Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • Mixed Emotions about Sweden

    I read this news article from Sweden with mixed emotions (HT: Panda’s Thumb).

    My first reaction is negative. Since these schools are faith based, it seems appropriate to me that they teach from the perspective of the faith involved in sponsoring the school. I relate this to my own experience being home schooled and being taught creationism. At the end of High School, my grades and test scores were substantially above average, and I know many home schooled or Christian schooled kids who have a similar experience.

    Personally I would prefer to have gotten down to learning what evolution actually was earlier. It would have saved me some time exploring this on my own, but in general, I would prefer to leave such choices to parents, as long as the children in question are able to pass the appropriate tests. I prefer directing education through the requirements for standardized testing or for admission to the next level, rather than prescribing a curriculum in faith-related schools.

    But there is actually the real question. Sweden’s schools are not organized like American schools apparently. The schools in question are funded by the state even though they are faith based. This triggers the other side of my mixed emotions. If the taxpayers need to pay for it, then the state should control the content. All church related schools, as well as my home schooling, were entirely funded by my parents, the same parents who chose to teach me creationism. They chose it; they paid for it.

    I also should emphasize that I believe the correct choice in using public money to fund education at the elementary or high school level is to use that money to teach consensus science, and that means evolutionary theory, and no brand of [tag]creationism[/tag], including ID.

    I’m not certain if there are non-state funded schools in Sweden that would not be subject to this mandate or if all schools are state funded in one way or another. That’s an interesting question for further research.

    Americans should be careful in reading this story and blog reactions to it, because it does not reflect our situation in terms of either funding or the general structure of our educational system.

  • Sunday Afternoon Evolution Notes and Links

    I’ve been reading a number of really good posts on the creation, evolution, and intelligent design, but I only have a very small amount to say about each one, so I’m going to combine them into a post.

    The first is from An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution, and is titled Does Evolution lead to Moral Relativism? Making the Bogeyman even Scarier. With that title, how can you go wrong?

    Martin notes:

    I have commented before that humanity’s connectedness to all other life on planet earth does not contradict the fact that we are created in the image of God. What needs to be addressed is the contention that the mechanism of natural selection somehow leads to moral relativism. Briefly, the acceptance of natural selection should not lead us to accept moral relativism since first, it acts on populations not individuals, and second, it is descriptive not prescriptive.

    He then goes on to back this up in some more detail. I appreciate his writing, because he illustrates what I have frequently claimed. Creation-evolution is not a conservative/liberal debate in Christianity, even though a much higher percentage of Christian liberals would accept the ToE. But there are a substantial number of educated evangelicals who also accept the ToE. The comments to this one are also very interesting.

    Second, via The Panda’s Thumb I found this article from Talk.Reason which deals with the impact of creationism in the Muslim world. I have been told by many Muslims that they have no problem with evolution, and I’ve wondered if there would not be a similar problem in portions of Islam to what there is in Christianity. It looks quite possible that there is. Fundamentalists of all stripes do have a higher percentage chance of rejecting mainstream science on various subjects. The question remains of how much of the Muslim world should be viewed as fundamentalist (or sympathizers). I keep hearing various answers on that one.

    Finally, there’s this video clip, which apparently someone thinks should help convince people of ID:

    The problem is, as I remind people about spam and various internet scams, people wouldn’t do it so much if there weren’t people who would actually believe it. Thus there are a number of people out there who find this argument convincing: “It looks designed, it’s complex, and we don’t understand every detail, so it must be designed. Why do those stubborn scientists keep trying to understand the process?” (Before someone points it out, that is not a quote from the video. It’s a summary of an argument I’ve heard over and over.)

    I found this via this post on PT which does a good job of stomping on the arguments in question. Larry Moran at Sandwalk similarity hits the bullseye with some very brief comments.

    The weird argument in this case is that Dembski tries to take a swipe at Evolution: Triumph of an Idea [my brief review], by using the eye pictures on the jacket as an example of how evolutions, he says, put a few pictures together leading from less to more complex and then say, “See, it evolved!”

    If one is charitable one will assume that he did not read the book at all, or was really badly distracted. I will just suggest that if one wants to find the actual science, or in this case the popularization of science, one will have to actually open the book itself. Don’t assume that the science is exhausted by the pictures on the cover.

    Having posted a note on Carl Zimmer’s wonderful book, I should note for anyone who doesn’t know (I trust most of you already know this), he has a blog The Loom, which I follow regularly.

  • On Creationisms – Quotes Link

    I want to promote this link from the comments to a full post. There are a number of valuable quotes in this post showing the different views of creation that are held by various Christians. The binary creation vs evolution controversy oversimplifies the issues considerably.

    One should always be careful with quotes. First, I have encountered a number that appear to be PR quotes, one key example being those regarding whether God is the designer or not. Second, all quotes should be considered in context. But Martin LaBar has done a good job of giving some of the variations in these positions.

  • Theisms, Creationisms, and Evolutionisms: An Exercise in Definition

    The debate about labels is one of the most interesting aspects of the creation-evolution controversy to me, and at the same time one of the most frustrating. Since my primary training is in Biblical languages, and by my own efforts in linguistics, the way words are used simply fascinates me.

    There is plenty of influence of the PR efforts, particularly those made on the intelligent design side, but also by those of folks in mainstream science. I’m not writing to complain about this. I think it is a natural thing for those who think they are advocating a true or valid position to try to label themselves and the issues in the most favorable fashion. Often this will seem to them as the most accurate labeling as well. After all, they are presenting a “true” position!

    My attention was brought back to this topic a couple of days ago when I read this entry on the Panda’s Thumb which shows that [tag]Bill Dembski[/tag] rejects common descent. I then looked around for some evidence, because I thought I remembered that [tag]Michael Behe[/tag] accepts common descent. And sure enough I found it on Telic Thoughts in an article complaining about the use of terminology:

    In reality, it is more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist, as this label would accurately communicate that a) Behe is an evolutionist and b) believes God was involved in the process of evolution. And in fact, this is how most people interpret theistic evolution, as some sort of God-guided process. How most people interpret a label is the most important point.

    (more…)

  • Richard Colling Letter

    A few days ago I added Steve Martin’s blog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution to my blogroll and subscribed to it’s RSS feed. I have mentioned frequently that there are a number of evangelical Christians who accept evolution, and I’m glad to see more of them involved in the debate.

    Today Steve posted a letter from Dr. Richard Colling, which was sent to the Olivet Nazarene University’s newspaper who, not surprisingly, did not publish it. The letter is good reading for those who believe Christian advocates of evolution are not also committed Christians.

    Steve’s concluding comment is particularly on point:

    This is the kind of testimony that exposes the “evolution=atheism” lie and the “evolution=compromise” slander. It is the credibility of Colling and other deeply committed Christians who uphold the integrity of scripture and the integrity of science, which will ultimately stop Evangelicalism’s self-damaging war on evolution. This personal credibility is a much more important factor than any argument from the scientific evidence. It was for me. So Richard, from all of us that have traveled this journey, thanks.

    I will continue to watch the feeds and other sources for information on Dr. [tag]Richard Colling[/tag].

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/26/07

    Well, this is rather quick for another round, but there have been some more good posts I’d like to call attention to.

    • Aetiology has a good post and updates on the community college teacher fired apparently for calling the early chapters of Genesis a myth. I referred to this event in an earlier post
    • I found this post at The Questionable Authority very helpful in understanding fossilization and its relation to reconstructing the history of organisms. The principles are very similar to those in archeology, and make good sense to me.
    • Ed Brayton has this article on the Louisiana Family Forum to which Louisiana senator [tag]David Vitter[/tag] wants to give some of your tax money. It appears there are less savory activities than employing the services of prostitutes, such as taking your money and giving it to groups that will use it to harm your children’s education..
    • A post from Florida Citizens for Science reports that Cheri Yecke is in the top three for the Florida Education commissioner job. I have blogged previously on why she should not be selected.

  • Defining my Position on ID and Creation

    A couple of questions have arisen about my position on these issues, and though I’ve stated all these things before, they have generally been in longer presentations. So I’m going to try to state my position.

    I see three easily demarcated positions on design:

    1. The universe is designed as a fully functional system, and the origin and diversification of life can be explained by natural processes within that universe. A theist in this sense believes God created the universe, but is not required to interfere.
    2. The universe was established in such a way that a particular result would occur through apparently natural processes. This is an approximation of “front-loading” which some equate to intelligent design.
    3. The origin or life and/or its diversification cannot be explained by solely natural processes. The designer (God, despite claims to the contrary) interferes at particular points. This is the ID position, and is the one I was addressing in my post The Common Thread in Modern Creationism yesterday.

    The second option might be divided between those who think God’s interference can be detected, and those who don’t, but I don’t think that is of great consequence for my purposes here.

    When I say that I believe the universe is designed, I mean in the sense of #1. God ordained the universe to exist, including the natural processes of variation by whatever means and natural selection, and that is an adequate explanation. I do not mean that variation and natural selection explain everything, but other elements to the explanation will also be natural. My statement that the universe is designed is in no sense a scientific statement. I’m not a biologist. I am not professionally involved in any of the natural sciences. I’m a Bible teacher. That statement is theological and faith based.

    I do not exclude the possibility of option #2, but I have no expectation that God’s action will ever be detected, and I see no difference between completely indetectible (even in principle) interference and no interference at all. Certainly one can never actually know in an objective sense.

    I think there is a strong desire to find this interference, either through front-loading or through ongoing interference because there is a desire in Christian theology to believe that the existence not just of life, but of intelligence, and specifically human intelligence was foreordained. I do not believe that must be the case. Should intelligence appear on another plant in an arthropod form, I would regard that creature to equally bear the image of God.

    I believe the universe is bigger, less predictable, and more risky than we in the theological world have ever believed. On this topic I would commend to your attention the book God after Darwin by John Haught.

  • The Common Thread in Modern Creationism

    It’s hard for me to work with the terms “creationist,” “creationism,” and “evolutionist,” because if I’m completely honest I consider myself to be a creationist who accepts the theory of evolution. The two do not clash in my mind in any way. The term “evolutionist” seems to suggest that I accept evolution as some sort of philosophy of everything, which I do not. I accept gravity, but do not call myself a gravitationist. I accept creation, but to call myself a creationist would invite confusion with the likes of [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag], a fate diligently to be avoided.

    When I teach comparative literature, which is much closer to my own field of study than biological evolution, I always remind students that in order to produce valid comparisons, one must consider both the similarities and the differences. If one ignores differences, one can make very dissimilar things appear almost identical. The reverse is also true.

    Thus I do have some problem with those who call intelligent design merely “warmed over creationism,” if by creationism. There are differences as well as similarities, though most of the differences appears in the presentation, not in the substance, and one of the major differences is that ID tries to say so much less than either young or [tag]old earth creationism[/tag].

    But there is a common thread between all of these varieties of creationism, including ID, and it was illustrated by Dembski’s comments on the flagellum at the University of Oklahoma, discussed here by Dr. Philipp Klebba, here at ERV, and also at The Panda’s Thumb.

    The key point in which I am interested was made in the Panda’s Thumb article:

    Klebba’s relentless questions forced Dembski to admit that

    … [N]o amount of detail would ever convince him of evolution. No matter how much evidence you had, he wanted ‘evidence + 1’. I shit you not, Dembski retreated to the YES [sic/YEC] fossil defense– For every fossil you find, you create two more gaps. Dembski modified this to for every step in the evolutionary process science discovers, it creates two more half-steps to explain. He even pulled a classic-quack move, and made a plea to quantum mechanics.

    And here is my major point. The common thread through the three varieties of creationism is that they are all looking for the break in the natural processes of variation and natural selection such that God must intervene in the natural processes in some way. Whether that intervention is at the biochemical level or whether it deals specifically with speciation events, there needs to be a gap showing where God is “necessary” to the universe.

    In contrast, as a “creationist” who accepts the theory of evolution, I believe that the entire universe is designed. That universal design is the biggest problem there is for IDC, because IDC requires places that are less and more designed so they can detect the differences. IDC doesn’t try to demonstrate that the universe is designed, as many people, especially Christians, believe it does. Rather, it is attempting to prove a variation in God’s involvement.

    Of course Dembski will not admit an evolutionary pathway no matter how many steps you discover. Why? Because that would mean totally abandoning everything he has worked for. If all the animals truly are equal, and none are more equal than others, then what is there for Dembski and his ilk to detect? The field is different, but the method is the same as the constant attack on new fossil discoveries by the young earth crowd. One new specimen, in their propaganda, simply means two new gaps that must be filled. And of course they have no similar requirement to fulfill.

    When the United States set out to send a man to the moon, there were those who believed it couldn’t be done. Their task was very easy–just say “no!” The folks who went to the moon, and those who made that trip possible had a much harder task. They had to actually produce the appropriate hardware and make the trip.

    Scientists are faced with a similar situation with IDC. They must fill in every gap, while the ID crowd stands by and announces that they can’t. Every time they fill one in, someone mentions how many more there are to fill in. But the only people who are actually doing anything are the working scientists who are filling those gaps, and of course making two more in the process. Because that is what scientists do. They make discoveries, but almost always a discovery simply opens up a whole new array of things we don’t know. That is the strength of science, and it is also what IDC tries to present as its weakness.

    I understand the desire to find God’s fingerprint in nature, a desire shared by all these branches of creation. But that search involves finding holes in God’s creation, places where it didn’t quite work. No matter how much you change the field of study, the method is still going to look very similar, as [tag]Bill Dembski[/tag] showed at the University of Oklahoma.

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/24/07

    Here are a few links related to the creation-evolution controversy that I saw over the weekend, with only short comments.

    • Besides consorting with prostitutes and lying about it, Senator [tag]David Vitter[/Tag] of Louisiana appears to have taken up the cause of federal funding for creationists. Now we not only get to have our public school science curriculum corrupted, we get to pay those who corrupt it.
    • Some followers of convicted felon and creationist [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag] would like to prevent his videos from appearing on YouTube.
    • Case Luskin appears unable to comprehend that just because some materialists are evolutionists does not mean that all evolutionists are materialists. I know logic is tough, Casey, but give it a try. (HT: The Panda’s Thumb.)

    I’ve got a couple more, but I want to comment on them a bit more extensively.

  • Danger in Silence

    There’s an excellent, thoughtful post on An Evangelical Dialog on Evolution, titled When the Acceptance of Biological Evolution has Personal or Professional Repercussions.

    I think this strikes closer home to those who are evangelicals in the United States, because their institutions are more likely to be subject to fundamentalist pressure on the issue of [tag]evolution[/tag]. Let’s face it, United Methodist schools like Emory, SMU, or Duke are not likely to be subject to this kind of pressure from the right–pressure from the left is more likely there.

    But I do think that silence on controversial issues is dangerous. It allows people to assume that you believe something you don’t, and can deny cover and fellowship to someone who might be forced to take a stand on things about which you are keeping silent.

    I must add the balancing point, however. There are so many controversial issues, and so many outrages committed in the world that to comment on all of them is quite impossible. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution can each keep a Christian writer busy full time simply answering angry comments, leaving little time for anything else.

    On balance, however, I suggest that speaking up is most often appropriate, even if it is only to let people know where you stand without getting fully involved in debate.