Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • Who Needs to Change?

    Carl Zimmer, on The Loom, writes about A Flock of Dodos, and comments on scientists who are portrayed in the movie as “inarticulate and high-handed.” Zimmer expands on this topic in a very balanced way, I think, but I question what is expected of scientists in terms of public relations.

    I know well from my own field that those who do the best work in their field are often not the best people to present it to the uneducated. If you expect all scientists to learn to speak publicly like Kenneth Miller, then many of them are going to have to take time away from research and from teaching other people to be good scientists.

    I know I harp on this topic, but the bottom line here has to be education, especially science education, starting from elementary school. Most people, and most politicians claim that education is our priority in this country, but the actual state of education doesn’t reflect a high priority. Scientists would be able to communicate scientific ideas much more easily if the public was conversant with basic scientific concepts.

    Of course, in a democracy, we need to educate the public in order to get the funding and the standards for the needed education, but that is a task for all of us, not just those in the scientific disciplines. I certainly hope this task can be accomplished.

    (See my previous essay, Make Education a Priority.)

  • Young Earth and the Bible

    Note: I’m going to be running two series here in parallel over the next few weeks, one on the methods of Biblical criticism and how a layperson can apply them, and the other on views of God as the creator.

    I’m pretty well known to be a theistic evolutionist, but at the same time, I have said argued that this is just one way of viewing the Biblical and the scientific evidence on origins. Others include old earth creationism, the ruin and restoration theory, and of course young earth (or young age) creationism. I believe that intelligent people hold all of these different positions. That doesn’t mean that I think they are all equally well supported by the evidence, either Biblical or scientific. Thus I will respond with vigor to the arguments of positions with which I disagree, but that doesn’t mean I think the people who advance them are stupid.

    Before I get into today’s topic let me look at a little bit of terminology regarding young earth creationist. A person who accepts all three elements listed below will almost always also accept a young earth and stick with that position. Since I’m summarizing, let me also recommend reading the presentation of these elements by Dr. Kurt Wise in Faith, Form, and Time, Section 1, pages 3-39. I strongly recommend Dr. Wise’s book as the one book to read on young earth creationism–if you’re only going to read one, make it this one. [edited 1/8/2008 for clarity.]

    The elements are these:

    1. The Bible is to be taken literally where possible (this is a very common conservative position, though not all conservative Biblical scholars adopt it. Gleason Archer, to whom I will refer in my discussion of old earth creationism, is a strong advocate of inerrancy and takes a quite different approach here. A good example of a scholar who holds this position is Tim LaHaye, who in his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, chapter 11, page 159, makes it his first rule of hermeneutics.)
    2. The Bible is the decisive source of knowledge whenever it comments on a topic, including science
    3. The obvious literary form of the Genesis prehistory is narrative history

    Note that those are my restatements of the issue, and not quoted from any particular source. Accept those three things and you will be (or become as you study the Bible) a young earth creationist. Reject them, and you have many other options, but you are unlikely to accept a 6,000 year old earth created in one literal week. There are those who believe in young earth creationism who will not accept what I have stated here, and will argue that there is good scientific support for their position. But I believe I am being fair, and that the issue does primarily depend on one’s theological position with regard to the Bible. Young earth creationists have criticisms of evolution, but the only thing that ties the position together is the Biblical material. I think they should be open about that.

    Now let’s look at the basic evidence, taken literally.

    1. The Bible says the earth was created in one week.
      Taken literally and as narrative history, this one is pretty clear. If one has a bias in favor of the literal reading, then this one will be easy. Other creation stories, such as Psalm 104, will be read as more general descriptions and the “history” label will be granted to Genesis 1 & 2. Between Genesis 1 & 2, priority will be given to reconciliation of the accounts
    2. The Bible provides genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 that provide complete chronological data. Again, assuming both literal and narrative history, these genealogies provide a very specific answer to questions about the age of the earth. Those YEC advocates who allow up to 10,000 years rather than sticking with 6,000 years depart slightly from the basic interpretive approach by allowing gaps in genealogies that have each person’s age at their first son’s birth specified, and the number of years they lived after that.
    3. The Bible again provides a narrative of the flood. I find it odd that some young earth creationists try to develop their model with the flood and related geology separated. If there was a worldwide flood, if the Genesis narrative describes it essentially as history, then it should become an integral part of the theory
    4. No matter what sort of mass of evidence that archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, and others gather showing that there are major problems with this chronology, this clear reading of the Biblical record must be decisive.

    I would suggest that in discussing this issue, those who disagree should start with where they stand on the three issues I listed, and discuss those first. As a theistic evolutionist, I reject all three of the premises, and I will discuss that in a later entry on theistic evolution. But young earth creationists should be criticized for inconsistency only when they depart from these principles, or when they claim scientific support that they don’t possess (a considerable area for discussion!).

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.

  • Santorum Distancing Himself From Intelligent Design Law Firm

    Fox News has a current story on Senator Rick Santorum and the intelligent design controversy:

    FOXNews.com – Politics – Santorum Distancing Himself From Intelligent Design Law Firm.

    The senator is quite right that the case provided a bad set of facts for the desired result. In fact, the facts of the case practically guaranteed that the school board, as defendants, would lose.

    But why did Senator Santorum wait until after the case was decided to say anything? Unless he was exceptionally careful to remain ignorant of the case, he had to know what was going on. The more the trial moved forward, the more clear it was that the defendants did not have a chance.

    The point in this case was not a desire that students be taught scientific controversies. In fact, thus far there is no scientific controversy about intelligent design. I am not enough of a scientist to predict what is likely to happen, but I suspect that this is not one of those revolutionary new theories that will rapidly gain acceptance. Rather, I think it is likely to fade away as even those few scientists who now support it realize that it is a free floating theory, lacking any facts that it needs to explain.

    Controversies in science are an excellent topic for science classes, because one can deal with the definitions of such words as “fact,” “hypothesis,” and “theory” and teach our young people how to examine evidence carefully and come to valid, reproducible conclusions. Unfilled holes in the theory of evolution are a fertile area for such study, but that is not because the theory is weak; it’s because the theory is strong, and that it’s value extends across many fields. That simply means that many fruitful areas for research will be suggested as the details of the history of life, mechanisms for variation and selection, and genetics are studied more and more.

    Intelligent design, on the other side doesn’t (at least as yet) provide such opportunities. It simply slams the door on research by passing certain processes off to the supernatural. Now I don’t have any problem with things that are, at least presumably, supernatural being handed over to theologians and spiritual leaders. But the mechanisms that intelligent design assigns to the activity of an undefined designer have not been adequately studied. In many cases natural solutions are just around the corner or even now being described.

    Intelligent design also doesn’t answer the theological questions. Finding that God had to tinker in order to produce certain systems hardly qualifies as a type of proof of the existence of our creator God. God is manifested everywhere, in every natural law and natural process. The very processes that allow evolution to take place are, in fact, the result of the power of God. When we study those processes we have a chance to look at God in action.

    More Christians need to take a stand that intelligent design is not doing credit to our religion. The stated purpose of the Thomas More Law Center is a reasonably good one–defending the religious freedom of Christians. (I would prefer that they said “the religious freedom of all Americans, but I guess I can’t have everything.) But when they took on this lousy case they engaged in lousy law and lousy politics in the support of lousy religion.

    That’s a position that needs to be abandoned.

  • YOU Teach Your Children

    There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information.

    I believe that the result of this trial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There was little doubt that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement was essentially a religious movement, and there was no doubt at all that there was no theory of ID, certainly not one that was ready for the High School science classroom. We need to teach basic science, well-established science in our high schools, and we have very little time to accomplish that. New ideas need to establish themselves, go through the rigor of scientific debate, and gain a consensus before they become part of the public school curriculum.

    But I want to address another issue. Many people who share my Christian faith are concerned tonight because they feel that religion is under attack. Those who accept one or another of the views involving special creation feel that their children can attend public school only at the risk of their faith. “Godless evolution” has won the day, and they don’t even get a hearing, not even a tiny disclaimer. I could tell them how well evolution is established as a scientific theory, and I would be right. I could tell them how bad an idea it is to trust religious education to the government, and I believe that’s a good point. I could point out the evil things that have taken place when government took distortions of faith and applied them by force, and that would be valid as well.

    But none of those things are likely to move that fairly large group of people right now. I think it’s unfortunate that more dialogue and education does not take place in this area. More people need to realize how many people of faith, such as myself, and how many church leaders do not see a conflict between evolution and faith.

    Let me suggest something that I think should strike home, not only for those opposed to the decision, but also for all other people of faith who support it. We need to look at reforming religious education. In our churches we have a substantial amount of time available in which to educate our children, to supplement the education that they receive in public schools or even in private schools. In many churches in my area we have Sunday School, one or two youth meetings per week, and a Wednesday night teaching program. That’s a great deal of time. Right now, we’re using most of that time to tell a few stories and make them feel good.

    Parents have even more time. They can get involved in helping their children with homework. If you believe that there is a place where faith needs to be introduced into the study of science, you have the power to do it. At the same time as you’re doing it, you will be spending more time with your children, building your bond with them, and increasing the chance that they will become productive citizens. I have some ideas of what should be taught, but even if what you teach is repugnant to me, you have a right and even a duty to take the time and effort to teach it.

    It’s very simple.

    You want your children taught intelligent design? Get with your church’s education program and get some programs on it. I teach such a program for those who hold to a theistic view of evolution through Pacesetters Bible School, and I have produced a tract on the subject called God the Creator. Those who object to any form of evolution will not like my programs, but there’s no shortage of folks willing to teach other viewpoints.

    You want your children to pray? Student led prayer is legal right now. Teach your children to pray–that is, after all, a function of parents and churches–and then release them to work and lead in their own way. You really aren’t prevented from any of this. (I teach this one too. See my book I Want to Pray! co-authored with Rev. Perry Dalton.)

    You see, I don’t think the courts are taking away your right to educate your children about your faith. Not at all! What they are taking away is your right to be lazy and to expect somebody else to do your job, whether you are a religious educator or a parent.

    So get out there, get active, and exercise the rights you have.

  • The Clergy Project

    Wesley Elsberry, on The Panda’s Thumb reports that the Clergy Project is nearning its goal of 10,000 signatures. As I write this, I see that it has attained that goal. I encourage all of my clergy friends to sign this document. It is not only protecting the teaching of science; it is protecting religious education as well. I encourage all of my friends and readers who are not clergy to pass this on to any clergy they know and urge them to sign it.

    But now a quick note: You won’t find my signature here. Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, I am not clergy. I am not ordained. I am a writer and religious educator. I received my MA degree at a seminary (actually the graduate school granted it, but the classes were taken at a seminary). I study and teach Biblical languages and Biblical studies, but I’m not an ordained minister, and thus don’t qualify as “clergy.”

    Why is this so important?

    Both “creation” and “intelligent design” are essentially religious or theological doctrines. They are not science. Things are not necessarily bad because they aren’t science, but they should not be taking up time in the science classroom. Further, we should be very concerned if science teachers, chosen and employed by the government, trained to teach science are instead asked to teach religion.

    Often Christians look at separation of church and state as a barrier to sharing their faith and even to living their lives as Christians. Separation of church and state is not about keeping you from being a Christian. It’s not even about keeping our leaders from being Christians, leading Christian (or better Christ-like) lives, and even testifying to their faith. It’s about keeping the government from promoting religion. We, as Christians, should want to keep the government out of the business of promoting religion.

    Let me give two major reasons. First, the government tends to get things wrong many times. If I let the government prescribe prayer for my child in school, I have no guarantee that this prayer will be appropriate, in accordance with my beliefs, or in accordance with what I want my child to be taught. That’s my selfish reason for keeping the government out of it. Let me teach my child spiritual things. Let me choose a church, synagogue or other organization to teach my child about religion. Second, for me as a Christian, religion cannot be forced. When we place a person in authority in front of our child, someone who represents the state, however indirectly, we tend to imply a force of law to their faith. I believe that is damaging. Spirituality needs to be voluntary. Separation of church and state has given us that. This means, in addition, that we Christians, as the majority, need to be sensitive to the pressure we put on those in the minority, such as Jews, Muslims, or those who reject religion entirely when we attach our spiritual beliefs to the power of the government. I don’t believe we do ourselves any favors by doing so either.

    But what if you disagree with what is taught in the classroom? No problem! If you are willing to get involved with your children, you have much more influence on them than the school does in any case. Get them some books on your point of view. Let them learn your beliefs from them.

    Why can’t your child pray during those school hours? Actually, your child can pray. If you teach your children to pray, they can be involved in prayer and religious activity throughout the school. Student led prayer and student led religious activities are protected forms of free speech. Here the law forces us to do what we should have done anyhow–educate our children, and then trust them to lead.

    Keeping science the subject of the science classroom will be good for both science and religion.

  • God’s Wrath and ID Rejecters

    Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God’s wrath

    Robertson is just too easy a target, but I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the situation in Dover is a bit more complicated than acceptance or rejection of God.

    For example, I’m a Christian who believes that the entire universe and everything in it was designed by God. Nonetheless I don’t think anyone has established a scientific basis for detecting more and less design in specific pieces of the universe. My theology, in fact, suggests that one should not find that God is less present in one part of the universe than in another. But that isn’t my reason for opposing the teaching of ID in the high school science classroom. Rather, my concern is that consensus science, the stuff that’s accepted broadly in the scientific community should be taught. Further, I think that theology should not be taught in public school, and indeed shouldn’t be taught by the biology teachers. So I certainly accept God, I believe God is the designer, but I don’t believe it should be the task of public schools to teach this.

    There are, however, a number of other positions that would also reject the position of the Dover school board, and still not reject God. Some believe that ID might well be science, it might well be developed into a valid scientific theory and be accepted by scientists, and thus become a valid topic for the high school science curriculum. If so, great. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but then I’m not a scientist, and I’m also not a prophet. Others might believe that ID is a fine theory, but that due to a strong commitment to separation of church and state might still object to it becoming a topic in science classes. I know quite a number of people who believe in young earth creation and would nonetheless reject its inclusion in public school curricula. Why? They believe that freedom of religion depends on keeping government out of it, and so they would reject including something religious in the public school curriculum.

    But there is a further problem here. Robertson seems to feel that God’s wrath will fall on the people who disagree with him. There is no reason to believe that he is right. In fact, there is no evidence that various places he has condemned have been any more subject to God’s wrath than other places he hasn’t noticed. That’s not a big surprise.

    I suspect, however, that some Christians will try to excuse what Robertson said as excessive rhetoric. I don’t think it is excessive rhetoric; it’s a dangerous belief, and it’s coming to be the belief of many conservative Christians. Again, I don’t want to attack conservative Christians in general. There are plenty of conservative Christians who take the love of Jesus seriously. I don’t think they’re better or worse than other people as a group. But they are being fed a line about creation, evolution, and intelligent design that tends to make all those who reject ID into some kind of nasty, dangerous people.

    At a minimum, Christians who talk about this issue need to make it clear that folks can disagree without bringing down the wrath of God.

    Don’t worry Dover. God can still hear your prayers. Keep right on voting your consciences and your good sense, which was given to you also as part of God’s design.

  • Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Intelligently designing voters designed a new school board. Though many votes were close, the sweep was apparently universal. I’m very pleased to see that the voters can make an intelligent decision like this. It is my hope that this becomes an example for the rest of the country.

    The whole community, especially parents, needs to get involved in the process of education. We pay big attention to presidential races, but often very little attention to school board races. Turnout is low, and people with very questionable ideas and programs can get elected without most of their constituents even being aware of it.

    That’s not the fault of the politicians, folks. It’s the fault of constituents who don’t research about their candidates and make their choice on election day.

    See some more of my views on education and politics in Make Education a Priority.

  • Making Science Standards

    Two members of the committe that produced the current science standards in Minnesota have written a summary of the process for the Florida Citizens for Science blog. The Minnesota experience is of interest to Floridians, because Cheri Pierson Yecke has been made our K-12 Chancellor.

    I recommend that Floridians read this summary and ask yourselves just what it is you want taught in the science classroom. This is not a free speech issue, as some have claimed. The issue is the prescribed curriculum and the testing standards for science. I would like to suggest that the best means of determining what should be taught in the science classroom is by asking working scientists, and working from a consensus basis, i.e. that we should teach science that is as broadly accepted as possible. There is no need to teach every theory that is available in the High School classroom; there are proper scientific forums in which such things can be discussed, tested, and then perhaps become accepted science.

    Now like it or not, the theory of evolution is broadly accepted and can be properly regarded as consensus science. I think those who advocate intelligent design should have plenty of opportunities to present their ideas, and in fact they do have such opportunities. I recently commented (ID on West Wing) that I have greater problems with the idea that science teachers will be teaching religion. Religion is much more difficult to test for quality and reliability than is science (perhaps I understate this!) and thus it is much more difficult to provide good standards for it.

    Let’s continue to teach science in Florida’s science classrooms.

  • ID on West Wing

    I want to congratulate West Wing on NBC for providing some thoughtful coverage of the ID issue. While scientific and theological articles and books may cover the issue more thoroughly, intelligent handling in the context of a popular TV show helps get the message through the culture.

    Presidential candidate Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, answers questions indicating that he believes the universe is designed–as a matter of faith, but that he doesn’t want his faith taught in the classroom. In one exchange, an audience member tells him that he wants his children to hear his view in the classroom.

    This latter incident brings up the other side of intelligent design in the classroom. I certainly do not want the science curriculum to be diluted with elements that are not tested science. ID has failed to demonstrate that it is a viable scientific theory. Until it does (an unlikely event), it doesn’t belong in High School science classes. But as a person interested in spiritual matters, and an active, committed Christian, I have an even more disturbing problem with this. Who is going to be teaching religion to the children and young people of my church? When a theological concept is taught in science class, it will have to be taught by science teachers, who are not qualified to teach theology. I find this quite disturbing. Not only are we introducing theology into the science curriculum, but we will almost certainly be introducing incompetent theology there. I doubt that many science teachers are going to be interested in trying to learn to teach theology.

    Of course, as a moderate Christian, I am likely to find some of this theology objectionable. But my more conservative brethren will, I think, find some of it even more objectionable? So why are they advocating the teaching of faith in the science classroom? Simply because this will be a first step. Once you have the precedent set of one religious idea that can be taught in the high school classroom, the next will be much easier. The intention, make no mistake about it, is to get conservative Christian views–the views of only some conservative Christians–introduced into the public school classroom, and enforced on the children of many parents who will disagree.

    So why can’t each of us have “our view” taught in the public school science classroom? First, we don’t all have the same view. To teach “our view” we will have to teach many views. Second, because our faith views are not part of the field of competence of the science teachers, and should not be.

    There is a much better solution. Let’s teach science, consensus science, in the public school science classroom, and leave the teaching of religion to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other private centers of religious education.

    Oh! Wait a minute! That’s what we’re doing now, isn’t it?