled! crowd could find reasons that someone should be denied tenure; they just don’t think their particular silliness is a good reason.
    4. The problem for intelligent design is not that it hasn’t been considered
      In fact, it hasn’t even truly been presented yet, and I don’t mean that the meanies in the educational establishment didn’t allow it a hearing. Rather, it simply has never presented a scientific program that could truly be tested. The ID crowd want something for nothing. They want to be regarded as purveyors of a scientific theory without doing the work. Some want their theory to be presented in high school, without going through the process of consensus building.
    5. The connection of evolution with Hitler
      There are a very small number of things that deserve to be compared with Nazism. There are a variety of causes. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a cause of Nazi Germany and the holocaust is blatantly false. In a movie that complains of ridicule for ID advocates, this level of slander is incredible. Even in the trailer (and according to reviews the movie is worse), the implication of a Nazi connection is not at all subtle. It just goes to show the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the film’s makers, and Ben Stein as a spokesman. They cannot possibly have any clue of how Nazi Germany suppressed people, and at the same time claim that there is a relationship between that and their claimed suppression here. That’s why I titled my post as I did. Intelligent design has provided us with the most heard, published, talked-about, and taught “suppressed” theory in history.
    6. Lastly, the one that annoys me most, is the lie that accepting the theory of evolution is the equivalent of atheism
      Repeatedly, Ben Stein equates the theory of evolution with atheism, and claims that all ID wants is to open the door to considering that God might have done something. Evolution may be incompatible with certain forms of Biblical interpretation, but it is in no way incompatible with basic theism.

    For people who claim suppression, these folks certainly act more like the liars and propagandists who help nurture suppression. If one were to propose a conspiracy in America, one might find more validity in seeing a conspiracy in the general removal of the word “evolution” from science standards so that now, when creationists push to get their view into the public school classrooms, few people really understand what evolution actually is. This facilitates the lies about it told in just the trailers to this movie.

  • Why I Quit Trusting Creationist Writers

    I’ve mentioned several times before how I migrated from young earth creationist all the way to theistic evolution, and even to the point of objecting to the term “theistic” in front of evolutionist. I am a theist, but the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and should remain the same whether one is a theist or not.

    Now the question people often have is just why I made all these changes, and how I decided which authors to trust, considering I am not myself a scientist. Well, there’s a good illustration today on The Panda’s Thumb, which shows how it worked for me. In this case, Casey Luskin builds a quote out of a late page, and combines it with a piece of one from much earlier, in order to make the author say something he didn’t say.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re a scientist or not, that should make you wonder whether the writer in question can be trusted. For me, the experience took more time. I had read creationist books all my life, and then suddenly I read books by the actual scientists, and I found that evolution was something different than I had been told in case after case. I can now pick up a creationist book and look up certain items in the index, and I know I’ll find misinformation. For example, “punctuated equilibrium/a” will almost guarantee that I find an error.

    One of the reasons creationism maintains such a high popularity in this country is that it is supported by Christian writers and speakers. For many Christian lay people, the fact that something is espoused by a trusted Christian leader is regarded as sufficient reason to consider it valid. Unfortunately, many of these Christian leaders are, in fact, embracing carelessness, or perhaps even negligence in fact-checking. For those who are trained in the appropriate scientific fields, I can even say embracing and proclaiming falsehood.

    As I say with everything, each person needs to check and recheck and not simply accept the word of an authority figure. This applies to all areas of life, but right now I think it particularly applies to science because there is so much misinformation out there. I wish I could say that all of this was sincere error, but recently I’m reading of more and more cases where it is hard to make that case.

    Whatever the motivation, however, careful checking for yourself, and careful checking of your authorities is critical.

  • From YEC to Theistic Evolutionist

    Since I’ve made this journey myself, I’m always on the alert for other stories of similar journeys. It’s interesting that I’ve found many more such stories amongst those studying science. On the religion side, it’s generally those who studies nuts and bolts material (textual criticism, history, archeology, and so forth) who start to see holes in the fabric of a literalist view of the Bible.

    Dr. Steve Matheson has an interesting post at Quintessence of Dust on this very topic, discussing the story of paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, as told in an article in Science. It’s worth reading Dr. Matheson’s summary even though the article is available only to subscribers.

    In these discussions by scientists I frequently see discussions of the need to prepare a theological framework to help people migrate their faith along with their science. I personally found this very difficult coming up as a Seventh-day Adventist. I ended up leaving the church entirely for a period of 12 years, before finding my own balance. There are a couple of problems. For many conservative Christians, any alteration in one’s view of the Bible is apostasy, and thus there is little room for adjustment. The view has to be shattered and then rebuilt. There are some careful theologians and specialists in Biblical studies who also have an interest in the people they teach who can help with this, but they are few and far between. On the other hand, there is too much of a tendency in those who make the journey to laugh at those who have not and expect them to jump. This is combined with a tendency to minimize the gap involved. I personally often have trouble expressing the differences in interpretation without sounding impatient and condescending, so I understand the difficulty. At the same time I know I’m speaking against positions I once held myself with some fervor!

    “Just don’t take it so literally” becomes the mantra. But “not taking it so literally” is not an adequate foundation. Just how do you take it? What does the Bible mean in a new context? Besides the problem of oversimplification there is a difference in terms of theology. There is not a single Christian theology to which one can appeal in this case. In particular dealing with issues like randomness and teleology, Arminians and Calvinists tend to see things very differently.

    I’d add one more thing. Because of my writing (on religion, not science), in which I state my positions, I was never able to conceal the change from my family, most of whom are still young earth creationists. That is probably the hardest single thing for them to accept about my faith as it now stands. It’s a good idea to understand that this is a significant issue. At the same time, I’m not going to keep quiet, simply because I know many are afraid to speak up because they feel that there are so few who will understand. It’s important to be present and accounted for!

    In any case, I’m glad to see the discussion going on.

  • On the Processes of Science

    Dr. Tony has an excellent post on the processes of science, discussing some words like “theory” and “fact” and also talking about how one goes about doing science. This is from a general perspective, not just from biology or evolutionary theory.

    One of my favorite books on Evolution, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, seems to blur this point badly by using the terms “fact” and “theory” more in the popular sense. This makes trouble for all of us, I think, though obviously Mayr is a guiding scientific light:

    “. . . Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. . . .” (p. 12)

    It’s troubling that a biologist of his stature uses that loose of definitions. Otherwise, his book is excellent, and I heartily recommend it. But I’m sticking with this: “Theories don’t grow up to be facts. They explain facts, and they grow up to be more firmly confirmed theories.”

    I like the practical way in which Dr. Tony explains the process. Besides the meaning of “theory” he addresses the “science is what happens in the lab” error common in creationist circles. They announce that evolution cannot be science, because not every aspect can be repeated in a laboratory. His presentation deals nicely with that.

  • Panic in the Temple of Darwin?

    A friend forwarded a link to an article on Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog titled Two Irreconcilable Worldviews. I would note, incidentally, that Dr. Mohler’s blog doesn’t allow commenting, a practice I deplore. Nonetheless, in his position I imagine it is to be expected.

    There are so many things I could comment on in this post. The first is the use of the term “worldview.” “Worldview” has become a shorthand way of referring to one’s complete view of life, the universe, and everything. It is an unnuanced approach to information. There are some appropriate and valuable uses of it, but in general I think it merely simplifies something that is complex, and thus misrepresents it. As a moderate, I tend not to like large packages. I’d prefer to pick my own viewpoints, thank you!

    Now if Dr. Mohler said merely that evolution was irreconcilable with Southern Baptist theology, I would have little problem. The Southern Baptist convention has done a good job of pushing moderates and liberals to go elsewhere, and thus it is very likely that evolution cannot be reconciled with what is left, though there are some who would differ. And it’s their denomination, not mine, so I shouldn’t try to tell them who is in and who is out.

    But Dr. Mohler feels free to make that same sort of comment with regard to mainline Christians. Now I fit into the “mainline protestant” category fairly well. I also have to confess that there is a good deal of confusion amongst mainliners with regard to just what we believe. At least there’s confusion amongst the few who think about it. I was shocked when I joined a United Methodist congregation just how few even knew what the doctrinal stands of their denomination actually were. I was asked by my pastor after I had been Methodist for only a year, to teach a class on the doctrine of Christian perfection. Now this doctrine is in the Methodist Book of Discipline. I expected people to argue about it or at least to have questions. On the first day of the class, however, I found that only the pastor and I were aware that there actually was such a thing.

    When you go further afield into things that are only in resolutions or in general consensus of opinion, it’s not surprising that people truly don’t go deep into the theological implications of what they believe. But many mainline theologians have done so, and they have found that their faith and the theory of evolution are not irreconcilable at all. I would urge mainliners to actually read up on some of the theology. There’s John Haught’s God After Darwin, Howard J. Van Till’s The Fourth Day, the evangelical Dr. Richard Colling’s Random Designer, on which I blogged here some time ago. From a scientists perspective, yet still theologically aware, we have Dr. Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. And I’ve only touched the surface. I’m sure someone will mention a really good book in the comments and I’ll think: “I should have thought of that!”

    But the part that struck me the most about this blog is the ending:

    Tellingly, Michael Zimmerman sees the public status of evolutionary theory endangered by the fact that so many Christians resist the theory. As he admits, “I believe that most people, if forced to choose between religion and evolution, will select religion.” He is right, of course — and that is why there is such panic in the temple of Darwin.

    There are so many problems with this. First, we have the inability of a religious leader to see the difference between a scientific theory and a religious institution such as a denomination. “Panic in the temple” is when a bunch of United Methodists get around and start talking membership loss statistics. The concern is for our community and how it functions and grows. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is and must be constantly under examination. Every time a scientists in a relevant field collects experimental data, whether he is digging up fossils, or culturing bacteria in the lab, the theory of evolution is there to be challenged. The fact that it keeps coming back confirmed, merely tells us how valuable it is. But note at the same time that it has been modified any number of times to meet new challenges. Unlike a denomination, however, all the scientists would remain scientists were the current theory of evolution overturned. They would merely have to adjust their theoretical framework. Yes, it would take a long time. It should take a long time for such a shift.

    Second, is there any panic involved? In the United States there is certainly a high level of concern. I’m highly concerned when I see that a narrow majority of the people in my state, 45%-43% (see poll) reject a thoroughly confirmed scientific theory, and that quite a number of those who accept it think it’s not all that well confirmed. Why is this? Would I be disturbed because a favorite theory of mine is not accepted? (Remember that I have been fascinated by the debate over creation and evolution since I was a child, even though I accepted young earth creation until I was in college.) Actually it concerns me only because we need science to solve many of our technical problems.

    So when Dr. Mohler seems to suggest that it’s a good thing when people choose religion over science, I have to question his good judgment. It sounds to me much like a carpenter rejecting his hammer in favor of his saw.

    Consider global warming. My faith and ethics tell me that while I put people first, people need a world in which to live, so I must be careful. Religion cannot tell me whether we are suffering from global warming or cooling, or how much of that effect is due to man-made emissions, or what is the best strategy to deal with whatever it is. Only science can do that.

    Consider biotechnology. Science can discover how to create various genetically engineered products, and what they might be useful for. I go to my faith to see just how I should apply these things to my real world. (I do not mean here to put down those who would prefer a humanist ethics to faith. I’m speaking for myself.)

    And biotechnology is closely tied to evolutionary theory. If we want to have a solid idea of what is going on in these areas, we will have to understand evolutionary theory. Our children will have to understand it. Despite desperate efforts to claim otherwise, evolutionary theory is foundational in biology, with an impact that extends into our everyday lives through advances in medicine. If we want to understand and continue to advance in medicine, we will need to understand this.

    There is indeed cause for concern amongst those who support science. Science education has lagged for two long in this country. It is that weakness in scientific education that has permitted the current situation to exist.

    But I think there is, perhaps, more of a panic in the halls of religion. As a Christian this concerns me substantially. More and more young people are turning away from the church and from traditional religion. There is a certain panic amongst religious leaders as they see this happening. They are afraid that morality will slip away at the same time.

    There is a time to take a moral stand, but when you do so, you have to do so on the right side. To take a stand against the theory of evolution right now as a moral issue is to take a stand on the wrong side of history. Religion can be severely impaired should we choose at this moment to try to force people either to avoid education in this topic, or to ignore the evidence in front of them. I believe that evidence is strong, and that to force this issue over the next decade or so will result in more and more brilliant young people leaving the church. They will do so not because they cannot accept Christian morality. In fact, many of them will have firmer moral principles than us older folks. They will do so because they will refuse to regard it as right to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence.

    I hope that Dr. Mohler’s choice is not the one presented, because I think if we present this as two worldviews, then no matter which one chooses he or she will be terribly impoverished. My firm choice is both.

  • FAQ on Theistic Evolution

    This is a reminder that even though I truly dislike the term “theistic evolutionist,” I’m continuing to develop my FAQ on Theistic Evolution. Besides listing the FAQ (far short of the number I need there) it provides links to my most recent posts here and on the Participatory Bible Study Blog that relate to theistic evolution.

  • Am I a Darwinian?

    I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

    There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

    Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

    There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

    I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

    The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

    Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.