Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Theistic Evolution

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • Making the World Make Itself

    PamBG quotes a letter that using some wonderful phraseology with regard to the process of creation, but also related to theodicy. I can’t access the letter itself due to a subscription requirement, but the part Pam quotes is quite good.

    I like these two sentences particularly well:

    Suppose instead that he made the world make itself.

    . . .

    Be the incarnation suggests that, in Jesus, God knew by experience, not just observation, what it was to be rejected, and hunted down; . . .

    Yes!

  • Blogroll: Geocreationism.com

    Having decided to blog a couple of times per week about my blogroll, I’m going to start with a site I just added, Geocreationism.com. If you’ve been following this blog for any period of time, you will have noticed occasional comments from Geocreationist, and this is his blog.

    I have a couple of reasons for including it. First, he disagree with a number of positions I take, but is open to dialog. That’s an excellent start. Second, his position on creation and evolution illustrates one of my key contentions: This is not a black and white issue in which there are only two sides. One of the defining features of the moderate position, as I see it, is refusing to be held to a choice of extremes. That’s why moderates are frequently very annoying to extremists–we refuse to get stuck with only two options. Sometimes even if you give us A, B, C, and D, we want E-none of the above.

    Before I go to a particular post, let me look at Geocreationism’s subtitle: Geocreationism – Showing harmony between mainstream science and scripture. It’s very easy to forget that when we look at the interaction between science and scripture that both sides can vary. One can differ on a view of science or of a particular scientific theory, or one can differ on the interpretation of scripture. Any type of reconciliation or harmony involves both. This subtitle is one I would not use, for example, because I don’t think there is any need for harmony simply because I don’t believe science and scripture address the same questions. There are occasional overlaps, but these are incidental, I think. This is one of the issues for Christians. Just what is scripture trying to address, and in what way does it address it?

    We’ll see some of this in action in a recent post, “Evidence for Creation” (Review) – Ground Rules for the Review. Geocreationist is reviewing Tom DeRosa’s book Evidence for Creation – Intelligent Answers for Open Minds. In laying out his own ground rules he distinguishes what he calls “Darwinian evolution” and “Theistic Evolution.” He defines Darwinian evolution as largely equivalent to atheistic evolution, though he sees little difference between that and the various deistic views.

    He contrasts theistic evolution, in which he says that God not only starts everything, but “He started every wave of Evolution as well.” In his view, God is still distant in this view of theistic evolution, and thus he presents his own third view: geocreationism, or geocreationist theistic evolution. In this case, God is continually present and concerned. I’ll have to read more to see how this impacts the process along the way.

    Now I must say that this terminology is somewhat surprising to me. For example, evolution occurring in waves with God starting each wave sounds very much like old earth creationism to me. Further, Geocreationist describes his view in this way: “Evolution would occur with our without the randomness, as long as God remains involved; remove God however, and the randomness would not be enough.” That latter view sounds somewhat like ID or “guided evolution” to me, depending on how one fills in the details.

    If I’m reading all of this correctly, I’m going to fall into the “Darwinian evolution” camp. My problem with being placed there is that I don’t think God is distant. For each and every law of nature I believe we can say it happens “because God.” In other words God wills gravity, and should he stop willing it, there would be no gravity. Not to worry, however, he’s pretty fond of gravity. God also wills variation and natural selection, and those produce certain types of order according to that law. Remove God and you remove everything.

    Now I know that there are some views that allow for indetectible divine intervention, but I’m not particularly interested at the moment in things that are even theoretically indetectible. I believe that God creates the laws, i.e. the system, which in turn produces everything that we see. God can intervene, but he would do so because he wants to, primarily because he wants to communicate with these weird creatures who have come into being.

    I have one further comment initial comment. Geocreationist appears to be looking for at least an historical outline in the Genesis accounts. I think this is doomed to be a disappointing search in the long run. I do not believe that the literature involved was written with the intent to provide a narrative history of anything, but rather to express God’s relationship to creation using the cosmology and symbolic language of the time. I will blog more on it as time goes on, but I have found that everything tends to fit quite nicely when read in that context.

  • Random Designer Wrap-Up

    I found the last several chapters of Random Designer quite attractive, I think partially because I’m from a Wesleyan background. We cross the “somehow” barrier and find that human beings, by whatever means that was accomplished, want to connect with their creator. In chapter 20, this is presented as “A Choice and a Chance.” The following quote (also used as an inset quote in the book) gives the flavor:

    An intimate, meaningful, and fulfilling relationship cannot be required. It can only be offered! Without the possibility of rejection, there is no opportunity for meaningful connection.

    Here I think Dr. Colling gets into one of the key potentials involved in looking at humanity from an evolutionary perspective, yet doing so as a theist, though I don’t know if he would go as far as I do. God takes risks by being the Random Designer instead of the complete dictator. There is the risk inherent in creation itself. Just what type of creature will arise that will think and connect? There is also the risk inherent in relationship. Will the person who seeks a relationship with God become a better person, or will he use the “specialness” of that relationship as an excuse to lord it over others? My own answers thus tend toward an “openness of God” theology. (Please be certain to distinguish my commentary here from Dr. Colling’s. Dr. Colling does not embrace the openness of God theology in the text.)

    Chapter 21, God’s Will: A Confusing Concept Becomes Crystal Clear promises clarity on a difficult topic, and here I have to express a bit of amusement. In general, once we come to an understanding of an issue, we think it’s crystal clear. I get caught here too. When teaching classes on the book of Revelation, I will inevitably be asked about some commentary in which the author says he has worked out the meaning of Revelation and it’s really very simple. I can point out that I have a row of commentaries on Revelation and several of them make a similar claim, yet do not agree on the meaning! So there are at least half a dozen crystal clear meanings to the book of Revelation.

    Understanding God’s will is rather similar, I believe. While I actually like Dr. Colling’s explanation, and I think he points in the right direction at least, it would probably take only a few minutes in a room with a Calvinist to get it all pretty confused again. Of course both Calvinist and Arminian would leave with a clear understanding–just different clear understandings.

    The chapter content is good. I think the subtitle is perhaps a bit optimistic, but then those who have no optimism don’t write books!

    Chapter 22, the rewards of perseverance builds on the spiritual view of humanity, while chapter 23 introduces the concept of “higher order random design.” I am not going to try to summarize this one. The key example is to be found in the human immune system. I think I followed it, but I am uncertain I can express it again myself. It does indeed express again the way in which randomness can produce order and design.

    Chapter 24 takes a step out into the unknown by suggesting that the genome may be as loaded as is possible and that we may well not move to greater complexity than human beings. It’s an interesting point, but one which I am woefully unqualified to analyze.

    Finally, chapter 25 deals with the call to relationship with the creator again. The form of expression and the theology here is very comfortable for me as it coincides closely with my own.

    Wrap-Up!

    This is the first time I have tried to blog through a book rather than read it completely and then write a few short notes or attempt a review. I see advantages and disadvantages. In once case, I re-read a section and commented on it further due to readers’ remarks. I think that second read had some value. So much for the process.

    What do I think of the book overall? I regard the first section as one of the best explanations of the basics of evolutionary theory for a layman that I have read. It does not involve the detail that a book like What Evolution Is includes, nor does it have the spice of Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, but it has substantial advantages too.

    First, I think it makes clear both the complexity of life and the power of the “random design” concept. Variation + Natural selection works. Dr. Colling is not afraid to look at abiogenesis and give us an idea of where the science is there as well. I think it is quite appropriate to separate abiogenesis from the biological theory of evolution for many purposes. At the same time, for many people the origin of life is the major question.

    Second, Dr. Colling is clearly an excellent teacher, and can explain complex processes simply. He apologizes to his colleagues in the scientific community for the extent to which he will simplify, and having read other materials, I know he is simplifying considerably, yet I do believe he gives an overall excellent picture. When looking at the forest one might misidentify a tree or two while still getting the shape of the forest.

    Third, Dr. Colling is talking about evolution in theistic terms, even when he is not talking about divine intervention. The recognition of God as the creator, and more precisely of God as the Random Designer underlies the entire book. The science is not divorced from theology, though science and theology are each given their spheres, their separate identity and their separate subject matter.

    Finally, these earlier points mean that this is a book for Christians and other theists who want to understand how one can still perceive God in an evolving world, as well as for those who want to understand how a theist can possibly manage that. One of my responses to the claim that nobody can be a theistic evolutionist is simply: And yet here I am. Well, now “here’s Dr. Richard Colling.” The second half of the book is a more explicit expression of the Christian faith that was always present even in the first half.

    One thing that struck me throughout was the basic honesty of this whole book. We have intelligent design proponents trying to pretend to do science without identifying their intelligent designer. Dr. Colling is unafraid to state from the start who he means by the Random Designer. That freedom comes with a lack of ulterior motives. This isn’t a sneaky way to get a specific type of “random design theory” into high school classrooms. It’s simply an expression of how one scientist who is also a man of faith sees God in random design.

    I would strongly recommend this book for any Christian who is considering the creation-evolution controversy, and also for anyone who wants to understand where many people of faith stand in terms of the relationship between science and theology. It is clear, informative, and challenging. I can’t ask for much more in a book!

  • Random Designer VI – Take 2

    After some comments that followed my post Random Designer VI, I decided to go back and re-read those chapters to try to make sure I was reading Dr. Colling correctly. I have also finished reading the book and thus am no longer in danger of responding to something which will be clarified in later chapters.

    I want to emphasize that I believe Dr. Colling is full orthodox in his expression of Christian faith in these chapters. The problem comes in when he tries to express how the material in the first part of the book, in which he has expressed a purely natural view of the evolution of life on earth, from abiogenesis through human beings. Human beings, by this account, are biologically related to all other life forms. Now while he expresses a natural view of evolution, God is always on the horizon, as the source of the laws and processes that are involved.

    When he turns to the relationship between God and these people who have involved, we have what appears to be a disconnect. Somehow we have been created to connect with our creator, at the same time as we have evolved as biological entities. I think that the place where many people have a disconnect with evolution is right there, with the word “somehow.” (“Somehow” is my term, but I believe the gap exists in the book as well.)

    I can’t blame some people from taking my description as expressing an unjustified dualism. God kind of pops in and makes man special at the very last moment, so we have an act of spiritual, not physical creation. But Dr. Colling doesn’t express it that way in the book. That element results from my abbreviation of the story. It’s true that he does not propose any sort of detail in terms of how God would accomplish that goal, but in so doing he seems to leave the “how” question here open. There’s this human creature that evolves, and then he desires to be in connection with his creator, the “Random Designer.” How did this happen? Well, we’re not precisely sure. Dr. Colling provides some metaphors.

    In a sense I’m much less excited with the second half of the book than I was with the first. Don’t take that as sharp criticism. I’m ecstatic about the quality of the first part, and it would be some accomplishment to keep me that excited about the second part as well.

    The first thing I would like to see is some better connection between evolutionary theory and the Genesis account, i.e. some explicit discussion of the scriptural passages. Dr. Colling does not do that. There’s an excellent excuse, in that one wants to keep a book like this to a reasonable length. But of the many hundreds of questions I’ve been asked regarding evolution, that is always the first one–how can I believe in evolution and read Genesis? Indeed, I recall me teacher in elementary school (during the 4 years out of my first 12 I was not homeschooled) informing me that we memorized Genesis 1 & 2 (and we did, every word in the KJV), because it would then be so ingrained in our minds that we would never accept evolution. Nonetheless is is not surprising that there is not extended discussion of these issues. One could write a separate book on that topic.

    The second issue is in dealing with the image of God, what it is, and how one gets the image of God. Perhaps someone whose training is primarily theological (or more precisely in Biblical studies/languages) would be hungry for more detailed theological integration of the material about humanity, where we fit, and how we connect with God. But despite a good deal of discussion, I still feel the “somehow” gap.

    For a non-theologian, Dr. Colling does a good job tackling the issues involved. I’m wondering, however, if there are not more theologians to the more conservative end of the spectrum who would look at this. We do have some good scientists from the evangelical camp working on it, and they are generally pretty good at theology, but I haven’t seen much in the way of solid work on science and religion from the evangelical side. This may reflect my reading habits more than availability of the material. I would welcome comments on what is available.

    From my own perspective, John Haught does quite an excellent job, but I’m not so sure that this would satisfy those in the evangelical community.

    As a final note, I personally believe that the creator would enter into communion with any creature who developed consciousness. I think it highly likely that he does so with many, many creatures elsewhere in the universe. I don’t think anything special is needed except God’s willingness to communicate. I think it is inevitable that if this universe is contingent, and thus there is a creator, that we would reach out to that creator. Thus I don’t envision any separate, special act of creation. That may, however, be too far out there for some of my more conservative brethren.

    I will finish this series with one more post on the final chapters of the book. I do intend to recommend it strongly. It’s a great contribution to Christian understanding of the theory of evolution.

  • Random Designer VI

    Chapter 16 of Random Designer turns a bit of a corner, though it is a logical progression. I get the impression that some of the non-Christian readers will turn aside at this point, as Dr. Colling progresses into the theological. The chapter titles are “Created for Connection,” “Cosmic Loneliness,” “Where is God, Really?,” and “Embedded Files.”

    I don’t mean that this negatively, but we need to be clear that this book looks at the science of origins from a Christian perspective. There’s nothing wrong with making extrapolations that go beyond what can be scientifically tested, so long as they don’t involve putting a stop sign in the road. It is important, however, to remember just where we crossed the border.

    Dr. Colling starts his answer to the question of purpose in these chapters. I am again afraid to summarize, because it is very easy to misunderstand these things, and is even more so when someone tries to summarize. I’m going to have to make some generalizations, however.

    These chapters address the question of whether God, as random designer, has created human beings for the purpose of connection. Since Dr. Colling has already told us that humanity is biologically fully related to other animals, just how does this work? He suggests that the answer to the question of where God is, is right inside our minds. I may be doing the explanation a disservice, but it seems very similar to saying that we have a spiritual nature that coexists with our biological nature, somethings known as the presence of a soul, combined with God within us. This is not as a natural part of us, but rather something from outside.

    While some philosophers such as Daniel Dennet explain human conscience and spiritual inclinations entirely on evolutionary grounds, and others would try to deny biology its role, Dr. Colling suggests a dual role for these functions. Yes, they can be selected for biologically. Altruism, for example, plays a role in the survival of population. But for him they also provide part of a connection between us and God.

    I may modify my own response here as I read, but I sense that my own theology on this leaves God a little bit more distant. I would not suggest that humanity is the specifically intended product of evolution, but rather that just as you will likely get life if you have enough planets with the right conditions you will also get intelligence in a certain number of cases. My theology then suggests that God would reach out to any such creatures. We are special in that we have those characteristics, but I stick with the concept of randomness in terms of where and when such a thing would happen.

    I’m glad Dr. Colling is reading this series of blogs, because he can correct me if I’ve misunderstood him, or simply misrepresented him inadvertently. I find his approach to this intriguing.

    In my next post we’ll be continuing with chapter 20. “A Choice or a Chance.”

  • Random Designer V

    With my previous post I completed reading the first section of Random Designer. Up to this point, while we have been touching on faith, the primary purpose of the material was to outline what evolution is, and the areas and strength of evidence for it. Obviously, in any reasonable sized book, Dr. Colling could not actually cover all the evidence, but he does provide us with the categories and with overviews.

    Having established that evolution is based on overwhelming evidence, he begins to look at how evolution relates to faith, primarily to Christian faith, though he does cover other elements. As I read it, however, the links have been established in the earlier chapters. Essentially, as a Christian reader, I have already been presented with the choice between the Random Designer, who created a universe with natural processes that would produce the variety of life we now know, and a “tinkering God” (my phrase) who does it all in detail. The overwhelming evidence of the world around us tells us that God is the Random Designer and not the tinkerer.

    Of course, any reader of this blog knows my choice. I already accepted the Random Designer before I read the book by that name, though I didn’t have that good of a name for him! Many Christians, however, will feel that there are many problems left open. For some it will feel as though they are being told that their faith, and particularly their Bible is absolutely wrong, and that they must make a choice between faith and science. I suspect that in that case many would choose their faith.

    But no such stark choice is presented. What Dr. Colling invites readers to do is to expand their understanding of God, and to see the beauty of the plan of creation which is revealed by science. To put this in my own words, we need to look at our faith and see where it can be improved and strengthened by what God has revealed in the natural world. Since both the natural world and scriptures are said by Christian doctrine to result from (or be) God’s word, we should find value in both.

    From the introduction to Part II:

    The problem, as I see it, is that we tend to squeeze God into small rigid boxes of our own making to keep Him conceptually consistent with our traditional religious beliefs. Unfortunately, this approach to religious faith is fraught with liability because it prevents God from truly being God–a creator capable of using any means He chooses for His creation. [emphasis in original]

    Now technically in Christian theology we can say that when one source of revelation (the Bible), conflicts with another, we can examine what we know from either. In other words, if science contradicts the Bible, one can check one’s science, or one can check one’s understanding of the Bible, or both. I would suggest its more important to check which one is the appropriate source for a particular type of information, but I’m using a more traditional formulation.

    In the case of evolution, however, we’ve seen that the evidence is overwhelming, and thus we have to look back at our faith, assuming that we’ve made some form of unscientific view of origins part of that faith, and we have to see where this really does fit. If we do so, I think we’re in for an enlightening journey. In Random Designer, that begins with chapter 12, “Who is Adam? The Birth of Humanity.” This chapter basically goes from biological development to consciousness, remaining with the basic claim that humans are biologically fully related to the rest of creation, but nonetheless looking at what sets us apart from other creatures on earth.

    Chapter 13 expands on consciousness and discusses our perception and cognitive abilities. I really can’t summarize it. It’s already short enough! Chapter 14, “An Honest Faith” talks about the problems of credibility and the importance of honestly admitting and addressing the evidence. He notes that the conclusion that there is a Master Designer, or God, is not a scientific conclusion. He is enlightened in forming that conclusion by science, but it is not something to be scientifically demonstrated.

    Chapter 15 then talks about the image of God. This is one of those very hard questions to deal with, because so many Christians attach the concept of God’s image to something physical. Often people who will deny it when asked directly, still think as though there is something physical about God’s image. But the concept of a Random Designer need not contradict the idea of God’s image in humanity; in fact, it can link with it very well.

    I’ll continue in my next post with chapter 16.

  • Intelligent Design and Faith

    An interesting discussion broke out in the comments to this post on The Panda’s Thumb, regarding the nature of faith and how intelligent design relates to faith. On the one hand we have some who hold that anything that provides evidence for God works contrary to faith, i.e. the purest faith is based on no evidence whatsoever. On the other we have the claim that faith is largely trust rather than belief, and thus that the issue is irrelevant.

    I’ve written a number of posts on theological problems with intelligent design (ID), and I have tried to stay general for the most part. What are the theological problems with ID that would be recognized by most theologians? What are the hidden problems, if any, that would be of concern to a variety of Christians? I recognize that there are very few things one can criticize in theology without reference to a particular theology, but I have tried to address the broadest base possible.

    In this post, however, I’m speaking directly from my own theology, which is moderate to liberal Christian. To anchor the discussion, what does that mean? Well, I’m a Christian believer who accepts such central doctrines of Christianity as the incarnation and the Trinity. I can say the apostles creed without crossing my fingers, but I’m not rigid on the details of interpretation. When I say “I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth” I see myself in fellowship with a range of beliefs about how God accomplished this creation. When I say that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose the third day, I’m not extremely tense about just how one believes that accomplishes salvation.

    Hidden in that short statement is the idea that I accept the possibility of divine intervention in the physical universe. While “Trinity” may be seen as language for us limited mortals to use in talking about God, a reality that would probably be shocking if we could actually come to comprehend it, “incarnation” involves intervention. God, in some way, becomes more part of his creation in this one person than at any other time or place. My observation is that in most miracle claims the issue is communication, rather than an alteration of reality. In other words, I don’t believe that God intervenes generally to do things all the way from emptying parking places for people to eliminating or preventing the results of a madman like Adolph Hitler. (I’ve addressed the issue of why this would be so briefly in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. I’ve also discussed the notion of miracles more extensively in my series of essays on the Hand of God, part 1, part 2, and part 3.)

    The key element here is that God created a universe that is functional, and that God lets that universe function according to consistent, observable rules as much as possible. I think at a minimum we can observe that God doesn’t intervene on a constant and regular basis in our daily lives. If God behaved in that way, one could get much clearer results from all these “prayer studies.” If God consistently altered the general chain of cause and effect for believers, all you would have to do would be to separate a group of believers from a group of non-believers (including those who believe differently than your target group), and watch what God does. While there may be statistical arguments about God’s intervention based on studies of prayer at a distance, unknown to those who are prayed for, those are marginal numbers. No study suggests that every Christian in the group, for example, is healed, or that everyone prayed for by a Christian is healed.

    I’m not saying here that nobody is healed as a result of prayer–I’m remaining agnostic on that point for purposes of this essay. What I think the evidence demonstrates quite clearly is that there is no regular, predictable form of intervention going on. This can be a critical point. I know of quite a number of people who believe that if a believer prays for something and has faith, that thing will happen. This is especially asserted in terms of healing. The excuses, of course, are always with us. If someone is not healed, someone didn’t pray with enough faith. Some would say that if a group prays for someone’s healing and one person in the group lacks faith, then the healing won’t take place. As a result, it’s hard to present airtight counterexamples. But if you look at the general picture, there are many people praying and believing, and relatively few people getting better. The data certainly counterindicates a consistently favorable result.

    (more…)

  • Random Designer I

    A while back I blogged a bit about Richard Colling, an evangelical Christian, microbiologist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. The major item of controversy at the time was his book, Random Designer, which seeks to combine his Christian faith with his acceptance of evolution.

    I’m going to blog my way through his book, because I think he expresses some important points for Christians who are considering how to respond to the issues raised by evolution and other scientific discoveries on the one hand and their understanding of scripture on the other. Dr. Colling is exceptionally well qualified to comment on these issues.

    In this first post I just want to make some general remarks on his introduction. I share some experiences with Dr. Colling in encountering and dealing with the issue of evolution in a church environment. As I understand his theology, he comes from a Wesleyan background, and teaches at Olivet Nazarene University, thus Wesleyan theology provides some connection

    But to a large extent we come at this from completely different perspectives which makes this very interesting reading. He encountered creationism in a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist at the University of Kansas, and was shocked at the poor arguments presented by the creationist (p. 6). I was a convinced young earth creationist until I encountered material on evolution and started to compare the quality with the creationist literature I’d grown up on. There was simply no comparison.

    The following quote gives the flavor:

    This book, then, contains the ideas and perspectives of one broadly trained scientist who is not satisfied with religious platitudes or scientific dogma. I am just like you, attempting to fit the pieces together. The goal is straightforward–to develop a personal faith and cultivate a close connection with God, while at the same time fully acknowledging the scientific laws and processes that plainly govern our existence. [emphasis in original]

    I think this provides a valuable perspective for Christians. It is also hardly threatening. I will make a more complete evaluation as I continue reading, but thus far this looks like an excellent book to put into the hands of someone who is seriously asking questions about this issue.

    On pages 16-17, in discussing science and faith, Dr. Colling makes a strong case for teaching evolution in public schools saying that it is “an integral component of biology.” He also emphasizes that evolution and atheism are not necessarily connected. “The problem arises,” he says, “when the interpretation and meanings of evolution are extended too far.”

    At the conclusion of chapter 2, Dr. Colling has laid out the claim that evolution is not necessarily theistic or atheistic; those conclusions go beyond the actual science involved.

    When next I blog, I’ll be looking at chapter 2, in which he discusses thermodynamics in a way that is very accessible to lay people. For all those who think the 2nd law means that evolution is impossible, Dr. Colling would disagree–he says that the 2nd law is essential to evolution.

  • Review of The Language of God

    No, not here, and not by me, but my Marc Wagner on the Spectrum Magazine web site. Spectrum Magazine is the journal of the Association of Adventist Forums.

    The reason I want to call special attention to this review is that it reflects some of my own background. I grew up as an SDA and young earth creationist. It was not in studying skulls, but rather in studying the history of the Biblical text that I began to see some other options.