June 23, 2009
A Poor Reflection
I got the latest issue of LeTourneau's in-house news magazine in the mail yesterday, and found it fuller than usual of interesting tidbits. Among those was a blurb that mentioned that Dr. Jarstfer, who is a biology professor and serves as the dean of both Arts (which includes both departments from which I earned my degree) and Sciences, had testified before the Texas State Board of Education and recommended that critical thinking be encouraged among high school students, specifically by continuing to require that science teachers include information about weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
The single paragraph did not, of course, mention that the board ultimately voted to drop this requirement a few days later, but it did note that Jarstfer was quoted in a "Christianity Today" article about the "controversy." That blurb, and the article it cites (which can be found here), raised all sorts of conflicting thoughts and emotions for me which I shall attempt to work through here. And, yes, the title is a pun.
Of course, for starters I am always surprised whenever I see LeTourneau mentioned in any sort of larger state or national context. I am still getting used to attending a university that is widely-recognized by name, and which regularly crops up in all sorts of places (including the above article, where I was not at all surprised to find it). I hope that's not taken as a knock on LeTourneau, but let's face it . . . my undergraduate alma mater is a little fish in a big ocean.
It's probably that fact more than any other that elicited any response at all from me in regards to this issue. When an institution that I still feel so intimately connected to garners a little attention, and when that attention is so rare, I am naturally interested in the sort of attention it is getting. In this case, I have to say I'm distressed, and I feel that Dr. Jarstfer's stand reflects poorly on the university and its academic chops (which is the sort of reflection it can ill-afford). However, I remain somewhat conflicted about whether I am correct in feeling this way.
My first impulse just upon reading the blurb from LeTourneau was one of annoyance. It seemed to me that Jarstfer was attempting to "strike a blow for Creationism" (and whatever the reality, I remain convinced that the piece was crafted to give that impression). However, after skimming the "Christianity Today" article, I vascillated a bit and began to charitably consider that perhaps Dr. Jarstfer really is willing to give evolutionary theory a fair hearing and was just advocating a "good science" which is willing to question everything. Upon closer reading, not only of the article but of the several links that it includes, I have to return to my previous opinion.
This isn't about good science (although I don't know whether Jarstfer recognizes that); it's about scoring political and religious points in an increasingly destructive debate. And, in this case specifically, I'd say it's about very publicly scoring points with the university's financial base while members of the department with less acceptable views wisely keep their heads down.
Now, I can't say with any certainty precisely what Dr. Jarstfer's opinions on evolution are, or how he arrived at them, but at the very least he is guilty of keeping bad company. As the article notes, Jarstfer has signed the famous "scientific dissent from Darwinism" document which is associated with the infamous Discovery Institute. The purpose of this document is (and here I am grossly mischaracterizing its actual purpose) to create the illusion that there is significant and genuine scientific dissent to the theory of evolution. That is probably a terribly unfair accusation to make, and if I were one of the signers, I would be outraged at . . . myself. Here's why I made it:
The list of scientists that have signed off on this dissent are from all over the world. That is, most of them are from the United States, but in terms of representation, this gives the appearance of being a global list of scientists who are opposed to evolution. There are somewhere in the general neighborhood of 750 names on the list, including 2 from LeTourneau (Jarstfer and my former chemistry professor, who just retired after 40 years of teaching) and 5 from Baylor (one of whom, incidentally, teaches my Sunday school class . . . I have a great deal of respect for the guy, lest it be thought that I am displaying an unthinking bias here).
Meanwhile, the CT article links to another list. This is a list of Texan scientists (that is, scientists who are living and working in the state) who are opposed to what they (in my opinion rightly) view as a "teach the weaknesses" red herring. Part of their statement reads, "Evolution is an easily observable phenomenon and has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt." There are, as I say, only Texas scientists on this list. And it contains 1550 names, including 41 from Baylor.
Of further interest to me: There are no names from LeTourneau on the list, although I happen to know that some of the science faculty there hold opinions which would align them with this statement. I have to wonder, did they willingly choose not to sign, or do they just know better given the institution they work for? After all, LeTourneau is a Christian technical school, and there are quite a few faculty members who meet the qualifications required to sign the dissent, and yet there are only two that chose to do so.
This is pretty much pure speculation on my part, but is it possible that Jarstfer, and LeTourneau, aren't quite as favorable towards asking questions and thinking critically as they say? Feel free to note here the cheap tactic of asking a very leading question. I'm not trying to be disingenuous or slyly give the impression that this is definitely going on. I'll just conclude with option #3, presented by at the end of the CT article by Jim Nichols, biology chair and Abilene Christian. He summarizes my own position on the matter rather nicely, and that makes him the logical place to end this:
"[Petitions] too often oversimplify causes. I suspect [the curriculum debate] is really more of a political/religious showcase than something that will really affect public education. I and many others live relatively comfortably in both camps and tire from attacks from both sides. With all the real problems in the world, this is a serious waste of energy to keep beating on this topic."
Posted by Jared at June 23, 2009 07:15 PM | TrackBackI've been of that last opinion for a long time; the entire huge debate between Creationism and Evolution is a huge waste of time in a sensationalist arena being played for public opinion (granted, I'm biased; after all, I lived in England where, somehow, this isn't an issue at all for the Church).
Posted by: Barbour at June 24, 2009 12:15 AMWell, good interesting post, but I disagree with the last paragraph, at least with respect to the evolution petition.
The issue here is not whether these evolution / creationist petitions are 'oversimplifying' the issue. The problem is that the proponents of Creationism create these petitions and the present the results to people (including young children) at churches and use them to argue that the mainstream scientific community actually thinks evolution is a silly, religious conspiracy.
The petitions signed by real scientists are an excellent response to these bogus petitions signed by creationists. I use them all the time. Why? Because when I talk to Christians about evolution, they are often unaware where the scientific community stands on this issue, and they are ultra-skeptical of me. The petitions make it good.
@Barbour: I agree that the creationism vs evolution debate is a wast of time. I also think it would be a waste of time to argue that the moon was not made of cheese. When the creationists stop trying to get the most important theory in biology out of the classroom, when they stop lying to young children... then I'll be more than happy to stop 'wasting my time'
Some people think that creationism is a fringe issue, but I disagree. I think that's condescending towards them. I think everyone deserves to know the truth, and I feel sorry for the paranoid people who actually believe that all scientists in all countries are part of this huge conspiracy... that entire fields of science are wrong...etc.
Well, it's 4:20am and I'll have to stop commenting now.
Posted by: Asa at June 24, 2009 04:20 AMI actually asked a LeTourneau dean (semi-privately, though in pursuit of a student-newspaper story) whether it would be acceptable for a LeTourneau professor to teach "theistic" evolution. The dean looked uncomfortable and said probably not.
I was writing an article on academic freedom at LeTourneau. One department chairman wouldn't talk on the record, warning me that my article wouldn't even be published if I criticized the administration. At LeTourneau, any faculty member can be fired at any time for teaching something contrary to the administration's interpretation of the school's statement of faith.
Teaching the controversy indeed.
Posted by: Wilson at June 24, 2009 05:57 AMAw, man. Now you're making me wish I'd come down harder. =P
Also, while I do think the debate is destructive and stupid, I have become increasingly convinced that Asa is right: The Creationists need to put up or shut up (preferrably the latter). We are, charitably, several years past the point where it was time to concede the obvious (or at least, concede the extreme likelihood of the obvious) and move on. Until that happens, an incredibly tiny and frequently dishonest scientific minority will continue to hold the overwhelming majority of the American church hostage to a false god.
Incidentally, one reason that I choose that particular term: Recently a friend of mine from church, who had felt called to missions in Morocco, was turned down by the mission board to which he had been applying for over a year in an incredibly long and taking process because he wouldn't say that he believed in a literal 6-day creation when he got to the final interview. That, to me, is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, and it needs to stop.
Posted by: Blame Jared at June 24, 2009 10:29 AM"This isn't about good science (although I don't know whether Jarstfer recognizes that); it's about scoring political and religious points in an increasingly destructive debate."
The thing is, this is true for many people on both sides of the debate. While many "creationists" are more concerned with religion than with science, many "evolutionists" (and certainly the most militant ones) are opposed to "creationism" more for ideological reasons than for scientific ones.
Evolution has a lot going for it scientifically, but it also has significant gaps. (For one, the definition of "species" is far from clear; Scientific American counted about 26 different definitions in use.) Next to something like relativity theory, evolutionary theory has comparatively shaky evidential support. But it's the only naturalistic option out there, so naturalists have a deep ideological (and emotional) stake in its truth. But it can seem threatening to Christianity (which I think is silly), so theists have ideological and emotional stake in its falsity.
Of course, our science-obsessed culture often fails to realize that science can neither answer all the questions nor work in a vacuum. (Indeed, the very question of what counts as "science" is not a question that science itself can answer!) For one thing, science can't justify its own methods (you can't empirically observe that empirical observation yields truth). For another, sometimes science can't get answers by itself. When faced with a "well-adapted" creature, you can account for it in at least two ways: (1) naturalistic evolution or (2) intelligent design. But it's hard to see how any amount of observation could settle the matter. (What if the designer used evolution as his tool? What if he made mistakes?) It's only when you bring in other knowledge and presuppositions that you can construct a complete picture.
And this, I think, is the key challenge for the practical problem of teaching (and here my own disciplinary bias comes out). As it is today (at least in the public schools in the US), the teaching of science includes almost nothing of the philosophy of science: we are taught the methods but not the reasoning behind them. (Why is repeated experimentation important and reliable? What are the limitations of such an inductive method? How do our presuppositions influence the way we do science and the conclusions we draw?) It's like teaching math by giving out answers to problems: Students might develop some conceptual understanding of multiplication by memorizing "times tables," but learning the principles would both improve their skills and prepare them to learn (and maybe develop!) more advanced skills.
Or, to change the analogy and get closer to the original topic: The evolution/creation debate as it is now is like trying to cut down a tree by lopping off branches. You might make some progress, but until you get to the trunk and the roots, the problem will keep coming back.
Posted by: Martinez at June 24, 2009 12:39 PMThe thing that frustrates me both about the debate, and the people talking here, is the indistinct language used.
I realize "creationist" likely means one who believes in a literal 6-day creation around 10,000 years ago.
But really, the word only indicates, in my mind, belief in a created world. That is, belief that God created the heavens and the earth.
Christians hurt themselves by not allowing for things like theistic evolution to have any hold, to at least discuss the ideas.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, whether the earth is 10 thousand, 10 million, or 10 billion years old, God created it. That part's the important part for Christians, more so than the timeframe.
The problem is that even trying to put forth the idea of some sort of intelligent design of any kind is laughed down by secular circles. The same ones who think the evidence for a completely naturalistic universe is so overwhelming, only idiots think otherwise.
I think that everyone in the debate really ought to step back for a few years, consolidate, and think. Then, we bring multiple ideas to the table of discussion (but not the table of curriculum), including 6-day creation, old earth creation, theistic evolution, naturalistic evolution, etc.
Posted by: Sharpton at June 24, 2009 12:55 PMI really liked what Martinez had to say (probably showing my own disciplinary bias beside his). I feel that, in general, not learning the principles and reasoning behind anything is a major weakness in our culture as a whole, and it certainly shows tellingly in this particular field. I'm certainly not going to tell you that there are people on the pro-evolution side of the debate who are just as bad about that as the creationism side, but I think, for all of us in this discussion, the creationism side is more poignant because it's "closer to home", as it were. I think we all feel this shortcoming more harshly in the Church because we see it in so many more ways as well.
To Asa: I must admit, forthrightly, that I'm not a scientist, I've never been particularly interested in this specific field, and I really don't know a lot of the details on both sides, therefore. However, much as I may be wrong in my lack of knowledge, I do think it's slightly arrogant of scientists in this area to state definitively that "this theory is true", whatever the theory may be. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution has yet to be proven by the scientific method (just like creationism, obviously), and I feel like neither side should be taught as fact, at all. What I meant by "waste of time" was more about the constant attempts to "battle the other side into submission", rather than working for actual reform and compromise.
Posted by: Barbour at June 24, 2009 03:16 PMI think those are good and important observations, Sharpton. Some people (on both sides) even mean completely different, incompatible things when they talk about "intelligent design."
In this case, though, I think we're not really talking about the practice of science or its relation to philosophy. We're talking about the teaching of science to highschoolers. And I think this is its own kettle of fish. I think that the primary job of someone teaching at that level is to communicate the consensus of the discipline, especially when the consensus is so overwhelming. Ideally, yes, one could go beyond this to teach highschoolers how to reach their own conclusions on the matter. But in practice, this is highly unlikely. I doubt that most high school science teachers themselves have any real research training.
Let me present an analogy from another field. A lot of evangelical Christians believe that the American founding was the result of a broad Christian consensus among the Founders. They see Christian piety at work in everything from Jamestown to the US Constitution. Now, from the standpoint of the historical profession, this is -- at best -- a highly misleading claim. It's not just a disagreeable interpretation; it's based on incredibly shoddy and selective reading of sources, and often on outright urban legends. Even most evangelical historians, by a wide margin, want nothing to do with the claim. Yet thousands (probably millions) of young evangelicals have learned this interpretation as fact in private or home school. A lot of Christian politicians believe in it. Clearly, there is a controversy here. So what should a public school teacher do?
Well, critical thinking is good, so perhaps it wouldn't hurt to ask students to evaluate this interpretation for themselves. But then we would be asking a high school student to do in a week or two what trained historians have spent millions of man-hours on. Most of the time, the student wouldn't even be able to understand the basic theories behind historical research, let alone evaluate the merits of generations of investigation. That's what teachers -- and teachers of teachers -- are for. And if a public school teacher had to take time out to discuss this supposed controversy, what else would he have to stop and evaluate? Whether the Holocaust happened? Whether we really landed on the moon? There would never be time for actual teaching, and the whole thing would be a waste because students' "conclusions" would have no reliability whatsoever.
Posted by: Wilson at June 24, 2009 03:41 PMA lot of good stuff here. I love what you have to say, Martinez, about how we ought to be teaching subjects like science. Absolutely true. Barbour is right to point out that my concern about ideological motivations driving scientific inquiry IS geared more towards creationists for the simple reason that I feel their actions potentially place me and my faith in a bad light in the public eye.
However, ultimately, (and I know you'll agree) everyone is driven by some form of ideology and whether or not they happen to want something to be true shouldn't prevent us from fairly assessing their evidence that it is true. In the case of evolutionary theory, I feel like enough evidence exists (and enough scientists confirm it) that, ideological motivations or not, they've got the scientific credibility to stand on. Meanwhile, I feel as though scientists like my scapegoat in this post are forced to lean almost entirely on ideology because they lack a scientific foundation. My biggest question is probably whether or not any of them recognize this on some level.
Sharpton, I like what you're saying about the word "creationist" here. I would love to be able to call myself a "creationist" and have people know that it means I believe in the existence of a "Creator God." Right now, I can't do that . . . but I'd be all for an attempt to reclaim that definition of the word. If it could really be done, I think that would be the signal that, as a body of believers, we had returned our focus regarding the origin of life to the place where it belonged; namely, that God remains the author and motivator of creation in a way that is completely compatible with the findings of science, whatever they may be.
Wilson, I think you make an excellent point about the slippery slope of "teach the controversy" . . . and you haven't even mentioned the chaos that would ensue as individual parents and all sorts of people with ulterior motives became involved on both sides of any given issue as the battle-lines are drawn in school districts across the country.
Posted by: Blame Jared at June 24, 2009 04:25 PM@Sharpton
I think we should use the term ‘creationist’ to denote ‘Young Earth Creationist’ for several reasons (Even though I think your remark was open-minded and logically sound.).
1. Young Earth Creationists use the term to describe themselves
2. No added meaning (All theists believe God is creator…)
3. The same reason I don’t think we should try to change the meaning of ‘Intelligent Design’ to belief in a God who designs, because Christians like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins accept evolution and the basic argument of ID is that evolution is not true (that appears to be their theory too… I don’t understand…)
@Barbour
Thanks for your interest and time Barbour. I’m sorry for the bad format of this response (Wilson, cover your eyes, lest you be offended!), and it’s more like a disorganized rant, but I hope that you find it interesting in some way. (NOTE: I mention a lot of ‘facts’ that you probably know, but I included them anyways, and it supports my position...)
About ‘facts’ and ‘theories,’ a theory is actually stronger than a fact because it is an explanation that makes sense of the facts in a meaningful way. A theory is strong, take cell theory for instance. Around 99.8% of practicing biologists say evolution is a well supported theory. The media makes it hard to see, but if you look into it, it becomes apparent that they have pretty good reasons. It is testable too. I recommend Kenneth Miller’s book Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (he’s a Catholic biologist). You could also check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ though it is pretty technical (where are the technical creationist examples?).
You will notice that Creationists are rather condescending in their attitude in regards to the evidence for evolution and a young earth. I don’t find the condescension very offensive, but I do find it offensive that they are accusing over 99.9% or ALL scientists in ALL countries in ALL areas of science to be part of a huge conspiracy. You mention compromise, but really, there is no room for scientists to compromise. In The Language of God, Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project (and active Christian) says
“In general, those who hold these [Creationist] views are sincere, well-meaning, God-fearing people, driven by deep concerns that naturalism is threatening to drive God out of human experience. But the claims of Young Earth Creationism simply cannot be accommodated by tinkering around the edges of scientific knowledge. If these claims were actually true, it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, and biology. As biology professor Darrel Falk points out in his wonderful book Coming to Peace with Science, written specifically from his perspective as an evangelical Christian, the YEC [Young Earth Creationism] perspective is the equivalent of insisting that two plus two is really not equal to four.
For anyone familiar with the scientific evidence, it is almost incomprehensible that the YEC view has achieved such wide support, especially in a country like the United States that claims to be so intellectually advanced and technologically sophisticated…” 9p. 174)
If you did a big research project, you would find out that although many scientists understand creationism, the vast majority (possibly 100%) of creationists do not even understand the most basic facts about Evolution. Consider this article where Richard Dawkins is ‘stumped’ by a creationist question about evolution and genetics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g and Dawkins’ explanation http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm .
A year ago I attended a talk by a man who held a very high administrative position in ACSI (Association of Christian Schools International … very big association) where he argued that creationism stumps evolution. He summed evolution up for us as a chicken hatching a frog. No, I’m not joking. And yes, it was the adult Sunday school class, not the nursery. I asked him about why we could see galaxies millions of light years away if the world were only 6,000 years old, and he said he hadn’t thought about that. He stood there for almost an hour talking about how we are products of our teachers and scientists are so biased.
I can help you find a resource about this, but an interesting fact is that many animals have genes that are inactive (I think most of our genetic code isn’t used.). I find this very interesting. Besides that it’s interesting, it’s hard to explain why the inactive genes are there if these animals didn’t evolve from common ancestors, especially when the inactive genes in humans and other animals have a very strong correlation to the tree of life that modern Darwinists propose. I was reading in Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne that humans and apes have the gene that makes vitamin C, but it is not active. Well, that’s cool.
In case you saw Expelled, here is a review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html (update: Jared told me you hated the movie… GOOD!) Anyways, I don’t see how to compromise with people who believe that believing in evolution causes you to commit genocide. That’s really offensive. To me that’s way worse than calling someone names. People can tell me to fuck off for all I care, but if they go teach children that evolution is evil and refuse to even consult Wikipedia about it, that is very frustrating to me.
Radiometric dating is a good subject to look at (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html). Kenneth Miller (in a book I cannot find at the moment) also notes that radiometric dating has been tested in various conditions, including atmospheric pressures 10,000 times that what it is now, and temperatures as hot as the surface of the sun. Each year thousands of research labs throughout the world publish hundreds of papers on dating methods, and they all point to the same age of the earth.
Finally, if you go to any creationist website, you will be hard pressed to find any access to real data. The material will be written in a very different way, and it will be hard to track down sources (especially the 10,000 frozen mammoths that supposedly the evolutionist scientists who specialize in mammoths are refusing to study and just stay with bones their whole lives because they want to hide the ‘obvious’ fact of creationism). Maybe they are right, but providing links to resources that disagree with them, or justifying their assumptions (like their interpretation of Genesis) would be nice too. (For example, it’s worth mentioning the long list of early church fathers that rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis). I’m an atheist (not close to agnostic), but notice how I recommend that you read many books published by Christian scientists (maybe you already have … those are my favorites though, so I recommended them). I point the good ones out because helping you make your own decision is more important to me than just making you blindly believe something.
A lot of Christians I know complain about how angry and rude the new atheists are. Their concerns are often justified. However, here are some little examples of why atheists seem so militant sometimes:
The well-known atheist blogger and biology professor PZ Myers debated Geoffrey Simmonds from the Discovery Institute a while back in a radio interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ). Somewhere during the interview, PZ called him childish. Why did he start being so rude? Well, the guy wrote a book on why there were no fossils in support of whale evolution, and he couldn’t even recognize any of the few most prominent fossils in whale evolution…
Here is popular creationist Ray Comfort using the ‘banana argument’ to disprove evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw . He wrote a book called “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think.” (I didn’t know this until Richard Dawkins made fun of this video, but all the traits Comfort is talking about are from artificial selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana )
The Creation museum (founded by Ken Ham) has exhibits that show children playing with carnivorous dinosaurs. I don’t think I can comment on this any further without sounding condescending… although perhaps it is called for. Here is an interesting scene I found from a film on YouTube where Ken Ham talks to a big room of little children (I think it’s in Jesus Land… I didn’t copy the reference in my notes for some reason):
Ken Ham: I wanna teach you something very special this morning, and I want you to remember this boys and girls, something you will never forget. Has any human being always been there? Yes or no?
Kids: “No”
Ken Ham: Has any scientist always been there?
Kids: “No”
Ken Ham: Who’s the only one who’s always been there?
Kids: “God”
Ken Ham: Who knows everything?
Kids: “God”
Ken Ham : So in a big loud voice, who should you always trust first, God or the scientist?
Kids: God
Ken Ham: And I want you to remember that.
I am often very frustrated because I politely show people the information above, provide references, and offer to provide even more references, and the most common answer I get is “well, it’s not my specialty, and it’s not a salvation issue, and I know what I believe already, and there are people on both sides.” Well, maybe so, but those people shouldn’t argue with me about creationism so long if they aren’t willing to investigate the facts. I could go on a rant about all the conversations I’ve had with family and friends, but I will save you the pain.
Sometimes I show great hostility towards creationism. Sometimes I think it’s justified and I prove my point. Sometimes I think I go far. I guess I find it especially offensive when people intentionally lie to children, accuse career scientists of doing fake research, intentionally misquote scientists, work full time teaching scientists are wrong without looking at their arguments… etc…
So, in conclusion, there are different ways to communicate this, but I believe that someone who believes in creationism is either stupid or ignorant, and as Richard Dawkins says, it’s not necessarily their fault that they are ignorant.
I do want to take issue with just one thing you said, Asa: "the basic argument of ID is that evolution is not true."
That is how the term is commonly used by opponents and by many underinformed evangelicals. But it's not what "Intelligent Design" means according to its key theorists. The three most public of them are probably William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson.
Here is William Dembski's definition of the term: Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. [... T]here exist well-defined methods that on the basis of observational features of the world are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. (Intelligent Design, p. 106)
That is not a claim about whether evolution has happened. It is a claim about whether evolution could have happened without some guiding intelligence. (Often, this is formulated as a challenge to "Darwinian" evolution or "naturalistic" evolution.)
Phillip Johnson, who is a law professor rather than a scientist, puts it this way: It may be that there was a slow development of one kind of thing into something else. But the important question to me is: Could this all occur solely by unintelligent, purposeless, material processes? Can we say that that has been confirmed? The theory of evolution may be true in a sense, but it may require the participation of an intelligent cause. That is the basic intelligent-design proposition—that unintelligent causes by themselves can't do the whole job. That doesn't say that everything was created all at once. (PBS interview, April 2007)
And Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, says that he believes evolution has happened: I'm a Roman Catholic; I never was taught a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I was taught Darwin’s theory of evolution in parochial school. As far as I’m concerned, the universe and earth are as old as most physicists say they are, and life developed over immense ages. My main point of disagreement with the standard scientific story is that I think most of the development of the universe and life was set up; little was left to chance. (California Literary Review interview, Sept. 2007)
Posted by: Wilson at June 27, 2009 09:28 AMHere's a question:
What about people who think that the universe as a whole is billions of years old, that the Earth is pretty much that old...but don't think that evolution happened? Those who think that, if nothing else, when it said that God specifically made man as a unique creation, it's not lying?
And here's the kicker: what do the Christians who believe in the evolution of humans from apes think of the story of the Garden of Eden? Original Sin?
"For one, the definition of "species" is far from clear; Scientific American counted about 26 different definitions in use."
This isn't a failing of the theory of evolution. Why do you think it's so hard to define a species? Because the lines are blurry, and there aren't easy breaking lines between species. That's because a species is a fluid thing, constantly changing.
Now, if we're going to bring up problems of definitions, tell me what this biblical "kind" is supposed to represent. You'll find that you can't pin that down either, and it's for the same reason: life is interrelated, and constantly undergoes change.
"Next to something like relativity theory, evolutionary theory has comparatively shaky evidential support."
On the contrary, we know that either relativity or quantum mechanics is deeply flawed, because they are contradictory. Quantum mechanics makes such good predictions that it must be true, in some sense, so a lot of physicists are now looking for the theory to replace relativity (and hopefully explain what both relativity and Q.M. previously explained).
In other words, there is significant empirical evidence against relativity theory, while evolutionary theory has evidence that's so strong as to convince 99.98% of biologists. The theory of evolution works in every case in which it can be applied, but relativity theory applies only to large-body physics and breaks down when applied to very small objects like electrons. Now, the fact that it convinces so many biologists doesn't mean it's true, but it does cast your knowledge of the subject into suspicion when you claim that the evidence for evolution is not that good.
One final thought: you aren't qualified to evaluate the evidence yourself if you haven't taken courses in biology, plain and simple. No one is so stupid as to expect people to take them seriously if they reject the theory of relativity without a PhD in physics, yet people regularly reject the theory of evolution without ever taking a single course in zoology and want their views on the matter inserted into the curriculum. That's idiocy, and is rightly mocked.
The bottom line is that you should listen to the experts about questions that you aren't qualified to assess. If you don't like it, then get a degree in biology, or prepared to be mocked when you speak up about your uneducated opinions on evolution.
Posted by: Luke Templer at June 27, 2009 10:59 AM@Luke
Well, I don't think anyone here is intentionally speaking against evolution. I think a few of them are not aware of certain facts, and I don't think it is their fault.
Good response, I'm just a little concerned your last two paragraphs might be read out of context (I know you, but no one else here does ...)
Posted by: Asa at June 27, 2009 05:50 PM@Wilson
When I reflected upon your response I came to the conclusion that defining the basic argument of ID as "evolution is not true" wan't the right way to put it. You are right to point out the distinction in evolution vs. evolution by natural selection. As a proponent of evolution, I ought to use more descriptive vocabulary. I think it might be true to describe their 'theory' as the theory that natural selection (and arguably any other 'materialist' theory) doesn't work. Well, just to be clear, I accept your correction. :)
It is hard, though, to find an explanation of ID that does not reference Darwinian evolution (maybe there is one?). Barbara Forest argues that negative argumentation isn't enough, and that you have to present evidence for your own theory as well. This seems strange to me, because other scientific theories usually rely on evidence to support themselves. This might be an unfair comparison, but you don't see any Quantum theorists claiming their theory is true because Relativity theory has holes in it.
I think the following quote by Paul Nelson is reveiling (and it sorta contradicts what I said earlier... that there actually is a theory). The question is “Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years? What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?” and is from an interview done to Nelson, Dembski, Johnson and others by Touchstone Magazine (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-060-i).
“Nelson: Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
Dembski has an interesting answer to the question, too
“In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm. “
PZ Myers remarks, “Almost five years on, still no theory.” (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/put_your_affairs_in_order_biol.php) Also, notice the deceptive language that describes a ‘dying paradigm.’ It’s too bad that 99.98% of biologists doing the research are not aware of this crisis.
I read an article by Behe once where he discussed how materialists were not open to the supernatural, but ID was. Well written, but I don't see how the supernatural can be scientific, by definition. Maybe I will finda link to it sometime soon. I would be open to believing in supernatural intervention of some kind if reason and evidence pointed me there...
Actually, I think Michael Behe is the one ID proponent I have intellectual respect for. I really disagree with him philosophically, but I do find his ideas interesting and I find him to be direct in what he says. Unlike the other ID proponents, I think I could have a good conversation with him.
I can't remember the title, but I read a short "college prep" book by Johnson that kept complaining about the moral consequences of evolution and how it was so evil. I almost finished it, but I just couldn't. I suppose I ought to find it again and write a review of it.
"what do the Christians who believe in the evolution of humans from apes think of the story of the Garden of Eden? Original Sin?"
I am aware of several explanations for this, and not doubt Martinez could enlighten me, but for me this seems to be a problem. I have high respect for some of the opinions out there regarding original sin..etc. but right now it seems to me that it's not possible to reconcile both darwinian evolution and historical, orthodox Christianity.
For example, I find it hard to accept that God would create us through a seemingly totally random process driven by survival of the fittest, with all of our biological imperfectness, and then threaten to send us to Hell because we are sinful and need redemption. Also, I can't prove that a supernatural being didn't do it that way, but I can't think of any reason to believe some god did it either ...
I do think, though, that if you are a Christian who believes they have experienced God, and think Christianity is a unique religion that is good for people when practiced correctly, that you ought to take time to think these issues through before deciding to disbelieve everything. You could be making a mistake! And remember, whenever you question your beliefs, you'll either 1. notice that they are wrong and have a chance at understanding the real world or 2. strengthen your faith... It's a win-win situation! :)
Posted by: Asa at June 27, 2009 07:06 PMI think, before we go too much farther along this path of reasoning, it would behoove us to be more precise about a few things. As Sharpton pointed out earlier, there can be a wide field of definitions for words, and evolution has become prey to that in much the same way "creationism" has. Are we talking about evolution as a theory explaining the development of life on the earth, or as a theory explaining the origin of life on the earth? I know enough to know that, scientifically, it generally refers to development, but I think it would be good to make sure everyone's on the same page with the definition and usage here, not just committing assumicide from different angles.
Post-script: isn't behoove an awesome word? I always love being able to use it!
Posted by: Barbour at June 27, 2009 11:48 PM@Barbour
Well, 'stoked' is my favorite word.
Yeah good point about how evolution can have many things. I think it usually means evolution by natural selection, but I think it's more flexible than 'creationism' ... there actually exist different meanings for evolution in the real world. (No one ever says they are a creationist to emphasize they believe in a creator. There are no christians who don't believe in a creator.)
Well, just to be clear, when it has to do with the origins of life, when I say 'evolution' I am meaning 'Darwinian evolution heavily influenced by natural selection'.
@Wilson
Do you get frustrated when CECs claim that our founding fathers intended to, and succeeded at creating a Chrisitan nation? Do you ever argue with people about that? How does it go?
I'm really enjoying reading this conversation, and I especially appreciate its tone. I've basically agreed with most of the statements I'm reading, and I like the questions that are being asked. I just wanted to jump in with a quick answer to Sharpton's question that Asa mentioned above, via a lengthy quote from C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain (also quoted by Francis Collins in The Language of God). I believe that some version of this is likely pretty close to the truth.
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 thumb 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 even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material ends. Then, in the fulness 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 judgements of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. . . . We do no 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 of 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 eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in 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.Posted by: Blame Jared at June 28, 2009 12:56 AM
Do you get frustrated when CECs claim that our founding fathers intended to, and succeeded at creating a Chrisitan nation? Do you ever argue with people about that? How does it go? -- Asa
Well, in most cases (in real life, though not necessarily online) I avoid unnecessary conflict. In my experience, one rarely convinces a stranger of anything by arguing it out; one usually convinces a friend only over the course of multiple friendly conversations involving compromise on both sides. And at this point, I don't have the sort of influence in the evangelical community that would make it worth getting on a public soapbox. I would be contributing a bit to the heat of the culture war without actually preventing anyone from spreading the myth.
So I hold fire as long as I can. Instead, I try to suggest ("by word and deed," as the apostle says) what good scholarship and good learning look like in a person of good will. Sometimes, this is just another way of saying I keep my mouth shut -- but not always. I try to start by finding less controversial opportunities to point out, to people who are interested in listening, when evangelicals have misunderstood something or oversimplified an issue. (For example: I like to point out casually to receptive people that there might be a difference between a Christian government and a Christian nation. America could have been a broadly Christian people without ever being legally Christian. I can say things like that, things that complicate an issue in their minds, but avoid tackling the most controversial ideas before the time is ripe.)
Above all, I make it my mission to get conservative evangelicals to listen more carefully and honestly, across the board, to what other people are saying. Part of this is persuading them to disregard the hysterics of media clowns, with their black-and-white caricatures of reality, and actually listen for the rich variety of ideas formulated by good, thoughtful people. In short, I agitate for the principle of charity. (At school, I try to get secularists to grant evangelicals the same courtesy.) This principle is far more important than any particular idea about history or science is. It is a basic part of being a literate person and a good citizen. I have faith that other good things will follow from its adoption.
But yeah, it does get frustrating sometimes.
Posted by: Wilson at June 28, 2009 07:41 AMAsa,
Yes, the last two paragraphs are meant addressed to a general "you". They weren't to anyone in particular.
@Wilson
Thanks. Yeah I should try to integrate your approach more in my personal life.
Well, thanks everyone for the great discussion.
Posted by: Asa at June 28, 2009 11:14 PM