Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • More on Religious Battle Lines

    Ed Brayton has written an excellent post on this topic over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, titled Drawing Religious Battle Lines. I’ve already said my piece on this one, so I’m just going to send you over there to read this excellent essay.

    My high opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that Ed talks about me a bit in the post. 🙂

    (Hmmm! Posting gremlins seem to have kept me from posting this earlier, so even though it’s a bit behind times, I’m going to post it for the link. Ed’s post is still excellent!)

  • Pro-Evolution Event at University of North Florida

    The Biology Department at UNF and the First Coast Freethought Society will sponsor a panel discussion on evolution and education titled Science Under Siege: The Attack on Evolution. The discussion will take place Monday, November 13, 2006, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. at the UNF University Center. You can find more information and directions to the meeting location via the links above.

    This is probably too far away for me to get to, but if you live nearer it looks like a good thing. I also note that all the panelists are professors in the biology department. I hope this indicates that we are developing more scientists who are not only good in their field, but are able to communicate with non-specialists.

  • Allies for Evolution, not Everything

    Update: Jack Krebs has now posted a longer summary of the talk and links to audio files. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I don’t see anything in the summary that would alter my view on this. I’m glad Jack and Kansas Citizens for Science made sure to get good audio of this. (2nd update: I somehow left out the link to Jack’s post, and have now added it.)

    I’m regularly annoyed by angry recriminations that occur when someone discovers that the various people in favor of sound science education and specifically on the teaching of evolution don’t actually agree on all aspects of life, the universe and everything. Currently there is a flap about remarks by Kenneth Miller. Since I don’t have a transcript of those remarks I’m not going to try to critique those remarks. PZ Myers, however, has a rather angry post on Pharyngula calling Ken Miller a creationist because he suggested that creationists’ attacks were misdirected, and should be directed instead at folks like Dawkins.

    (more…)

  • The Age of the Earth

    Through the Christian Blog Carnival I found this post by Amanda from Imago Dei blog. She has been working through videos by Kent Hovind, and came to the conclusion that the age of the earth was not that important, and that Kent Hovind’s tactics were not going to accomplish all that much.

    Though all know that I do not accept a young earth, as Amanda does, I agree that it is hardly an essential of the Christian faith. I’m not all that sensitive to accusations of ignorance from either side. Ignorance can be corrected, and bluntly if one takes a completely opposite view on a topic like the age of the earth, one has to find some explanation for the huge difference. I would be content if we could just keep the spiritual judgment out of it. It would be nice if those of us who are Christians could debate the when and how of God’s creation as details, not essentials, and thus do so without accusing one another of being outside the faith.

    It doesn’t disturb me to be called ignorant. It does disturb me to have a fellow Christian say that I’m “just like an atheist” because I’m a theistic evolutionist. I congratulate Amanda on the tone and quality of her post on this divisive topic.

    While I’m at it, let me again recommend Kurt Wise’s book Faith, Form, and Time to those who are looking for a more reasoned defense of the young earth position. I don’t agree with Wise, almost from the start, but he makes an excellent presentation.

  • Design, Direction, and Evolution

    Over on The Panda’s Thumb a number of writers are reviewing the new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I haven’t read the book. I should, but I probably won’t get to it for two or three months. In the meantime, you can always read the book itself and the Panda’s Thumb reviews.

    A key issue in the debate about evolution and intelligent design, especially as it relates to Christianity, is the issue of direction in nature. Is there a purpose in nature, and is that purpose designed by God? If designed, how was it designed? Answers to those questions from ID advocates have varied. Some would claim that a theistic evolutionist such as myself is simply a closet ID supporter who refuses to admit it. Others would find the notion of a theistic evolutionist repugnant. A key to this question is the issue of direction.

    Quoting from the Panda’s Thumb review on chapter 1:

    “[There] is a fundamental conflict here [but] it is not between religion and science, or even between Christianity and evolution, but between traditional Christianity and Darwinism. Although the latter may allow for the existence of a deity, [that deity would not be] the God of traditional Christianity” (p. 173). Darwinism differs from evolution because it explains “the origin of not just one or a few species, but all species after the first

  • Don’t Cover Evidence

    The Telegraph reports that some evangelicals in Kenya are trying to sideline exhibits on the evolution of human beings from Kenya’s national museum. In a story, Evangelicals urge museum to hide man’s ancestors, it is reported that the churches want those exhibits removed and intend a campaign to persuade the museum to do so.

    Folks, this is a way that Christians can prove themselves to be stupid and dishonest at one and the same time. Can there be any good reason to hide the evidence or to try to prevent people from seeing it? This is not an action that will be advantageous to the kingdom of God. It is simply “putting a stumbling block” in front of those who might otherwise be inclined to accept the gospel message.

    I sincerely hope that Kenya’s national museum will resist this campaign, and that the Christian leaders involved will think better of this activity.

  • Is this new information in DNA?

    In the “evolution is more creative than we are” department, Carl Zimmer has written an account in terms comprehensible by us non-scientists, of an article published in Cell. He titled it A Dead Dog Lives On (Inside New Dogs). I heartily recommend his article, especially for those who think that the paths taken by evolution are extremely limited. It’s fascinating!

  • Evolution reversed to rebuild old gene

    This article on MSNBC.com talks about some interesting gene splicing that illustrates some of the value of evolutionary theory and also shows in a simple way how information could be added to DNA.

    Genes are snippets of DNA that carry instructions for building a protein. The splitting of one gene into many genes has occurred many times throughout life’s history. With two identical genes, one can continue doing its normal job while the other is free to mutate. Most mutations are harmful and disappear, but every once in a while one proves beneficial to the organism and is passed on to future generations.

    Just so. But try to tell the creationists just how all that works.

    Early animals had 13 Hox genes until about 500 million years ago. Those 13 Hox genes multiplied four times, but some were lost because they were redundant. Today, humans and other mammals have 39 Hox genes.

    Yep! Information can increase.

    This article is also interesting in terms of gene therapy and the procedures being learned, of course. The ability to recreate even a portion of an older gene like this is fascinating. As noted in the article, it brings images of Jurassic park. I won’t start watching for approaching dinosaurs yet, but I’m amazed at how fast this research is moving!

    Updated to add link to the article which I missed first time around, and also to add a link to PZ Myer’s much better commentary on the topic at Regulatory Evolution of the Hox1 Gene.

  • Newsweek on Billy Graham

    Newsweek has a good article on Billy Graham in its current issue, titled Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s a fairly long article that presents some interesting points.

    While Graham is certainly not abandoning any essentials of his faith, he does admit to softening on some things. I believe that the things he indicates Christians can appropriately disagree on are well chosen.

    For example, he spends less time on political affairs:

    “The older I get, the more important the eternal becomes to me personally.” His mind is on the heavenly more than the temporal, on the central promises of Christianity more than on the passing political parade.

    . . . and . . .

    Others relish the battlefield; Graham now prizes peace. He is a man of unwavering faith who refuses to be judgmental; a steady social conservative in private who actually does hate the sin but loves the sinner; a resolute Christian who declines to render absolute verdicts about who will get into heaven and who will not; a man concerned about traditional morality

  • Book: God After Darwin

    In this wonderful little book (God After Darwin [ISBN: 0813338786]), theologian John Haught looks at our concepts of God in the light of evolutionary theory, and in relation to intelligent design. My notes are more of a response than a review.

    This book is not an examination of each movement in great detail, but rather a look at theology, and how it might need to adapt in the light of what evolutionary theory has shown us about the universe. Haught does not believe that metaphysical materialism is an adequate view, because it does not support, in his view, the novelty of creation. He rejects the views of philosophers like Dennett and Dawkins who claim that science has shown that there is no purpose in the universe and that everything can be explained by mechanistic natural causes.

    But he also rejects intelligent design, not on the usual grounds that it is not science–after all, he’s discussing theology–but because it too fails to adequately deal with novelty in the universe. Haught postively embraces evolution, moving God from the Alpha, the God who pushes from behind, to the Omega, the God of the future. God, as Haught sees him, does not coerce his creation, but rather continuously invites it into the future. God gives the gracious gift of new creation to the universe continuously.

    (more…)