…much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. The argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood.
— Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin, quoted by Vern Poythress
The authors of this book are very straightforward about the assumptions underlying their approach to science: they believe the Bible is true and authoritative, that it should be interpreted literally, and that it should inform every aspect of one’s life, including forming your paradigm for approaching science. Even if you disagree with their starting points (or conclusions), it’s refreshing to hear scientists articulate their a priori assumptions so clearly and unashamedly from the get-go. I wish everyone in this debate would do so. There is, in truth, no such thing as totally neutral science.
The most valuable lesson that any reader can take away from this book, whether he is sympathetic to it’s viewpoint or not, is the recognition that paradigms are integral to one’s view on any subject. Paradigms provide the entire intellectual framework for how one evaluates data and what “makes sense” to classify something as reasonable or not. In other words, paradigms provide a context for understanding the world. They are inescapable, but they are often unrecognized. For more, see Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Anyway, in the paradigm of these researchers, the history in Genesis is all true, the Flood really happened, and the Tower of Babel was the source of human civilization’s spread throughout the globe. If you accept this premise and work your way outward from it, the book argues, all of a sudden a lot of otherwise unexplainable historical anomalies make sense and find a place in science and history. The modern naturalistic evolutionary worldview, which assumes a linear progression of human cultural development over millions of years, cannot account for the evidence of advanced civilization at many of the places in history that we find it, nor can it make sense of the similarities among ancient cultures that arose—apparently independently—thousands of miles apart, separated by oceans and continents. For example, there are scores of ancient architectural works that today’s scientists still can’t explain how they were built because the degree of advanced knowledge and understanding required is far ahead of what the evolutionary paradigm allows for. Another example is the commonality of various creation myths and religious laws. If Babel is true, and if this diaspora was indeed the headwater of a global expansion of highly civilized man, these commonalities make sense.
This book was obviously prepared by a team of college students overseen by one or more professors. The voice and writing quality varied by chapter. I also found some pretty unforgivable typos. This may be nit-picky, but a book about rigorous and intellectually honest science should set the bar high.
This book is neither a comprehensive defense of creationism nor a complete dismantling of evolution. It’s simply an exploration of an sideline approach to some of the issues involved, and an exposition of how a different paradigm from the “mainstream scientific consensus” can explain the otherwise unexplainable. It definitely stretched my thinking
This is an excellent summary of the various positions within Christianity. The author’s conclusion:
In the end, I believe that the best anyone can do is lean in one direction or another. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.
This last Friday I had the privilege of debating David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association. The debate was sponsored by the fine folks in the Federalist Society at Liberty University Law School. We were debating whether Christianity or humanism provided the better path for culture, law, politics, and so forth. I was advocating, natch, mere Christendom.
Mr. Niose, who struck me as a very nice man, said in the course of the debate that the Bible was a tired and ancient book, with a bunch of irrelevant laws, citing as one example the Old Testament prohibition of eating shellfish. In my reply, I pointed to the stark alternative this presented — a faith in which the adherents were at one time prohibited from eating shellfish, and on the other hand a faith in which the adherents used to be shellfish.
My friend Ard Louis, an Oxford physicist who studies protein folding, once compared the origin of life in terms of children’s toys. Find cars and spaceships made out of Legos, he told me, and you’ll be impressed. (And so I will be, having boys who do brilliant things with Legos.) But come into a room and find Legos snapping themselves into complex, coherent shapes, and the wonder is all the greater. Thus evolution itself is (he believes) a subtler but ultimately more impressive expression of God’s creative activity than direct design would be.
In this landmark work, based on his 2009 Gifford lectures, Alister McGrath examines the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe and its significance for natural theology. Exploring a wide range of physical and biological phenomena and drawing on the latest research in biochemistry and evolutionary biology, McGrath outlines our new understanding of the natural world and discusses its implications for traditional debates about the existence of God.
For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumbs could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this stage for ages before it became man: it may have even been clever enough to make things which a clever archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes where directed to purely material and natural ends. Then in fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that is could perceive time flowing past. … We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods. … They wanted some corner in the universe in which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were and must eternally be, mere adjectives. We have no idea what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.
“The idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past… The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.”
I have an easier time relating to and discoursing with atheists who admit that theirs is a faith-system as much as mine.
i often forget that Jesus never calls me to convert others but to love them.
I dislike this fabricated dichotomy between proving and believing. I prefer reasonable to unreasonable. There are many things that are unproven but which are reasonable and coherent. Most scientific “laws” are in fact theorems, technically unproven, yet also not dis-proven and which make sense and withstand various testing methodologies. Gravity is not really a proven fact.
I submit that the theory of evolution as a description for how the earth progressed is neither inherently atheistic nor inherently unreasonable. Yes, most (many?) of its intellectual/scientific adherents and advocates are atheists, but that doesn’t meant the concept itself is anti-god. Yes, there are unfilled holes in the theory. Yes, there are certain major tenets that are held on faith because, obviously, they have not been observed and thus do not fully adhere to the scientific method. Yet there are many reasons to believe the animal life evolved: the messy state of our DNA, for example. It’s a total disaster—a conglomeration of random, unnecessary strands and leftover bits of data as the body as developed and moved on. It does not appear to have been constructed with very specific end result in mind, let alone reflect a blueprint for a day-length project. The point is that there are other observable indicators that make the conclusion (or hypothesis) that life evolved reasonable.
What is indeed atheistic is the concept of natural selection—the idea that the steps of evolution occurred blindly. While evolution is (in my opinion) evidently reasonable, natural selection is unreasonable. The math simply doesn’t work. And if it could, even the greatest projections for the age of the universe don’t come close to the amount of time necessary for natural selection to have worked its magic. It’s simply more reasonable to believe that an intelligence guided the evolutionary process than to attribute it to natural selection. (h/t Michael Behe’s excellent book The Edge of Evolution)
But remember, it’s not the order of parts coming together or the amount of time they took that confers moral worth on humanity. That still belongs to God alone, without whom we have no basis to claim moral worth.
So do not fear, non-evolutionists. Even if evolution is true, God is still quite necessary for it to be rational as a scientific theory and as a source of morality.
Creationism is attractive because it’s easy: it requires no thought and blind obedience. Thus, it has no value. But it is easy. My guess is that most of the people who don’t think evolution is true don’t really spend a lot of time thinking about evolution at all.
I’m going to be very honest and at risk of attack here, but I don’t care. I repeat: I SERIOUSLY don’t care whether or not you think my opinions on evolution or creation are the “correct” opinions. (Sidenote- adding to the discourse via open-minded, nonjudgemental ideas are fine.)
Okay, so, creation is actually the one thing that keeps me hanging on to agnosticism rather than becoming a full-on atheist. Life is just too much for me to chalk it all up to chance without serious thought. For the sake of real honesty, evolution doesn’t sound that smart to me either. If we’ve all evolved from apes, then why did we stop evolving? Let’s face it, in today’s society, I could use a 3rd arm… and evolution is letting me down.
Obviously I speak somewhat in jest, but to make a point. Why haven’t apes in the Congo learned to use guns yet? Or turn green for camouflage? Did life decide it was “good enough”? Or did it just give up?
I’m fine with not being sure, and I’m fine with not knowing everything. The sense of peace you get from letting go of the quest for omniscience is overwhelming. I’m not trying to win a game, I’m trying to enjoy myself. I can be in awe of my cat batting a cotton ball across the floor without knowing anything for sure.
Basically, I don’t think either side has all that convincing of an argument. Statements like the above, from die hard evolutionists, are equally as off-putting to me as fundamentalist Christians. No one likes a know-it-all, so chill. “[You] don’t spend a lot of time thinking” is such an arrogant statement. It wasn’t that long ago that the most learned men thought that the earth was flat, that atoms were the tiniest matter in the universe, that phen-phen was good for you, etc. Face it. Odds are, you’re wrong about this, too.
co-sign. Evolution, to me, doesn’t make any sense. I’m not saying that creationism makes more sense, but to claim as cold hard fact that one animal evolved from an entirely different animal? This, to me, is totally illogical. Why haven’t we seen this in other animals? Why didn’t tigers evolve from lions? They are similar the same way humans and apes are similar. Also, might we consider that even a human lung would have taken more time to be formed than the Earth has been in existence? Without some kind of design, the elements of the incredibly complex human system could not have come together by chance.
Creationism and evolution both have holes in their theories, although I’m more inclined toward evolution as the means God used. Neither can fully explain a plethora of phenomena, and many evolution propoents are as hatefully dogmatic in their philosophical (not scientific) opposition to Christianity as some Creationists are disdainful of “those secular evolutionists.”
This song ridicules scientific evolution, and I tentatively agree only to the extent that scientific processes alone cannot account for certain qualities of humanity—our moral compass, rationality, spiritual sensitivity, the ability to create/recognize beauty, etc. As I’ve stated before, I don’t necessarily see an incompatibility between the process of evolution and the belief in a sovereign Creator.
The main point of the song is the “evolution” of hearts and minds that God brings about in his followers.
(Yes, the sarcastic impression of a professor is done by Mark Lowry)
[Charles] Darwin, who was raised Anglican and even considered becoming a clergyman, did eventually relinquish his Christian faith. But he did not do so because of evolution. […] To the end of his life, Darwin insisted that one could be “an ardent theist and an evolutionist.” […] Over time, Darwin’s hostility to Christianity did play a role in his scientific views. While Darwin was originally very modest about evolution—a theory to account for transitions from one life form to another—he became increasingly insistent that evolution was an entirely naturalistic system, having no room for miracles or divine intervention at any point. […] Darwin’s ultimate position was that it was disastrous for evolution to, at any point, permit a divine foot in the door. […] This history is important because we can embrace Darwin’s account of evolution without embracing his metaphysical naturalism and unbelief. Dawkins and others like him are in a way confusing the two faces of Charles Darwin. They are under the illusion that to be an evolutionist is essentially to be an atheist. Darwin, to his credit, rejected the equation of these two stances as illogical, even if he didn’t always maintain, within his own life, a clear distinction between his science and his animus toward God.
The 21st Century Science Coalition, formed by Texas scientists and educators who say politics and ideology should not influence science education, criticizes what it sees as attempts to water down or censor scientific information. An online petition was signed by almost 1,400 scientists and teachers.
Pitted against them is the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which encourages schools to teach the theory of intelligent design — “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,” according to the Institute’s Web site.
Critics of the theory of evolution have support on the State Board of Education, including its chairman, Don McLeroy. However, no board member has expressed a desire to have creationism or intelligent design taught in public classrooms. A final vote on the science standards is expected in March.
While I do not support public schools teaching that the earth was created in six literal days, I do want students to understand that there are holes in the theory of evolution or, more precisely, natural selection. The process of blind natural selection is statistically impossible, and far less likely than the concept that an intelligence guided the selection process to fruition. Mostly my opposition to teaching evolution is grounded in a concern that students are also being taught naturalism, secularism and humanism within the science classroom—which is just as objectionable as teaching Young-Earth Creationism.
This is well worth watching/listening. Driscoll presents a solid overview of the basis of the Christian worldview in relation to the origins of the earth and the universe. He reviews the multiple Christian viewpoints about the earth and mankind, defends his own perspective, and articulates how atheistic evolution proponents are anti-science and intellectually dishonest.
:“There is absolutely no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and the Bible’s message,” Gianfranco Ravasi, in charge of cultural affairs at the Vatican, told reporters, noting the theory had interested Pope Benedict XVI and his recent predecessors.
Coming on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking 1859 publication “On the Origin of Species,” the Vatican’s March 3-7 meeting — which will gather a variety of scientists, philosophers and Catholic and Protestant theologians — sharply contrasts with the stance of creationists. (via 24freedinners)
I’ve always thought the argument for evolution or that, at least, the Creation took place over more than seven days was pretty easily justified by the Bible itself. Even ignoring that throughout the Bible, parables are used to illustrate overarching ideas and general morals, thus making the notion that the Bible is itself more a series of parables than literal fact, there are a lot of verses that reinforce the notion that the Bible, which seeks to make God’s view understandable to human beings.
The following quote is probably the best way to see that how we see time is not the same as how God sees time:“Indeed, in your sight a thousand years are like a single day, like yesterday—already past—like an hour in the night.” Psalm 90:4
When you look at it that way, it is easy to see that seven days can be a simple representation of a much broader span of time, which is too large to be grasped by human beings. In some ways, even the description of Creation in Genesis seems to corroborate much of science’s explanation for the way the world and universe began: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty. Then the earth was developed, then life began, and on the final day, there was man — a peak of evolution on Earth.
I don’t understand the conflict, other than an inability to recognize that as human beings, we can’t possibly be expected to understand the perspective of God. The Bible, if it is the word of God, was told to us in a way that was conceivable to the people of its time and even conceivable to us now. And in my mind, while science can be used to figure out why things work as they do, and how those things can be manipulated to our advantage, the notion that there might be some purpose behind it all is not so far-fetched.
There is no reason why God or some supreme force can not be seen as the great architect. Religion does not have to be the end of science any more than science has to be the end of religion. Neither proves the other wrong. In fact in most ways, they prove each other right and fill in the gaps for one another, where each fails to understand or explain certain phenomenon. (via robot-heart)
I’m leaving all of this because I want my scientist friends who read my Tumblr and lambast the possible existance of God to understand that this is entirely possible. (via seagull)
excellent thoughts!
I *think* this is a view a lot of people share. I took a couple theology courses with some folks who worked at the Vatican with whom I chatted about the idea of evolution and Genesis. Many shared the idea is that seven days may be seven eons. When you are the Alpha and Omega, a being that has no beginning and no end, an eon might seem as a day is to us. I can see why many Protestant sects who believe in a literal translation of the Bible would be against this, but in the grand scheme of Christianity, Catholics are actually quite liberal. Go figure.
It is important for people to understand evangelicalism’s perspective on this issue. It tends to be much more complicated than the reductive labels of being anti-science or anti-intellectual. We (evangelicals) have a lot of intellectual balls in the air that are of varying degrees of importance. First and foremost, we believe that the Bible is true. This is a broad statement because from there we have to decide which parts are true literally vs figuratively. Certain books/passages are clearer than others. Genesis is up for debate. There are multiple viewpoints on the interpretation of this book, which are well within orthodoxy.
So, depending on one’s theology, evolution may be considered compatible/incompatible with Scripture. It’s not about being anti-science; it’s the belief that Scripture is our highest authority for truth. The tension comes when science seems to contradict Scripture, and the rest of the world mocks you. The best approach for those evangelicals is to respectfully disagree with the current modern consensus (key word being “current”) in the hope that as science progresses it validates their interpretation. Do no mock those who hold this view. They are being consistent to their interpretation of one of the world’s largest religions.
Another thing that muddies the issue of acceptance of evolution among evangelicals is its use by very rabid atheists who seek to use it to prove their own religious beliefs. Evolution is not naturalism by default, but it is (rightly) linked to naturalists. This makes picking the truth out of the lies even more difficult for the average evangelical who doesn’t have the time or effort to get a theology degree.
By the way, I tend to lean toward a reading of Genesis that is reconcilable with evolution but which still maintains fidelity to the basic tenet that all Scripture is true.
