How Adventist Fundamentalists Want Biology to be Taught
by Ervin Taylor
Warning: The theme for this blog was inspired by a Doonesbury cartoon.
Scene: A high school teacher is lecturing to a biology class.
Teacher: “So the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence massively supports a theory of evolution that rationally explains everything we know about biology. However, as students at a faith-based school, you need to be informed about a theory supported by somewhere between 1 and 2% of the scientific evidence.”
Teacher continues: “The alternative theory goes something like this. About 6,000 years ago, the “heavens and the earth and all life upon it were created in six days. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out so well. There was a talking snake and a tree and well . . . anyway, a worldwide flood drowned everything on earth except the family of a 600-year old man who was charged with saving animals. So this man took 2 of everything including microbes, but forgot the dinosaurs .and put them all in this boat. Then . . . “
Student: “Sir?”
Teacher: “Yes?”
Student: “Could you please stop. I’d like to go to a good university.”
As much as 1-2% of the evidence? Really? That much? I don't think so….
I am ready to be corrected by Joe on this one. I certainly may have over estimated the degree of scientific evidence supporting young earth and/or young life creationism. I am prepared to lower the figure an order of magnitude. How about something between 0.1% and 0.2% of the scientific evidence?
I've been a Donnesbury fan as long as I can remember. This one really caught my attention as being so appropo. It's sad, however, to realize that when Trudeau has a column, it's pointing up the idiocy of so much of public life today.
Isn't more like 1-2% of scientists?
Dear Dr Taylor,
I always enjoy your posts. I've seen this comic on several science web sites I follow and crack up each time. This subject is current events in my home. My daughter attends a local non-sda private high school which offers an IB diploma. As a senior, she is including the IB two-year advanced Biology track as part of her requirment. Evolution is taught as matter of fact and we are very happy for that. She is looking at west coast colleges and plans to come to So Cal to see Oxy, Scripps and Redlands. Applying is one thing… getting in is another. lol
Best wishes, Ervin! Joe, yours as always! dl
Mock on, Dr. Taylor. That's not how my biology classes were presented. Biology classes were mostly about the various classifications of plants and animals. We dissected various animals. We studied the physiology of various organisms, etc. Evolution and creation were both discussed, but it was clear that the professors had not yet been invaded by the body (and mind?) snatchers. What we want is observational biology to be taught. Speculations about origins are another issue and have their place. Both creation and evolution should be explored, but, unlike the current situation in most universities, the weaknesses in the evolutionary theory should be discussed. So what if only a small minority of scientists believe the Bible. Most of the world disbelieves the Bible. That doesn't prove it to be wrong. Since when has the majority always been right? Jesus said only a few would find the way to life. I would be shocked if the majority believed the Bible to be true.
The idea that teaching creation (including the Flood) diminishes the value of biological education is utter nonsense.
Jean, in what decade did you attend biology classes – just so we know the context of your comments?
A majority of scientists don't believe in the Hindu scriptures either but I wouldn't want Hindu theology being taught in a science classroom. I do think private religious schools should teach the arguments against evolution, especially on philosophical grounds, but do so in the subject of religion classes.
Again, science is not what 'is' but what we can objectively observe through the scientific method. If in religion class a teacher wanted to teach that these observations are not ultimate 'truth' because say we are all living in The Matrix (i.e. per Christian Science), then they should be free to go ahead and teach that.
It doesn't have to be so scary if we realise that science class teaches what is observed, whilst religion class can teach what one believes is utlimate truth dispite what is observed, as a matter of faith. I believe various SDA scientists, including some at the BRI, aodpt this approach when they say there admit there is currently no scientific that supports YEC but as a matter of faith they think YEC is ultimate truth and will one day be supported by scientific observation.
Again, we need to take some of the hysteria out of this debate.
David: Thank you for your kind comments. Oxidential and Scripps are distinguished liberal arts colleges and the University of Redlands has been coming on strong academically over the last decade. . . and Redlands is right next to Loma Linda. Your daughter can go wrong with any of those three fine higher education institutions although I'm a biased in favor of the University of California system.
As for Mr. Corbeau: I really appreciate his comments (I'm serious here) because I suspect that he reflects quite well, in many cases, the general attitudes, understandings, and opinions of the typical "Adventist-in-the-pew" as regards evolutionary biology and several other topics. For example, Mr. Corbeau mentions that evolution deals with with "speculations about origins." It actually deals primarily with understanding processes causing changes in organisms over time. And we should always remember that surveys consistently find that roughly 30% of the American public disagree with some of the basic conclusions of biological evolutionary studies especially as it involves human evolution.
It's like teaching embryology and development to live birth without ever mentioning where and how that life begins.
This cartoon is quite boring and totally not funny. Can someone explain what or where the punch line is? If mocking God and the Bible is funny then I would see why some non-believers found it hilarious.
I have a Chinese colleague at work who makes the funniest jokes about Asians. To ability to laugh at oneself, and to take criticism, is usually a sign of a mature and self-confident belief system. The sort of people who riot and kill at the showing of a video they find disgusting is probably a sign of an immature and insecure faith.
I saw no mention of the Bible in that cartoon. Were you trying to read the mind of the cartoonist?
No mention of the Bible, why of course, your're correct! All that was mentioned was some ancient acoount that said, "About 6,000 years ago, the “heavens and the earth and all life upon it were created in six days. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out so well. There was a talking snake and a tree and well . . . anyway, a worldwide flood drowned everything on earth except the family of a 600-year old man who was charged with saving animals. So this man took 2 of everything including microbes, but forgot the dinosaurs .and put them all in this boat."
Hmmm. Wonder where we might find such an account? It's a puzzler, all right.
Dr. Dave, I agree with Erv about the UC system being the best there is in California (with the exception, perhaps, of Stanford). My favorite is UC Davis, but San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Merced, Berkeley, San Francisco, Riverside–they are all good and good values in state. University of Washington is among the best biology and health universities in the country, and the value in-state for residents is exceptional.
Yes, the cartoon is a lot funnier if you recognize the importance of learning about biology (and reality), rather than learning about religious belief and mythology….
Drs. Taylor and Erwin,
Thanks for your notes and opinions. I think highly of you both and this advice is valuable. Having lived the first half of my live in CA, I also highly respect the UC and would be happy for SJ to attend any of its campuses. A few months ago, I thot she was settled on UW. Things can change in a picosecond cant they? 🙂
On a related topic, Ervin, I'm taking your advice from Spring 2011 and plan to visit an SDA church in the Puget Sound area in a few weeks (I should have told you to be sitting down) where Dr. Kirk Johnson PhD has been invited to speak. He is named as the next Director of Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History which follows his current position at the Denver CO Museum of Nature and Science. He has ties to this area. Let me know if you think I should appologise to Nate, in that I promised him I'd not set foot in church again. 😉
Ervin and Joe, thanks again and have an xlnt fall season, my favorite. (oh, reps from Occidental are visiting SJ's school today…. As they say at Santa Monica Beach, catch a wave and hang-ten!)
Speaking of mythology–In the latest addition of Nature, The ENCODE project is reported on, falsifying forever the myth of “junk DNA.” “The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.” Nature, Vol. 489:57-74 (September 6, 2012)
They go on to predict that in time 100% of what was once thought of as junk will prove to be highly sophisticated regulatory code. I think you know where I am going with this. The genetic fossil evidence for mutation driven evolution has just died. I know it is easier to talk about the age of the earth, but honestly . . . . .
I am sure the editors of AToday would be open to any such article if you would like to write it.
Here's something really funny and a good rebuttal to the Doonesbury.
Believer in evolution (faith scientist): "Now look here God we're so smart, we can do anything, even make stuff from dirt…"
God: "Go get your own dirt!"
This might very well be funny. I know I began to chuckle before I even reached the colon.
tut, tut, no place for dirty jokes….
Chris, I did not mean to imply…, well, yes, I kinda did.
More Cosmic Humour….
Man: "Did you make me?"
God: "No, your parents did"
Man: "Who made you?"
God: "My parents"
Man: "And them?"
Buzz Lightyear pops in and interrupts: : "To infinity and beyond!"
A true story told by a renowned Adventist physicist who served in the military during World War II seems appropriate here. The Adventist professor would begin each course of instruction by covering the theory and application of standard RADAR physics, but in the final session with each group of trainees he would launch with this bombshell: "What I have told you so far is simply the cover story you will use to tell the enemy if any of you are ever captured in combat. Now I want to tell you the real facts about RADAR—the truly classified part you should never tell anyone, not even your spouses at home." Whereupon the Adventist physicist would launch into a detailed explanation of how RADAR is actually based entirely on the interaction of mirrors.
Usually the students would allow him to drone on and on quite some time, before finally some solitary hand would rise from somewhere in the group and a hesitant voice would intone, "Dr. B, I think you're putting us on." "Excellent!" the good physicist would reply. "But why are you the only one in the class to raise the question, and why did it take you 2 hours?"
The influence of an instructor with a PhD or similar degree can be immense, though it is said that since the 1960s the likelihood of a "mere student" challenging a classroom authority figure is far higher than during the Greatest Generation Era, when authority figures were considered nearly unassailably superior to lesser mortals of pedestrian intelligence. Some of the fear of the study of evolution is that there is a presumption that if the material comes from the lips of an Apha-type instructor with 33rd-degree status in the Order of Solomonic Wisdom that cowed students will automatically resign all critical thought and accept the professor's pronouncements as New Light and Gospel Truth. Whoever can believe this of today's relational-aged students needs a remedial course in demographic evolution itself. Students in classrooms today are far different than those who sat for instruction in the 1940s, where Victorian Era regard for "the Master" was still a huge part of the academic mystique. Perhaps there is a peculiar fear among very conservative parents and grandparents that their own offspring will not be able to make the critical leap to question a professor who may seem to affirm as truth that which they cannot accept as entirely factual, from a moral standpoint. Certainly the Daniel of Bible writings seemed none the less for intellectual wear after his bout in the universities of Babylon. The very word "university" suggests a study of "everything," and so it should be in our universities, with the understanding that those who hesitate to fill their own ethical pitchers from the wellspring of evolutionary science should be free to accept such instruction "in theory only." A typical career-track biology student should be well able to handle the chore, and may in fact relish it in today's world where challenging authority is just part of the educational process—or should be, according to physicist Dr. B who was astounded by the uncritical ways of the students of his era, 60 or so years ago.
If an undergraduate student questioned an instructor in physics or chemisty, it would either indicate that he should not be an undergraduate, OR, extreme arrogance to question a professor.
And if that student is convinced that evolution is a farce, why would he want to study in an non-Christian school where evolution is guaranteed to be taught?
Students who want not to be challenged or question their faith, should stay in a sheltered environment
I agree Edwin. In fact, I think we actually create more problems than solve by our hard stance on YEC. My main concern is that when our Adventist young people go to college, they have been told in a very uncritical way their whole life that: i) evolution is very easily disproven; and ii) that if they accept evolution they can't be a Seventh-day Adventist. Suprise suprise, they soon learn at college that evolution is not so easily disproven and they then have a massive crises of faith when they then think they are some heretic.
I am not advocating a position in favour of evolution. I am advocating a position in favour of being open to the issue for further discussion and dialogue, recognising evolution is not the death of the SDA Church and our theological framework.
My emphasis when I teach, which is only occasionally, is on assisting students in "learning to learn." I seek to equip them with skills that enable them to address any topic within the scope of the course (with scope broadly defined). The point is for them to become able to find and read what others have studied and written on the topic, to compare and contrast the evidence and conclusions, and to do original scientific experiments and surveys and appropriately analize the data they obtain. I see no point or reason to protect them from seeking valid conclusions. They do not always reach the same conclusions as I do, and that is fine. More often, they find that their data do not fit neatly or precisely with what "everyone knows." And to me, that is really cool, and it helps them appreciate the limitations of "general knowledge" and "common sense" and to understand something of the relationship between specificity and generality. Best of all, they begin to see how complex and fragile information can be and how powerful they can become by actually looking at specific things themselves, and how they can't just make up the answers. They must look at specific evidence, and then they must try to figure out what the evidence means.
For what it is worth, when lecturing every other year to mostly freshman in an lower division archaeology course, I would make some obviously inaccurate statement which any student who had actually read the assigned reading would know to be totally false. I would then see how many students would write down what I just said with no indication that there was some problem with it. You could tell who the very bright students were by their almost instant reaction. I would then ask what was wrong with what I had just said. Again, the students quickly caught on to this technique and listened very carefully to what I said to check it against what the text said. I had all kinds of fun with this approach — and it worked. It was also great beacuse in a couple of places in the text, the author had cited some questionable data. It was a "interesting learning experience" approach. I'm sure it would not work in a theology course in a conservative environment, because everything an instrucotr says has to be "the Truth."
Great teaching method! It was a "teaching moment" for the students, too.
Unless faith based beliefs like evolution should miraculously be actually observable some day, it should not have any real relevance to learning actual biology; but in order to keep the peace it may be worthwhile mentioning this belief to students when discussing extremes in faith. A history class would be better suited for it perhaps.
The assertion that evolution is a "faith based" belief probably deserves some examination. I think the implication here is that believers in evolution are victims of indoctrination, perhaps in some devilish conspiracy to mislead people away from Bible-based faith in God. So, there are just two kinds of people, those who believe in God and those who follow Satan into believing in evolution. But it is not quite that simple, is it?
I have no doubt at all that there are many people who accept evolution as fact who do not understand the evolutionary processes proposed or confirmed by scientists. They cannot cite all the compelling evidence or explain current understanding of geology, paleobiology, genomics, or population ecology. They, essentially, accept as fact the explanations of scientific "authorities." They may accept scientific "authority" in much the same way as some religious people accept scripture as an ultimate (even literal) authority.
I think we can all see and concede that there is a sense in which these belief processes are the same, or, at least, similar.
Then there is the matter of actual real-world tangible measurable information, specimens, evidence, and facts. Some people feel a need to embrace a belief system that takes into account, and offers rational explanations of such evidence. Some people require a very high degree of congruence between evidence and belief. In fact, for some, belief is constantly revised as additional evidence emerges.
Clearly, others accept different sources of authority and different standards of evidence. Belief may be tied to what are considered authoritative and unchangable and inerrant documents, whether from Biblical or scientific (or other) traditions.
The choice in education (getting back to the topic of the cartoon addressed in this thread) is whether our society should teach young people to critically evaluate evidence, or, instead, should be taught that one authoriative tradition is correct, or that they should consider all the alternative traditions and choose among them (or, perhaps, either give up, or choose some other epistemological pathway).
"The choice in education (getting back to the topic of the cartoon addressed in this thread) is whether our society should teach young people to critically evaluate evidence, or, instead, should be taught that one authoriative tradition is correct, or that they should consider all the alternative traditions and choose among them (or, perhaps, either give up, or choose some other epistemological pathway). "
That's just it, Joe. In so many schools, be they high school or college, one is not allowed to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution. They are taught it as fact, and not even the teacher can question it. That standard is not applied to any other brance of science that I know of. Nearly all theories are allowed to be challenged–except that of evolution. Is it any wonder that some folks think some sort of conspiracy is involved?
How can high school or college students "critically evaluate evidence for evolution" or ID? Isn't the reason for education to increase one's knowledge BEFORE he can evaluate? Can an ordinary citizen "evaluate" his physician's diagnosis and treatment? Shouldn't it require more education to evaluate what a specialist, whether teacher or other professional, may say? Should we turn the schools over to the students?
Jean, you are correct that there are schools where students are not allowed to examine and evaluate the evidence. One of them that I attended that did not allow teachers or students to examine the evidence regarding evolution was Pacific Union College. The situation was quite different at San Joaquin Delta College, University of the Pacific, and University of California, Davis, all of which encouraged learning about biology and evolution and critically examining the evidence and seeking understanding of biological processes.
"evolution is not the death of the SDA Church and our theological framework." ????? The difficulty I have with such statements is that “evolution” is such a slippery word. Do we choose to use the word as it is used in science textbooks and as leading scientists use it, or do we use a specialized (parochial) definition more congenial to our needs; such as simple “change over time.”
Darwin maintained that evolution has no direction. . . . Third, Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, pp. 12-13 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1977).
Cornell University evolutionary biologist William Provine has similarly stated that “belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people” William B. Provine, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, pgs. S117, S123 (Margaret W. Rossiter ed., University of Chicago Press 1999).
Dr. Provine says that there are severe philosophical implications of Darwinian biology:
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. William Provine, Abstract, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life,” Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration University of Tennessee, Knoxville Feb. 12, 1998.
that key public defenders of Darwin have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who now serves as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education and was called by the scientific journal Nature “perhaps the nation’s most high-profile Darwinist.” Geoff Brumfiel, “Who Has Designs on Your Students’ Minds?,” Nature, Vol.434:1062 (April 28, 2005).
Dr. Scott is a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are … the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”
All to say, I think we should use the definition of Evolution that is actually taught to our children, or use a different term, but not play games with it.
So, considering that much more is known about biology and geology and cosmology than was known by Darwin or any of his contemporaries, and even much more information is available than anyone knew even ten or twenty or fifty years ago, I'm not much impressed by arguments against what some people think the scientific dogma of the past was.
At the same time, I really dislike efforts that seem to promote evolution as if it was a religious dogma or Darwin as a figure to be worshiped. I think such efforts can be counterproductive to the extent that they might promote (at least in the imaginations of some) an impression that evidence regarding actual biological processes is just some invention. I do not think there is any need or value in being "evangelical" about evolution. I am quite supportive of efforts to promote education in science, math, engineering, and technology–but that kind of education includes learning to obtain and evaluate evidence and think critically about it. That is much different from promoting dogmatic, faith-based, or uncritical acceptance or rejection of specific concepts.
Joe, please look at the quotes again they are not of the past.
It seems to me the the fundamental issue, underlying the debates over the extent to which science proves evolutionary theory, is the question of whether naturalism, as a world view, and science, as a window of that world view, can be seen as equivalents.
Without doubt, at least in my mind, science is naturalistic. That is why I don't believe creationism can be scientifically validated. But it does not follow that naturalism is science. If we accept the epistemological limitations of empiricism and the scientific method, then it seems to me that there should be great tolerance for thoughtful, rigorous criticism of the naturalism that permeates academia, without needing to fear that religion is polluting science. And scientists should honestly admit, as does Joe, that the siren call of naturalism has often led them to make larger truth claims, in the name of science, than the methods and materials of science permit.
If philosophical naturalism is indeed the a priori assumption of science, then two key conclusions follow: 1) there is no plausible alternative explanation for biological reality besides evolutionary theory; and 2) Alternative explanations for that reality have no place at all in higher education, except as psycho-phenomena. But if naturalism is not grafted onto the tree of science, then there are certainly other plausible explanations for the natural world besides exclusively naturalistic theories that, while not verifiable by science, are not inconsistent with science.
Evolutionary theory, it seems to me, is more a branch of philosophical naturalism than a branch of science. The reality, that Loma Linda University has turned out many generations of excellent, Creation believing scientists, underscores how small a niche evolutionary theory occupies in the world of science. Evolutionary theory is the jackboot by which philosophical naturalism exercises hegemonic authority over education, in the name of science.
The irony of this cartoon is that it has a professor at a faith-based university mocking a faith-based world view with the dubious claim that everything we know about biology can be rationally explained by the theory of evolution. But even assuming the statement is valid, can't we also say that everything we know about biology can be rationally explained by theism? No, the secular scientist will say, because only a naturalistic world view is rational. And so the argument for evolutionary supremacy is exposed as no less circular and faith based than theism. At least that's how it strikes me.
Speaking of current Scientists, in the God Delusion, Dawkins says that, “all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution, and that, “No reputable scientists dispute it.”
Richard Dawkins Book “The greatest show on Earth” ( Pg. 6) Would you then dispute his last statement Joe?
Evolutionary theory as a branch of philosophical naturalism, and not a branch of science. This is what it is as I see it also Nathan.
Nathan and Darrel, I think you have both made interesting observations, and points worth discussing. Perhaps the comments of some scientists are confusing or misleading, especially if they make assertions contrary to one's point of view. I very often disagree with things that other scientists say.
An important aspect of the problem is mixing up science as a body of reliable knowledge with science as a way of learning about the world (and beyond). Another way of putting this is the view that "science" is a fund of absolute truth, as opposed to a method by which observations are made, phenomena are described and measured, hypotheses are formed and tested (i.e., evaluated) and sometimes discarded or refined, and knowledge and understanding is advanced according to criteria of predictability, reliability, verifiability, and replicability.
I view science mainly as a way of learning about the natural world, using the best methods one can devise. I have no idea at all of how one can deal with or learn about supernatural things. I am confident that science as a method (really, as a set of methods) has no tools for addressing anything beyond the natural dimension. So I do not see science as falsifying the existence of God or anything supernatural. I see science as a method of learning about the natural world.
I cannot claim much expertise in philosophy. I view philosophy with some suspicion, because, it seems to me to be very much given to attempting to understand reality by just thinking about it or making up the answers one wishes to reach based on very questionable assumptions, all too often based on flawed evidence or premises. That said, I think I am not supportive of "philosophical naturalism" as much as I am supportive of what some would call "methodological naturalism." So, I see science as a set of the best methods we can devise for learning about the natural world. I see a challenge to creativity in trying to devise better and more effective scientific methods.
I do think that there are things that are real and tangible and that we can observe and measure and think about that are actual physical and natural reality. But I'm not big on the "laws of nature." They are, at best, I think, our human cognitive abstractions of reality, and I am not much surprised when someone finds some evidence that things are not as they were previously thought to be.
I think the concept of evolution ("evolutionary theory," if you wish) can be considered to be "philosophical naturalism." There is a sense in which theory or theories about evolution are not quite the same thing as the tangible physical evidence that biological change has occurred over time. And even the theory has been changing in response to evidence across the years. So, sometimes people on one side of the discussion are talking about theory, while people on the other side of the argument are talking about factual evidence. So, one side says the evidence doesn't lie, evolution is a fact, while the other side points to exceptions or weaknesses in the theory as they understand it, or as they understand Darwin or Dawkins or someone articulated. The arguments heat up and people on both sides end up making defensive emotional comments, some of which are not really supported by evidence, even though they are not really talking about the same thing at all.
As I see it, there is a body of physically real evidence to describe, classify, and seek to understand and explain. Dealing with a tangible natural physical dimension is complicated enough, without throwing in N-dimensional supernatural hyperspace. Perhaps natural reality is not all there is. How can I suggest that there is or is not anything else? I can be skeptical of the claims of others who claim knowledge of what seems unknowable to me, but surely there will be ways of knowing things in the future that I have no tools to know about in the present.
The issue of science as philosophical rather than methodological is actually a very real issue of concern to science educators–and each seems to have its advocates. It would be interesting to look into what science educators and science education policy makers say on this issue. My impression is that most actual practicing scientists who are on the cutting edge of discovery very much see science as a method. People who write about or talk about science–maybe even teach about science–more often see science as a fixed body of established fact. The latter, of course, is more likely to be expressed in dogmatic and argumentative ways. It is not surprising that sparks fly when dogma meets dogma–especially if the parties do not even accept objective reality as common ground.
Timo, I imagine you would be very good at doing science, because, in my experience, figuring out how to "do" science (deciding what and how to ask questions or devise ways of measuring things) is a very creative process. Many of the most effective and productive scientists I know are not what one might think of as purely analytic or highly mathematical in their approaches. They are curious, often very well-rounded, frequently artistic, musical, verbal, and athletic, and just full of zest for living life fully–not at all the stereotype so commonly constructed of the nerdish scientist. Of course, there are also those strange folks on which the stereotype is based, but I just have not known nearly as many of those as I have known scientists who do not at all resemble the stereotype.
Anyway, I do see plenty of interface and intermingling of science and philosophy, perhaps, especially epistemology, but metaphysics, not nearly so much. I did TA for a guy many years ago named Charles Tart who studied "parapsychology," "paranormal phenomena," sleep and dreaming, and "altered states of consciousness." He was very strange indeed. Fortunately for the students, the other TA and I handled the entire course for him. The course was experimental psychology, a subject that emphasizes careful design of experiments to avoid confounds and biases, and helps to train students to identify experimental designs that limit the reliability or interpretability of results. As I have said before on AToday, reading the scientific literature critically includes attempting to ascertain whether the conclusions reached are actually warranted by the data/results.
Nothing at all wrong with the musings, Timo. I enjoy reading much of what you write.
Heads you lose, tails we win! Richard Dawkins in 2009, was presenting the supposed junkiness of the vast majority of the genome as an assured scientific reality and one that is, in the specific case of "pseudogenes," "useful for. . . embarrassing creationists."
“Junk DNA is just what a Darwinist would expect . . . .” The Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 332-333),
Also in 2009 “Why Evolution Is True,” by Dr. Coyne predicted (starting at page 71) that according to neo-Darwinism the genome should be replete with inactive, functionless "dead genes."
As many now know, a decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that at least 80% of the human genome serves a purpose, biochemically speaking. "I don't think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance," says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle.
In light of these findings Richard Dawkins now (Sept. 2012) says, the evident fact that "junk DNA" isn't junk at all but is instead vital for life is "exactly what a Darwinist would hope for," namely, "to find usefulness in the living world." That is, heads you lose, tails we win!!
Really excellent observations, Joe. One of the fallacies that is very seductive to humans (there must be a Latin name for it) is the fallacy of false choices, closely related to the straw man argument – if you don't believe what I argue for, you must believe what I am arguing against. Most issues are more complex than that.
I actually think the tendency to push naturalism as science is perhaps more prevalent in the soft sciences, which started calling themselves sciences when the cult of the expert was evolving during the early 20th Century. Those soft sciences, in their quest forpower and authority, have found it necessary to use pseudo-scientific qualifiers like "confidence factors" to give their nonscience more scientific weight.
Scientists working in the hard sciences seem perfectly willing to admit the theoretical nature of many evolutionary hypotheses when talking with one another. But they do have a tendency to circle the wagons when Creationists come along and say, "See, they don't know! Therefore Creation is as a valid a scientific theory as evolution." And of course that is preposterous. Creation isn't a scientific theory at all. And when scientists confuse I.D. theory, which is a soft science, with creationism, they see the camel's nose of Creationism invading the tent of science, and they become unduly defensive and intolerant of I.D. as a legitimate field of academic study. The fear of science being polluted with Creationism leads many, if not most scientists, at least those in academia, to oppose I.D. with arguments implying that evolution proves naturalism. And this leads to much confusion over the limitations of the preferred epistemic pathway.
The real lesson here is that we really have to rely on empirical evidence rather than making claims that what someone expects reflects some ultimate truth. The other thing, of course, is that we should learn to take speculation from anyone, scientist, religionist, or whatever, with a grain of salt.
Some evolutionary biologists place excessive weight, in my opinion, on explanations and scenarios regarding "adaptive value." Sometimes they really believe that the answers they have made up are valid, and sometimes they are, but such explanations are no substitute for actual physical evidence. And finding evidence that is "consistent with" their explanation only means that the evidence does not FALSIFY the hypothesis, more that it demonstrates support of the hypothesis.
So, we are all in trouble, I think, when we believe and insist that we know much more than we do.
"The idea that teaching creation (including the Flood) diminishes the value of biological education is utter nonsense."
I agree100%, Jean.
Never trust todays truth – my favourite teacher told me. It would be rubbished tomorrow. While in medical school, we were taught many things that is not now considered dangerous practice – just 10 years later.
We were taught not to be science 'fundamentalists' and accept 'scientific temperament' that is to listen to both sides of the debate and attempt to test there hypothesis.
We as Inidans have no qualms in living in a dichotomous world – where it all makes sense. Our Communist party (they run two of our 28 states) are happy to keep there own religion. Communism to them, is an ideological journey to change the world and religion is to maintain there personal sanity while they push for change.
Teach your children to be happy schizophrenics – take both the prevalent world view along with our ideological view together.
The suggestion of Suru to accept both the scientific and ideological world view and be a "happy schizoprenic" is a perfect illustration of a postmodern approach to things. May I suggest that this has a lot going for it. It would seem to be pragmatic — go with what works for you. For example, to treat a bacterial infection take both an antibiotic and visit a shaman. What's the downside?
Oliver Cromwell said a good Christian soldier should, "Trust in God and carry dry gunpowder."
The first cause of creation and evolution are both faith based. Of all natural sciences being taught in school I wonder why religion is so prevalence in biology.
It is amusing that such a cartoon can generate such disparate comments. The humor within the cartoon comes from the choice, what are you going to trust more? An ancient book or material facts presented by the modern scientific method? LLU School Medi has a course for Med and Grad students dealing with the tension between strongly held beliefs and doubts that arise as a result of modern scientific endeavors. What it does is separate the issues. Science belongs in a classroom and should not be used to buttress ones beliefs. Religion and theology belong in their respective classrooms. The scientific method can only lend support or falsify specific hypotheses. Even if the data supports a particular hypotheses that does not mean that the story has ended. Ongoing science modifies hypotheses and falsifies some.
Science assumes that natural processes are at work in the natural universe and are comprehensible with careful study and experimentation. Science cannot take a position on the belief of a creator God because there are no means available to test the influence of a creator God.
The marvelous advances in medicine are the result of the amalgam of modern biological sciences with advanced instrumentation. Science "assumes" that patholgies have natural causes and as such can be understood. With this understanding we have been able to intervene and ameliorate many pathologies and the list is long. In the end God does not perform "miracles" but modern science does.
With the study of philosophy, theology and language we can learn much about what humans think. But, it is through modern biological sciences and experimental psychology that we come to understand how our our minds really work.
In the end what is so amusing in this ongoing debate is God is not doing anything to help us. All we have is each other, our thoughts, speculations and experiences. What has always mystified me with regards to believers is why they are so surprised that there are so many of us that question beliefs based on religious traditions and the supportive theology.
“Science assumes that natural processes are at work in the natural universe and are comprehensible with careful study and experimentation. Science cannot take a position on the belief of a creator God because there are no means available to test the influence of a creator God.”
Largely agree. Science is not necessarily what ‘is’ as ultimate truth but rather what can be observed through the scientific method. They are not necessarily the same. God, who by many definitions is outside of space and time (the Hebrew I AM, Greek Ultimate Cause or Hindu Brahman), obviously cannot be tested through the scientific method.
Science cannot test what is on the other side of a black hole either, because by their definition in a black hole the laws of space and time cease to exist. However, most scientists do still believe that black holes exist.
“In the end God does not perform "miracles" but modern science does.”
Largely agree. But who is to say the existence of God and miracles doesn’t have a basis in science? If you went back in time no doubt many of today’s inventions would look like magic. No doubt the inventions of a thousand years in the future would look like magic to us.
What I find ironic is that most self-professed scientifically enlightened people today would deny any possibility of miracles per the Bible stories. But many of these same people would accept, or in many cases actively promote (i.e. Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkins), the possibility of multiple universes, aliens and time travel. They are not mocked as superstitious and irrational science-fiction fundamentalists when they do so.
NASA has just had a conference suggesting they may in the future be able to invent a warp drive for faster-than-light travel. To many, including many scientists today, such an invention would appear ‘supernatural’ in the sense that such a device would appear to break the laws of physics, which limit travel to light speed. Yet, such an invention does not in fact break the laws of physics established in nature. No doubt the invention of the first plane was much the same.
Who says that God and the angels are not merely using science that is so advanced that to us, or rather to our ancestors, appeared to be magic? I accept the possibility of God, angels and miracles, but I do think these ‘supernatural’ miracles are not in effect no more supernatural than a couple of ton aeroplane can stay in the air for hours.
“With the study of philosophy, theology and language we can learn much about what humans think. But, it is through modern biological sciences and experimental psychology that we come to understand how our minds really work.”
And yet do we really know how our minds really work – or are we still at the tip of the iceberg.
Is love just a bunch of chemicals in our brains – an evolutionary adaption to help our offspring survive – or something much more?
Isn’t the truly theological notion about human beings is that we alone seem to be able to rise above our evolutionary programme. Dawkins makes this observation himself at the end of The Selfish Gene. Human beings trick and ignore their genes every time we use contraception.
“In the end what is so amusing in this ongoing debate is God is not doing anything to help us.”
Perhaps the problem isn’t God, but rather the Santa-Clause caricature of a God you and Richard Dawkins perhaps have in mind? Perhaps you expect the nature of God to be dispensing presents and punishments according to a list of whether people are naughty or nice? Perhaps you fail to grasp that by definition, God is the name to that thing or attribute that cannot be defined, which is why throughout history many scholars have suggested we never talk about what God is but can only talk about what God isn’t.
The fact that the physical laws of the universe exist to allow life is amazing. The fact that the earth is in the goldilocks zone and has the unique conditions of life is amazing. The fact that humanity exists, which has evolved beyond the confines of evolution itself is amazing.
As Dorothy Soelle says, in this world God has no hands but ours, given we are his images on earth. Instead of so many people asking about when God is going to show up, perhaps more people should look in the mirror? When Gideon asked the angel why God had allowed Israel to be enslaved and where were the miracles of his Exodus forefathers, the angel effectively said – Gideon, you are the miracle and you are the answer to prayer.
“What has always mystified me with regards to believers is why they are so surprised that there are so many of us that question beliefs based on religious traditions and the supportive theology.”
And what always surprises us who do believe is the smugness and arrogant certainty of those who don’t believe. As Marxist agnostic Terry Eagleton says, slamming the arrogance and stupidity of Richard Dawkins, in his opening paragraph (I advocate reading the whole article):
“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
"Science belongs in a classroom and should not be used to buttress ones beliefs. Religion and theology belong in their respective classrooms."
The problem with that idea is that true science and true religion are in perfect harmony. What one discovers in science will never be out of harmony with what one discovers in the Bible. A proper understanding Scripture will not conflict with science. The problem arises when science assumes to be able to explain everything by observation. Science cannot go beyond what it can observe. It cannot observe God, and therefore cannot explain or dissect God. Trying to explain the universe without acknowleging the role of the Creator gets them into trouble. When making assumptions about the past, there are too many gaps in the avaliable information. This is where science goes off into the twilight zone in it's extrapolative speculations. Because so many scientists have an a priori committment to a Godless universe they can never arrive at the truth.
"When making assumptions about the past, there are too many gaps in the avaliable information. This is where science goes off into the twilight zone in it's extrapolative speculations."
I do agree insofar as scientists do indeed enter the realm of speculation, almost to the point of theology, when they discuss things beyond which can be observed with the scientific method. Again, as agnostic marxist Eaglton says:
"In some obscure way, Dawkins manages to imply that the Bishop of Oxford is responsible for Osama bin Laden. His polemic would come rather more convincingly from a man who was a little less arrogantly triumphalistic about science (there are a mere one or two gestures in the book to its fallibility), and who could refrain from writing sentences like ‘this objection [to a particular scientific view] can be answered by the suggestion . . . that there are many universes,’ as though a suggestion constituted a scientific rebuttal."
Mr. Corbeau states that "true science and true religion are in perfect harmony" and "A proper understanding [of] Scripture will not conflict with science." Both statements sound fine until someone asks what is "true science," and "true religion" and what is a "proper understanding of Scripture"? I really hope that Mr. Corbeau will share with us his take on answering these questions.
Right, Erv, and I think it is valid to suggest that when science reveals truth and when religion reflects ultimate reality, there should be no conflict between them. The problem arises, when science and religion disagree about what is true. Which is selected as the standard to which the other must conform? Some say one, while others say the other. My most generous perspective is that religion can provide the standard with regard to the supernatural realm, but science has a stronger claim regarding the natural physical realm.
HOWEVER (and there seems always to be a big however), science includes standards regarding relationships between reliability and validity, among other things, that assist in evaluating evidence and conclusions. In the spiritual or supernatural realm, the standards and their uses vary in ways that people seem not to be able to agree on.
Another problem I see is the relative flexibility of science (although some of the people I call "evangelical atheists" are not very flexible) relative to much of religion. The views on how to change what is considered an acceptable concept of what represents ultimate reality differ.
The evaluation of science can be evaluated by all scientists universally; religious assertions give disparate answers depending on which religious group is being questioned. Scientists do reach almost universal agreement with past discoveries, but it is impossible to get such agreement even within small religious groups, so how could there ever by a consensus of what is "true religion"?
s question, did you have an answer or is it simply stating a personal belief? The problem arises when religion assumes to be able to explain everything without observation.
Perhaps we could productively resist the tendency to lump all believers or scientists or theologists into groups as if there is as much uniformity in each each group as our generalizations imply. With regard to speculation beyond the hard evidence available, there is much variation within and across fields.
Certainly, some individuals go far beyond the evidence into speculative interpretations and speculations. How damaging that is depends on whether it is made clear that what is just a suggestion, or whether speculation is offered as Truth. So, it seems to me, that it is up to us as individuals to become capable of distinguishing evidence/results/data from discussion about the results, including suggestions, examination, evaluation, explanation, extrapolation, interpretation, speculation, and wild speculation.
Please do not think or act as if Dawkins is the official authoritative spokesperson for science or evolutionary biology. I know it is difficult to get out of the authoritarian mindset in which "authorities" are quoted and their views are generalized to everyone who is seen as belonging to some associated group.
Thank you, John, for explanation above. I think it is helpful in debunking some myths about science.
Yes I think Joe what you are suggesting is entirely reasonable.
Again, I think it helps to recognise that science (physical philsophy) and theology (and other forms metaphysical philosophy) are related and can inform each other to contribute to debate (I reject NOMA) but they are indeed different things. I think Eaglton's point is people like Dawkins is so smug about the supposed superiority of science as the only source of 'truth', to the extent that Dawkins says in the God Delusion (and his TV doco the Root of All Evil) that the theory of evolution killed the need for a God. But then Dawkins goes off speculating himself about multiple universes and other form of metaphysical answers, demonstrating indeed that what can be observed using the scientific method indeed isn't sufficient for the human need of the question of the ultimate original cause.
It illustrates that deep down, all human beings ask theological-like questions – especially about what really existed at the beginning, beginning, beyond what can be observed to the time before there was anything. The second great theological question is why we human beings are here, as if the universe has evolved to the extent that is has become self-aware. So called athiest scientists, including Richard Dawkins, are just as 'spiritual' as the rest of us in asking these questions. It is just that Dawkins rejects a caracterish Santa-god that I similarly don't believe in – nor do most theologians of most religions.
What about being reasonable about this?
From skimming through the comments here, I have noted that somehow, perhaps unintentionally, the omission of taking into account the extremely significant affect that the evolution of law in America has had on the Judiciary and its associated legal fraternity in that it has greatly empowered the case in favour of getting evolution embedded into the curriculum of the Natural Sciences, including Biology. Through gradual evolutionary changes in the interpretation and application of the tenets of the U.S. Constitution and its supporting legislature the judiciary has undeniably made decisions that have worked in favour of the establishment of evolution in the classroom. The same can be said of when creation was in its heyday.
What does this tell us? Those legal discoveries that have evolved over the years since Darwin’s ‘book’ have made a much more significant impact on school curriculum where evolution is concerned, than any real significant scientific discovery made to warrant it taught as science. Legal muscle evolved significantly making it easier for evolution propagandists, like the National Science Foundation, who funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, to largely influence the return of evolution into high school textbooks and by the 1960’s it began to be widely taught. Much of the indoctrination suffered by students as a result of this can be seen in the fanaticism of majority of scientists today. It’s not their fault; after all they were just kids back then…
When you write about "gradual evolutionary changes in the interpretation and application o f the tenets of the U.S. Constitution," can you be more specific? That is such a broad statement that is very ambiguous of your intent.
The characterization of fanaticsm of scientists is classifying most of them as crackpots (or do you have another definition of fantaticism?). It has been equally applied to those who wish to remove science from the classroom and restore Creationism . There are too many kids who were taught that all creation could be taught from Genesis and anything else should be ignored. They are the adults now who are angry at being deceived by having teachers who refused to instruct them in the methods of scientific study.
If you are an educator, can you furnish suggestions that are not criticisms? Have you ever taught science? Was it your major in college? IOW, what are your credentials for suggesting a science curriculum?
LIke Elaine, Mr/Ms. 22oct1844's statement about "the fanaticism of [the] majority of scientists today" struck me as more than a little odd — "crackpot comment" did come to mind. But before I jump to conclusions, I wonder if Mr/Ms. 22oct1844 would enlighten the rest of us as to examples of the "fanaticism" of scientists today? (Again, I wonder: Why is it that the traditonalists posting here seem to be the only ones who don't use their real names).
I think 22oct1844 is a he, and I think he is one of the authors of the Christ or Culture website, which means he is probably either Steven Borg, Doug Batchelor or Kenneth Cox – and that would explain why he doesn't use his real name. Then again, he could just be an 'ordinary nobody' such as myself.
Erv,
You know I am not a traditionalist and I use Dr. F. But, anyone who has followed this blog long enough knows I have signed my name. Just a minor point.
John Buchholz
Behold! A fanatical scientist making crackpot statements! His assumptions are accepted in science curricula accross the nation–the mistaken notion of infinite time and the supposed power of pure chance.
". . . . given massive lengths of time and a universe to work in, the unlikely becomes likely."
“Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible. The large numbers proverbially furnished by astronomy, and the large time spans characteristic of geology, combine to turn topsy-turvy our everyday estimates of what is expected and what is miraculous.” Richard Dawkins (1989) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W. W. Norton and Co. New York. p139.
Richard Dawkins Book ‘The greatest show on Earth”
Here is a quote from his book regarding this (Chapter 1 Page 6):
“They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the universe up in the first place, and solemnized its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfill some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.”
Here are a few of this type of flawed reasoning where bias is clearly propagated:
1] … but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.
2] … thoughtful and rational people accept the evidence of evolution.
3] … ill-informed opposition is also stronger than I can remember.
4] .. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.
God Delusion (2006) pgs. 58-59
Come on admit it! Evolution got into schools by legal technicalities via an evolved culturally subdued judiciary and legal system which protected its effort to indoctrinate youngsters seeking to learn science. It really got in by the back door and even though it still holds no real credibility and remains very faith based, it has been unjustifiably melded into the mainstream sciences and the schooling system as de facto. On what scientific grounds does evolution stand that qualifies it to be taught as an integral part of Biology? Fundamentalists do have good sense to see a crock when they see one. So why should it be taught in their schools if it has no scientific grounds and only some legislative backing?
Very well stated, 22oct1844.
I guess it got in because some 97% of scientists believe in it. Judges aren't scientists, and have to rely on expert evidence. A judge, when presented with 97 expert witnesses in favour of a thing, and 3 expert witnesses against, is obviously likely to adopt the position of the 97.
We might similarly ask why a range of other topics, issues and facts are not taught in schools anymore. I would doubt most schools would teach segregation of the races, or benefits of communist economic models, or that the moon landing really was filmed in a Holywood studio. All these things might well be factually true, but they are hardly going to be taught whilst the overwhelming number of experts say they are not.
Whether one likes that reality or not, nothing will change whilst there is an overwhelming number of scientists in favour of evolution. One might argue that the Adventist Church has attempted to increase the 3%, but despite some efforts, nothing has really changed in the scientific consensus for quite some time, and not likley to change again in the future.
One might blame the GRI of the GC for doing such a poor job at disproving evolution. In the absence of the GRI and similar groups of creationist scientists working harder to do a better job, one can hardly blame people for going with the 97% of scientists who advocate evolution can you?
The fact that the majority of any particular subgroup believes something to be true is no proof of its veracity. The majority of Christian theologians believe Sunday is the proper day of worship, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So I wouldn't place much stock in the fact that 97% of scientists believe in evolution. They do it with much less evidence than theologians who reject the Sabbath.
True, and I believe a majority of scientists believed in Y2K and that turned out to be less than correct as well. Jean, I hope you are right – I really do. But for me, personally, I do struggle with the fact that so many scientists, from so many different fields, from so many different backgrounds and nations, for some long (now well over a hundred years), still very much believe in evolution. The ambiguity surrounding the Sabbath I can somewhat get, but the problem with science is that it is impossible for a layman non-scientist like me to check the primary data.
True, and I believe a majority of scientists believed in Y2K and that turned out to be less than correct as well. Jean, I hope you are right – I really do. But for me, personally, I do struggle with the fact that so many scientists, from so many different fields, from so many different backgrounds and nations, for some long (now well over a hundred years), still very much believe in evolution. The ambiguity surrounding the Sabbath I can somewhat get, but the problem with science is that it is impossible for a layman non-scientist like me to check the primary data.
"True, and I believe a majority of scientists believed in Y2K"
Really? I would love to see your evidence for that. Why would scientists believe in such a prediction? There is no significance whatsoever in man's decision to designate years as 2000, which was calculated on the probable date of Jesus' birth. Jews calculate years from the estimation of creation; the Mayans calculate time by a different time table. So 2000 is an arbitrary number with no significance to earthly reality.
Yes, there were many that were fearful, but they were, in many cases, the same ones who are fearful of the unknown and they are seen in the apocalyptic types who are stockpiling for life when a world catastrophe occurs, or the government begins to take over human actions. Apocalypticsm is a subject which humans have questioned, debated, set dates for, since recorded history. When the year 1000 A.D.approached there was hysteria throughtout much of Europe; but that was when both illiteracy and education was limited to a very few.
". . . . given massive lengths of time and a universe to work in, the unlikely becomes likely."
“Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible. The large numbers proverbially furnished by astronomy, and the large time spans characteristic of geology, combine to turn topsy-turvy our everyday estimates of what is expected and what is miraculous.” Richard Dawkins (1989) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. W. W. Norton and Co. New York. p139.
The problem with these type of statements is they contradict the laws of Science. They are presumptions used as the basis of scientific explanation of origins that lead to Evolution. In general I find creationists more honest with their faith statements. Some evolutionists use their own implied faith statements for their assertions as science.
If you read Dawkin's God Delusion he is quite convincing in arguing biological evolution, which is after all his speciality. But he does an extremely poor job at explaining the anthropomorphic principle, which is how the laws of physics which govern the universe itself (which didn't evolve over a near infinite amount of time but were created in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang) are just right to allow life to evolve in the universe. The biggest question is not how life evolved, but rather why does anything at all exist, given everything came from nothing ex nilho.
When faced with this conudrum, Dawkins (and Steve Hawkings who agrees with him) is left to argue there is an infinite number of different multiple universes, and that we just happen to live in the one universe where the laws of physics are perfectly attuned to allow the evolution of life. In that sense, you are right that Dawkins is making a statement of faith, a metaphysical speculation, which can cannot prove using the scientific method.
I do dislike the implication that logic and scientific discovery cannot occur in a fundamentalst Christian educational environment. I resent the depiction of creationists as total rubes ignorant of "the truth" or that exposure to them might inhibit getting into a better college or program. Our kids attended a more fundamentalist program than even most SDA schools (Baptist), attended Adventist church, and still managed to score quite highly on SATs, ASFAB, and had no problem gaining acceptance to higher schools of learning. Our oldest was accepted into Cal Poly's architecture early admission program and ended up with an architectural engineering degree having scored the highest in her class. Our youngest has completed his BofM and is working on his masters at another state university. Their religious and scientific education has not slowed their love of learning, their achievement in the real world, or anything else.
The arrogance shown of late against any Christian belief, particularly as it relates to academia is pathetic.
I have an Adventist friend who held a tertiary qualification but didn't know where Greece was on a map of the world. I had another Adventists friend with a tertiary qualification who didn't know we had a Federal system of government. I have several friends with engineering degrees, who earn twice or three times as much money as I do, and they wouldn't know the first thing about many politics, history, philosophy, science or other contentious issue.
I have a few degrees and no doubt I am quite ignorant of a range of subjects. The point is, obtaining a high SAT score or having a degree isn't an indication of whether someone has a well-rounded education or knowledge on a certain subject, such as the evolution vs creation debate.
I have several degrees and to be honest I am not qualified at all to assess any of the primary scientific data concerning the evolution debate. To that extent, I have to rely on experts to interpret that primary data for me.
I certainly hope evolution isn't true, but I note some 97% or more of scientists believe in evolution, and that figure is even higher amongst scientists in evolution-relate fields (i.e. biological, geology, cosmology etc). Even amongst the Church's own handpicked scientists at the GRI, there are a bunch who admit that there currently is no scientific model which supports the 6×24 hour creation account.
I wish it wasn't so, and I hope way day there is a 'Perry Mason moment' to disprove evolution, but it doesn't appear coming anytime soon.
Stephen, I did not mean to imply that scores or degrees came with knowledge of all aspects of life, only that exposure to creationists does not dumb kids down or impair their future scientific achievement. Scientific exploration should not be inhibited by someone who believes in any particular theory to the point that they discount any data that doesn't fit their particular belief. I see this particularly among creationists, evolutionists, and those who believe or disbelieve that we contribute sufficient global warming to endanger all of nature, the oceans, and humanity.
They would argue we should not reinvent the wheel but data gets skewed on all sides. I only hope that curiosity continue to prevail on all sides and that my offspring continue to believe what they will but not before satisfying their thirst for knowledge of the issue, all sides. I don't feel either AU of the 60s, and 70s or LLU in the 70s stifled my somewhat cynical approach to extremists of all stripes, and I don't think the very strict Baptist school my kids attended stifled their curiosity.
We see a lot of junk science nowadays, particularly in the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine movements, but none seem to be stigmatized as much as the creationists.
Yes I agree insofar as I do hope the creationist science continues, even though it has been quite unsuccessful so far.
All science should be tested – even about GMOs and vaccines. I guess the danger in those movements is that it becomes 'junk science' when people make findings without any real scientific evidence to back it up. If one recalls, the anti-vaccine hysteria began when a scientist claimed he had findings suggesting a link between vaccination and autism – there was no findings.
I appreciate some creationist scientists at GRI come out and admit that whilst they believe in 6 x 24 hour creation by faith, there currently is no supported scientific model that supports their view; however, they are going to continue looking, as they should. In my opinion, that approach is far more honest than creationists who claims there is scientific findings that category support YEC, which they don't.
In short, scientists should never take anything for granted, and should always be testing everything, including evolution. But on the flip side, a scientist shouldn't come out and say something is disproven without evidence either.
"they are going to continue looking"
I live close to California gold country. There are still excited folks who are looking for gold there every day, hoping to find that elusve nugget that will be their "Eureka" moment and make them abundantly wealthy for life.
The GRI would NOT be studying so intensely to find evidence for creation were it no subsidized by the SDA church. If they were successful, where would they
be cmployed elsewhere? Why find the answer if in so doing they killed the goose that is continuing to lay golden eggs for them?
The court action which gave evolution much leeway isn’t about judgement’s ruling in favour of it being proven as a scientific fact; but rather, that it got in based on a technicality which was largely dependent on an evolved judiciary which at this point in time favoured the state side of the state/church divide. The trump card which worked in its favour is that evolution is a sneaky non-God belief system conveniently hiding under a secular garb thereby allowing it to get in by the back door. It is quite unscientific in my opinion for a volatile legal system to function as a decider on what qualifies as science – even if ninety seven percent of scientists are Dawkins fans.
Here are examples of ten court cases over the last few decades taken from a pro-evolution education website “The National Center for Science Education” (http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism) showing that it was largely technicalities than any actual proof that got (and kept) evolution in.
From what I have gathered, historically, much of what is considered largely as modern western scientific achievement, started out due to Christian Scientists (a taboo name today) seeking to understand our Omniscient God better.
It is quite odd how we can so quickly remove God from the equation when He blesses us intellectually and spiritually. Worse still is when we justify this and use laws to force others to learn how to deny Him. Thank God that He is infinitely mightier than the creatures of His hand. Even though he is the Creator of all that mere mortals may see, admire and enquire; yet He still chooses to fight tHis battle at the cross. Though the majority of man's 'experts' accept and believe evolution as an indication of progressive knowledge, the cross offers us an alternative 'science' – at least to those that believe and have an experimental 'knowledge' of it (+ its free!)
The fact that the first scientists were Christians (many of them monks actually) I don't think is relevant whether God should be mentioned in a modern science classroom in a secular State like the US (going back to the Civil War in England), which enshrines the separation of Church and State – a principle dearly held by Seventh-day Adventists. A judge of the United States might personally find the message of the Cross a better alternative to the 97 experts who claim evolution's truth, but such a judge can hardly give a judgment on that basis can he because again that would be the breaching the separation of Church and State.
Science can't and shouldn't mention God because God can't be tested by the scientific method, as we have discussed. Science only asks what can be observed physically.
There is a place to mention the metaphysical, but it is in religion classes – which is what they are there for.
To use my worn example of Adam, if people went back in time and observed 1-day old Adam what would they report? In the science class, they would teach he was 30-years old, because that is what is observed using the scientific method. In the religion class, they would teach that he was only 1-day old, having been made by the Creator the day before. They would both be right!
The fact that the first scientists were Christians (many of them monks actually) I don't think is relevant whether God should be mentioned in a modern science classroom in a secular State like the US (going back to the Civil War in England), which enshrines the separation of Church and State – a principle dearly held by Seventh-day Adventists. A judge of the United States might personally find the message of the Cross a better alternative to the 97 experts who claim evolution's truth, but such a judge can hardly give a judgment on that basis can he because again that would be the breaching the separation of Church and State.
Science can't and shouldn't mention God because God can't be tested by the scientific method, as we have discussed. Science only asks what can be observed physically.
There is a place to mention the metaphysical, but it is in religion classes – which is what they are there for.
To use my worn example of Adam, if people went back in time and observed 1-day old Adam what would they report? In the science class, they would teach he was 30-years old, because that is what is observed using the scientific method. In the religion class, they would teach that he was only 1-day old, having been made by the Creator the day before. They would both be right!
"Removing God from the equation" is a tired refrain. No one is moving God anywhere. That is an inference that we can add or remove God at will.
But in scientific observation, a supernatural being or effect cannot be studied. How would one study how or whether an event is due to a supernatural being?
Please inform us how one can observe, quantify, and discover whether God effected an event or whether it was a natural consequence or whether satan caused it to happen?
It is like asking a physician to determine whether God or satan caused your illness. Did your becoming sick indicate a supernatural reason? How could a physician begin to treat it if it were caused by forces outside his knowledge?
A physician is a scientist of human anatomy and physiology: trained to understand how the body functions and what may possibly cause dysfunction, and he seeks to determine how malfunctions occured and how to treat them.
Other scientists are engaged in many and varied disciplines; but none can simply say: this was because of supernatural events or a supernatural being directed a miracle.
Religion and Creationism is a philosophy and answering scientific questions is outside the proper area of study. In science, there can usually be given answers; who can give the right and correct answers for religious beliefs when there are so many different answers given?
"It is like asking a physician to determine whether God or satan caused your illness."
Yes, I think that is a very good analogy to explain this issue. In ancient times, say in the Roman world, doctors would actually prescribe prayers to various gods, in addition to physical remedies such as medicine.
In today's hospitals, doctors are not against prayer, many doctors pray themselves, and hospitals even provide chaplains for those who want. But doctors don't learn prescribed prayers at medical school, and they don't tell patients which God or gods they should pray to.
So do people feel modern medicine has endangered God – doubt it. Do medical students complain that modern medical schools have removed God from the equation – no. Is there still a space for private belief in God and prayer in the life of doctors and patients – absolutely?
Could Satan, curses and demons cause medical illness – possibly. But as these supernatural entities cannot be observed through the scientific method, and as we live in a world where people believe in a variety of God, gods or no gods at all, it is entirely appropriate that doctors do not learn ritual prayers to certain gods in modern medical schools as they did in the ancient world.
Modern medicine didn't kill God (unless you are a Christian Scientist and don't believe in modern medicine). Likewise, science won't kill God either.
E. Nelson has taken my 'removing God from the equation' out of context; but why?
Mature progressive scientists will recognise the role Christianity has played in science.
"Christian beliefs played an important part in the development of modern science. … The ideas necessary for the birth and growth of science are that the world is orderly and rational and open to the human mind. These are Christian beliefs about the world."
"[Scientific] premises define and limit the scientific mode of thought. It should be pointed out, however, that each of these postulates had its origin in, or was consistent with, Christian theology …"
"It is widely accepted on all sides that, far from undermining it, science is deeply indebted to Christianity and has been so from at least the Scientific Revolution. Recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Biblical theology."
True, modern science does owe a lot to Christianity, especiall Medieval Roman Catholic monks, who were the pioneers of science. But society also owes a lot to Muslim scientists, who were the light of the world during the Dark Ages.
In fact, recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Islamic theology. The Koran has many more scientific statements, including statements that Muslims say supports modern scientific views about conception and the development of the fetus, or even has statements in support of evolution! Many Muslims argue these scientific statements prove their book is superior to the Bible.
http://www.linamalkawi.com/2009/07/support-for-evolution-in-quran.html
Thus, science does owe a lot to Catholic monks and Islam. But that is not to say we should allow Roman Catholic or Islamic religion to be taught in the science classroom – I can't imagine too many Adventists would be happy with that!
The assertion that 97% of scientists are "Dawkins fans" [note: "fan" is short for "fanatic"] is unfounded and probably not true. Of course, what is meant is that 97% percent of scientists surveyed agreed that biological change over time (i.e., evolution) occurred. This view is dominant among scientists because it is supported by abundant evidence. There is, essentially, no evidence to the contrary, especially with regard to YEC. I, who once firmly believed the YEC position until I was exposed to evidence, am not really a "Dawkins fan." I think he is unnecessarily confrontational, and, at times, uses confrontational rhetoric and ridicule to bully people who are honestly seeking truth. If he were a bit kinder and more considerate, he would, of course, be less controversial and less in demand as a speaker and writer. In a sense, he has adopted a sort of evangelistic style that has been effectively used by those he rails against.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, etc., have all had their scholars. Much emphasis in religion has been on the search for truth, and, especially, truth that is accurately predictive. Science emerged as a method of obtaining and evaluating predictive truth. A problem that has developed along side science has been reliance on dogma and tradition as an authoritative source for predictive truth. The the quality and quantity of available evidence increases across time. Evidence-based epistemologies, in contrast to traditional dogma, incorporate evidence as it accumulates and thrives on testing and revising understanding. Having truth, and seeking truth, are two very different perspectives.
Claims about supernatural and spiritual dimensions cannot be addressed by scientific methods designed (exclusively) to seek understanding of physical reality. But there is a glaring clash between assertions about the timing of YEC and the denial of biological changes over time, and the actual physical evidence from geology and and biology. Those physical facts indicate that the earth and its productions are very old and have changed across time–that is "evolution as fact." How did the physical phenomena observed emerge? By what processes did evolution occur? That is the challenge faced by scientists–and they can't simply make up the answers. Science as a process of gaining and evaluating information is a set of methods that can and does investigate the physical evidence and helps to figure out how things work and what processes are involved in biological changes across time.
Arguing against evidence-based science is surely a losing game for religionists. Why would those who claim to be the most serious about honesty and truth so fiercely oppose inescapable, tangible, real-world evidence? Denial of abundant factual evidence and resorting to convoluted spiritualistic explainations for which no evidence exists is ridiculous–and it is not too surprising that such an approach sometimes elicits some ridicule.
Joe, in the God Delusion, Dawkins says that “the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scirntific question” (2006) pgs. 58-59 Why do you not agree? Are we to say scientific method can not detect intelligence?
How can it be a scientific question? I am hoping Joe will say it is a nonsense question. It is the sort of attitude that actually lumps Dawkins with religious fundamentalists. If Dawkins is pressed, he will and has admitted that technically he is an agnostic because it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove something that by definition exists outside the realm of space and time which can be observed.
If the "presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is a scientific question," what is the scientific answer for that assertion?
First of all, no one should expect me to agree with Dawkins 100%. I doubt that I agree with anyone 100% about pretty much anything. On this issue, I completely disagree that "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question," although I might feel a bit differently if I read the full context. I simply do not see it is possible to even address the question of an imagined super-intelligence.
I'm with Stephen on this one–about this being nonsense. Science can only deal with real and natural physical dimensions. "Mind" and "intelligence" are inferred states anyway.
Science can only deal with what is “real?”
Now Joe, you seem to have already conclude
what is ‘not real,’ as I have as well. So in actual
fact you are saying which side ‘stoic or epicurean,’
Is correct, can not be tested?
Sorry, Darrel, you've lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
“science can only deal with the real.” Is that statement testable?
Ah, so, are you thinking that I might be rejecting theoretical physics as not being science? Well, even theoretical physics is about matter and energy, that is, about physical phenomena….
Can science theoretically deal with imaginary phenomena? Probably, in some cases and at some levels. Even so, science is grounded in observable or measurable phenomena. Going beyond natural reality into the supernatural and metaphysical puts science into places where there is no basis for it to function.
Darrell brings up a good point if I understand what he is getting at.
It is interesting that many modern atheist scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkings, today mock biblical miracles as ‘supernatural’ or ‘magic’; however, in the next breath they happy to admit the possibility of life on other planets, time travel or multiple universes. They claim theology is a discussion about a non-existent being, but then quickly move from the physical to the metaphysical themselves in attempting to describe things they cannot explain. Dawkins’ and Hawkings’ speculations about time travel, multiple universes and alien life, are arguably nothing more than age-old theological musings about the transcendent divine beyond space and time, the divine everywhere in space and time, a superior divine entity or entities who descend to come into communion with mankind.
Perhaps a key problem with Judeo-Christianity is the focus on narrative, rather than philosophy. Judaism and Christianity are usually judged by both insiders and critics as ‘true’ or ‘false’ by reference to whether certain historical events, such as the Eden story, Noah’s flood, the Exodus, Jesus’ ministry and resurrection were or were not historical facts. But perhaps we should instead focus on Christianity as a philosophy of religion, in the sense that all human beings, even supposedly secular atheist ones, have a ‘God-shaped hole’ in sensing something beyond the immediate world around us.
All religions and cultures, even the sub-culture of secular atheist scientists, appear to have ‘hard-wired’ mental musings of these three aspects of God or the divine. However, I would argue that the ‘superiority’ of Christianity, regardless of the factual historicity of the Judo-Christian narrative, is its philosophical approach to this age-old musing of the human mind. Rather than choosing just one view of the divine, Christianity acknowledges all three aspects but in one Triune God: of the aspect of God beyond space and time (OT ‘I Am’ and NT ‘Father’); of God everywhere in space and time (OT and NT ‘Holy Spirit’); and of God descending into communion with mankind (OT ‘Angel of the Lord’ and NT ‘Son’).
God may only exists in our minds – but still be real.
I write blogs several weeks before they are posted, in order to think about them more myself. So this weeks blog was not written to add to this conversation, But this month's blog is called WHY DO THINGS EVOLVE?
I am not a philosopher, nor a basic scientist, but my fairly practical mind is more intrested in why things happen and how they happen. So since the scientists have convinced me (with aid of my own eyes) that things have changed with time, the theologian in me wants to know why. Once we get over being afraid of the fact of evolution, there are many interesting and helpful reasons to see why it happens and how.
I guess my suggestion is, Evolutionists we see evolution happens, now why and how, and we are not just satisfied with "because". And Theists, how about this, evolution happens because it was designed to.
Would that make any difference in your approach if we find the hand of God in it? Some believers surely do. Anyway that blog should magically appear this week.
A good approach, I think, Jack. Even agreeing on describing "how" and "when" would be a great step forward, if there were an openness to that.
I have no interest in claiming that anyone knows that God had no hand in it. Now, I would not prefer that children be taught that we KNOW God designed it all, but I also prefer that children not be taught that scientists KNOW exactly how life began. If this would form a foundation that would enable the door to be opened to the study of paleontology and geology and zoology, and comparative genomics, etc., in SDA colleges and universities, that would be a great step forward.
Jack, I assume by ‘evolution’ you mean change
over time. If this is so then yes, many of us
would agree, since that is a well demonstrated
and tested fact. My objection is to ‘mechaniism.’
I abjected to the orthodox mechinism before I was
a Christian.
I know for many, accepting ‘change over time’ is
difficult because of faulty Biblical interpretation.
If we add to that the idea that ‘change over tiime’ is
a grand support to mutation/selection/luck/chance/ definition
of evolution, then how can we expect people
to accept the Paleontology when we add to their burden
a naturalist material philosopy?
“I guess my suggestion is, Evolutionists we see evolution happens, now why and how, and we are not just satisfied with "because". And Theists, how about this, evolution happens because it was designed to”
Look forward to it Jack. I would just add that of on fails to see something truly amazing or almost divine in this world, I suggest you look in the mirror.
The fact is, human beings are the universe made conscious of itself! Moreover, human beings are effectively post-evolutionary, a point Dawkins himself notes with almost a sense of theological awe in the last chapter of the Selfish Gene. Dawkins observes, in response to claims he advocates social Darwinism, that humans effectively trick or disobey their genetic programme every time they use contraception. In popular science fiction, there are lots of stories about robots one day evolving to the point of rebelling against our control, but in effect, these may just be musings on humanity’s own place as the biological version of the Terminator Skynet.
Almost every human being in every culture of the whole world also seemed to be hardwired for a belief in God or the divine. It is interesting that many modern atheist scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkings, today mock biblical miracles as ‘supernatural’ or ‘magic’; however, in the next breath they happy to admit the possibility of life on other planets, time travel or multiple universes. They claim theology is a discussion about a non-existent being, but then quickly move from the physical to the metaphysical themselves in attempting to describe things they cannot explain. Dawkins’ and Hawkings’ speculations about time travel, multiple universes and alien life, are arguably nothing more than age-old theological musings about the transcendent divine beyond space and time, the divine everywhere in space and time, a superior divine entity or entities who descend to come into communion with mankind.
Finally, modern scientific and rationalist thought tries to place religion phenomena in the mind, saying this ‘disproves’ the supernatural as ‘not real.’ For example, many liberal biblical scholars (such as Duling and Pilch) argue that Christ’s resurrection was not factually and historically real but merely a class of mass mental hysteria or a form of communal altered state of consciousness (ASC) – which I of course reject. Likewise, prophecy might be a form of epilepsy and demon possession a form of psychogenic non-epileptic seizure (PNES).
But assuming Duling and Pilch are correct, why do we assume things in the mind aren’t ‘real’ and need to be ‘cured’? Why do we suggest that if God only exists in the human mind God doesn’t really exist? The human mind is the most complex thing in the universe so far discovered, and we are only just scratching the surface as to the mind’s potential and abilities.
Rather than focusing outwards for proofs of God, perhaps we should be focusing inwards? Instead of focusing on endless debates on whether there is scientific evidence of a historical Garden of Eden, perhaps we instead should ask why human beings don’t accept this evil, cruel Darwinian struggle world as ‘natural’, but instead have an idealized vision of ‘Eden or Heaven’ in their collective consciousness?
If we want to see evidence of something beyond the limits of the material-physical effects of evolution, of something that seems divine, again, consider no further than the uniqueness of humanity.
Yes, human imagination is quite remarkable.
It is also remarkable how we can think that the universe is all about us….
So is humanity just another animal – or are we indeed special? I don't just mean special in a good way, but special in a frightening world-destroying way as well? Are there any other beings that are post-evolutionary like us? Is 'culture' really found in other species? Does any other species contemplate its own mortality, and contemplate its own origins; thus, being the universe made conscious? Can any other species transfer their consciousness outside their bodies and outside their timeline through art and literature – I can be hear Charles Dickens' voice, and be transported back into the world of Victorian England, long dead – when I read one of his books.
How can we need contemplate the unique post-evolutionary animal that is humanity, the good and the bad, and not see ourselves as the images of God, or images of the divine – as the Bible and many religions teach. It becomes all about us when we don't just see ourselves as images of God, but start to think that we are God. There is a slight be important distinction.
Egocentrism and ethnocentricity are partners.
Can seeing oneself as an 'enlightened sceptic' be a form of egocentrism and ethnocentrism? Is Dawkins as fundamentalist, egocentric and ethnocentric as any religious fundamentalist? I would say yes.
At the end of his book the God Delusion, and similarly at the end of his book the Selfish Gene, Dawkins contemplates the meaning of life where there is no God and thus there is no real meaning. He concludes with words to the effect that he is going to go out and enjoy his nice lunch.
To me, that seems a little similar to Paul's contemplation of those who are the sceptics of his day, who reject belief in the resurrection of the dead, and thus hold 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' (1 Cor. 15:32). Thus, I would argue that Dawkins' absence of belief clearly suggests he adopts a very egocentric life, because instead of focusing on something greater than himself (which most humans find in spirituality), he adopts a hedonistic attitude focused only on himself.
So who is more likely to be the egocentric – the athiest or the fundamentalist believer?
Have you ever thought that regardless of scientific debates about the origins of mankind, the fact is, we are now as of today aare unique in being a 'post-evolutionary' species?
Have also ever considered that the Genesis account attests to the post-evolutionary nature of mankind, which is why so many people struggle to accept evolution? The Genesis account is deliberately different from the pagan accounts of say Enuma Elish, in that it is deliberately anti-Darwinian. Even if evolution is true, humanity seems to have a collective hardwired notion of an idealised Eden or heaven of how things should be in nature, but are not, as we see the Darwinian struggel around us in nature. I believe John Haught, the well-known Catholic evolutionary-theologian, makes this point, noting the Genesis account is as much a eschatological story of how humans feel the natural world should be and will be in the future, as much as it is in the past.
Mankind isn't just another animal participating in the Darwinian struggle. Mankind alone has the power to be more than its genetic programme, again, a point Dawkins himself emphasises several times. In that sense, we are 'post-evolutionary' and indeed images of God or the divine.
Just my personal opinion, but, it seems to me that humans are simply animals. Apes. Primates. Mammals. We have some remarkable and unique characteristics. So do other animals. One of our specialties, though, is manipulating our environments, both purposely and accidentally. Sometimes in ways beneficial to us, and sometimes not so much–at least over the long run. It is very hard to find any "mankind alone" statements that hold up to careful scrutiny, but we do have abilities that allow us to bypass some aspects of our genomic heritage and act with larger purposive consequences, ranging from profoundly exquisite to deeply destructive. Our capacity for self-destruction probably does not put us in an entirely "post-evolutionary" position. Hopefully we will not destroy all other life in the process of destroying ourselves. Yes, we have wonderful brains that have enabled us to self-deceive, even to the point of imagining and inventing the concept of "divinity." We have become "as gods."
Joe, I am quite sad you feel this way. I really thought it was a point that all of us could agree on. Even Dawkins and other fundamentalist athiests seemed to acknowledge the uniqueness of mankind, as something more than just another animal. Dawkins often makes a similar point repeatedly, when people try to accuse him of promoting Social Darwinism. Humans are unique in being able to defy their genetic programming, which Dawkins notes we do every time we take contraception.
But there is certainly nothing 'wrong' with your position and I wouldn't try to argue with you about it. I guess it is a matter of personal opinion. Where others, including athiests, appreciate the beautiful and terrible inspired living clay that is humanity, you just seem to see dirt.
If evolution is true and no divinve foot is allowed in the door, Joe is correct. We are simply animals; primates, which have evolved to a level which allows us to dominate the rest of the natural world. That being the case, there is no rationale for "right" or "wrong." Whatever society deems acceptable should be the rule of law, whether that includes slavery, polygamy, subjection of another "race" or whatever. One cannot condemn Hitler and his colleagues any more than one could condemn a cancer cell from invading another organsim. Survival of the fittest is the order of the day, and mankind has, for the most part, proven itself fitter than other organisms.
Dawkins is a traitor to his cause, if he allows the possibility of any supernatural starting point.
But the uniqueness of mankind is indisputable, and the odds of us having evolved from the primordial soup are way off the probability charts. So maybe Behe (who isn't even a Christian) has a point, and maybe we need to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the evolutionary position, and admit that we don't know much.
Here's a novel idea: maybe the Bible is correct, and scientists are wrong. Ahhh! Heresy!
Joe, when you say, “it seems to me,” is it 'you' saying that or just the sum of your programming? From the materialist view, is not “seems to me” an epiphenomena of selective programming? Are you saying, ‘well, humans are exceptions; we have transcended evolution,’ to become a “me,” and individuate?
If so, how would you be able to know this? “Seems to me,” could be what ‘seems’ to be, because of the concatenations of materialist selective outcomes. In short, you seem to believe in free will! Why?
"It seems to me" is a way of conveying that I can respect other opinions. There is no need to read more into it than that.
I do not dispute that humans are unique in the sense of being distinguishable from all other species and having a number of very remarkable characteristics. Even so, the same is true of all the other species when compared with each other and with us. Our remarkable brains, in most ways quite similar to the brains of the other animals most like us, enable us to use language to communicate with others and to describe some of our cognitive and emotional sensations. While that's very cool indeed, it does not follow that nonhumans do not think or feel or have self awareness–in fact, there is convincing evidence that other animals do think and are self-aware. What does that mean? Do they have rights? Do they have responsibilities? Do they deserve due consideration from us?
Regardless of how we got here or whether there is some transcending "purpose," it seems to me that it is in our best interests to find ways of cooperating and treating one another decently. I do not see the concept of "survival of the fittest" eliminating the value of cooperation and care–maybe "fittest" is, in some ways, the kindest and most cooperative and sensitive, rather than the biggest, meanest, or strongest. Perhaps "making love not war" will ultimately be the winning strategy. More likely, there is a dynamic tension, a little bit reminiscent of the GC.
And, yes, we can certainly condemn Hitler and his allies for the monstrous deeds they did. Why does everything have to be distorted so profoundly? Just to argue?
I think some of us have some "free will." More sometimes than others. I do not think anyone is "programming" us. That we can think and think about thinking and why thinking occurs, surely is remarkable. I'm guessing that none of us really understands this process very well, even though we might believe or claim otherwise.
Another argument…. Dear friends, please be quick to love one another and be slow to anger. I apologize for pushing your buttons again. This is your place, not mine. I wish you well.
"And, yes, we can certainly condemn Hitler and his allies for the monstrous deeds they did."
Why? On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? And why is my contention distorted? Who defines what constitutes a distortion? Your distortion may be my normality. If we are the products of random chance, then there is no logical reason for attempting to define right from wrong. It's purely arbitrary, a product of convenience stemming from majority rule. Radical Muslims want Sharia law. Who are we to condemn it? Cannibals ate each other. Why should we condemn it? Many species are cannabilistic. If "lower" animals do it, why are we prohibited from doing so. After all, we are simply evolved primates. Why should anyone have "rights?" Where do those rights come from? They are certainly not inherent in the evolutionary process. Why should we observe anything other than the law of jungle?
Jean
Very well put. There is no atheist out there so far who can point to an objective atheistic moral code which Hitler violated.
Jean, my dear friend and colleague, I wish to give you all the respect and honor you merit and more. Even so, your frenetic reply indicates that your understanding evolution is minimal and simplistic, and I would be very surprised if you have any interest at all in developing a more accurate and authentic appreciation for evolution.
I fear that is the dominant SDA perspective. Misunderstanding and mischaracterization and ridicule, that is about as far as these discussions go. Arguments of the kind made above are a hundred or more years out of date, and understanding of the processes involved in evolution has continued to progress right up to the present.
If you are to develop any understanding at all of what you are so quick to criticize, I think you will have to actually take the initiative to study modern biology. If you choose to ignore the evidence, that is your own business. But if you will actually make the effort, with an open mind, and a critical view of evidence and thought, I think you can amplify your understanding of truth, and I believe you will find it liberating.
Is there any hope of meaningful discussion, even discussion to refute evolution, if the whole topic is taboo, and science teachers in Adventist institutions keep losing their jobs? Do we prevent our doctors from learning key aspects of medicine for fear that they might suddenly stop believing in the resurrection?
Key aspects of medicine have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The medical field operates by observation, experimentation, and application. Evolution operates mostly in the realm of speculation about past events; speculation that cannot be verified in a lab.
The subject of evolution is not taboo in SDA schools. What should be taboo is teaching it as proven fact, when the evidence is clearly against it. It's one thing to point out what evolutionary theory says; quite another to maintain that it is indisputable fact.
I must respectfully suggest that there is confusion about what is fact and what is speculation. I'm afraid that is also true of SDA educational policies regarding teaching ABOUT molecular and population biology. I know that when I was in school at PUC many years ago, mention of evolution, other than to ridicule it, was really forbidden, and instructors lost their jobs if they tried to teach ABOUT what mainstream biologists learn in their classes in secular (and even most private and religious) schools. Perhaps DrF can update us on the current situation in adventist academies and colleges.
Interesting, because when I was a biology major at PUC 40+ years ago, evolution was discussed, and flaws pointed out, but the creationist position was well articulated and never undermined. It seems that you probably attended after I did. Ervil Clark and Don Hemphill were certainly not evolutionists but neither did they ridicule the theory, unless you place pointing out its flaws under the heading of "ridicule.".
I was there more than 50 years ago, and had Ervil Clark and Don Hemphill as my instructors. They were both fine people. Ervil was especially helpful to me (and very patient) when I served as the custodian and animal caretaker for the biology dept/building. Don was kind of authoritarian and seemed to have not so much patience with questioning students. I'm not certain of this, but I seem to remember Erv Taylor in Hemphill's class with me–but it might have been a sabbath school class that Don taught in the same classroom as the basic biology class that I took from him. Ah well. That was long ago, and I'm not going to claim that my memory of the details at that time is inerrant.
My Mom took a summer course in biology in the early 1960s and told me that her woman instructor got canned for trying to teach ABOUT evolution–not that she claimed it as fact, but simply to ensure that they were exposed to the same information as they would get in a course at some place like UC Berkeley. I can't verify this with Mom, as she died years ago, but someone else here might know more about such things.
So, your memories of Clark and Hemphill are similar to mine, although you were there 10 years before I was. I'm a mere strippling. 🙂 I don't doubt your mother's story, but it seems out of character, based on my experience with the biology teachers. Maybe they got flack from the incident described by your mom.. Ceretainly frank dialogue is more productive than censorship. I was hoping my son would give me the inside story on biology classes at his college (not PUC), but he doesn't have to take biology for some reason.
How sad that he does not get to take biology! As you know, I'm sure, Ervil had a family tradition to uphold, given his father's notable anti-evolutionary work. When I knew him, he was clearly already aware that some of what his Dad had written did not align with the evidence that had emerged. I thought he was a terrifically interesting and thoughtful person and an excellent instructor.
Now, my memories of Don are somewhat less glowing, although I remember him as mostly having treated me well enough. Once in the intro biology section I was in, he really lost it. My friend, Kenny Ing (later an LLU MD graduate), and I had both dozed off during Don's lecture. He woke us up and loudly berated us, which we, of course, deserved. But as the redness of his face diminished and he lowered his tone, he said, "Well, sleep if you want to, but we'll see how you do on the mid-term exam," (which was to be given soon after that). The exam came and went. The day arrived for him to return our graded exams. His habit was to give the corrected exams back in order, from best to worst. Again, his face reddened, as he handed back my exam first and Kenny's second. But then, at the end of the term, when we got our grades, I did not think it was so funny. Kenny got an A, and I got a B+. I protested. "But my point total was one higher than Ken's," I argued. Don's response? "I didn't like your attitude." And he declined to change my grade. In those days, even an A- was 4.0, while a B+ was 3.0. Not good for me–but I was such a lousey student in those days that it probably made no difference, although it clearly left an impression.
Sleeping in class was a problem for me across the years, though, even during times while I was being a relatively good student.
Jean, thank you for reminding me of those old times at PUC. It was a wonderful place for me to be at the time, and I feel that the faculty members I knew were exceptionally devoted and competent. I trust that your experience there was at least as good as mine.
Doc must have mellowed with age, because I always got along well with him. He even took me fishing in the Marble Mountains while he was assisting my biology teacher (I was still in high school) with his Master's degree. I was along mainly to help collect and press flowers. He did have a tendency to give "brownie" points, though. A couple of friends and I found 2 dead Blue-fooded Boobys at the Salton Sea and gave them to him for his collection. He was all smiles in Ornithology class, even admitting that we got some brownie points.
I had issues with sleeping in class at times, mainly when I started work in the college bakery at 4:30 a.m.
To the rest of you, I aplogize for getting us so far off topic. However, biology is a very broad field. 🙂
Don't apologise: seeing you and Joe reminiscing and agreeing on something made you both seem almost human – there is no need to apologise for that 🙂
Almost human? Oh, no, I've blown my cover! 😉
Jean, what a select group we are in…. I have seen books about chimpanzees and baboons that had Almost Human as the title. Hmmm. Thanks, Kevin. I guess….
Why do you keep doing this?
When the 144,000 are sealed (whether symbolic or literal number) no one in that group will still be clinging to the myth of evolution….So why are you wasting time in it now?
Also, evolution will obviously be used as part of the attack on those who resist the mark of the beast… for some will surely bring it up in order to undermine the sabbath by arguing that it wasn't a literal creation account-and therefore not a literal 7th day that was observed.
The 4th commandment is under assault by the churches with sunday observance and by the secular world by attacking His creative power with the myth of evolution…but the churches add a one-two punch to God by also adopting theistic evolution…
One can hear the serpent rustling in the leaves of the trees on websites like Spectrum, Adventist Today and Adventist Wheel…
Our Adventist fundamentalist friends such as "JaNe" (why do most of them–not all, but most–not use their real names? Some other time we need to consider this) remind the rest of us of the past history of our faith community, when these individuals were in the majority. (Regretfully, we now have a GC President who favors that part of the Adventist spectrum of thought, but should be a temporary state of affairs.) When is the last time that one heard a sermon on the 144,000 or the Mark of the Beast in a Adventist Church in a major Adventist Institutional setting? But the maturing of a church body is a slow process and it takes time for the system as a whole to grow up.
Does the idea of 144,000 as the final saved number bring peace? Does the appeal of only fundamentalist believers in that group bring consolation or justification? Does the picture of "the serpent rustling in the leaves of Spectrum and AToday websites" elicit schadenfreude?
What is it about some groups of Adventists that evince such concentrated concern that observes almost any new political, social, or religious news as "sure signs" that evil has about run its course? Obsessing with the evil world produces no Christians but first rate pessimists, which is not a magnet for drawing in those who are seeking Christ, but who are attuned to the latest sensational news report.