As a resident Oklahoman, I'm sending in a letter to OU president Boren about the Darwin 2009 Project, and I encourage you to do the same.
Metanexus has posted an excerpt from Clouser's excellent book, The Myth of Religious Neutrality. The excerpt includes Clouser's novel view of what constitutes religion. Clouser defines religion as the belief of something which is not dependent on anything else. Therefore, since the materialists believe that matter and the laws of nature are not dependent on anything else, by Clouser this would be fall under the category of a religious belief. Similarly, the gods of the Roman Empire would not be considered a religious belief because the gods (at least most of them) were dependent on something else for their existence.
In memory of Michael Crichton, I'm linking to two of my favorite essays of his:
Evolution and the Church
A good friend of mine gave me a copy of Daniel Harrell's Nature's Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Christian Faith. The book was an attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Christian faith. While there are a lot of negatives about the book, I thought I'd start off with the positive.
First of all, I absolutely loved the terminology of involvement. Historically, God's interaction with the world has taken on the terminology of intervening or interfering, which would imply that Deism should be the norm, and that God intended to be far off. That sort of terminology says that God acting in the world must be to fix something that went wrong, rather than a normal part of Creation. Thus, the terminology of "involvement" reminds us that God wants to be involved in creation. I certainly think I will be using that sort of terminology going forward.
The second good thing in the book, was his treatment of randomness as being a potential good thing. I don't think he brought this home as well as he could have (of course, he's not an engineer), but I think he was on the right track. In fact, I have a paper coming out next month in CRSQ about that exact subject - showing the possible uses of randomness within Creation Biology. However, one distinction I made which Harrell probably was not able to make (since his background is not mathematical) is the difference between philosophical randomness and statistical randomness. These are very different things which tend to be conflated into the "randomness" concept. I'll cover that more when my paper comes out. Now, his point is a little different than mine, but I think it's good as well. Here's how he spells it out:
Rather than viewing the will of God as akin to a tightrope (one false move and you're doomed), what if instead God's will resembles a one-way, six-lane highway? The direction is determined, but the manner of getting there (what you drive, which lane you travel, and how fast you go) is a function of creaturely freedom...what ifGod is like a grand master chess player playing with an eight-year-old novice? The game has its rules and regularities (created by God), such that whatever move the eight-year-old makes, the grand master already knows its outcome. There is no doubt who will win in the end...Likewise, with human freedom and evolutionary processes...[God] can make [any of the possible scenarios that occur] work for his victory. (p. 80)
Now, past those two topics, there wasn't a lot to like about this book, except to get a glimpse of the problems that exist with the current set of evangelicals and their approach to science.
Let's start with a quote from page 46:
But what if you interpret Scripture correctly only to have science say that you still have it wrong? Well, you could say that science has it wrong. And science may have it wrong. This has been the crux of the debate between Christianity and evolution. Given what we know the Bible to say, has not science clearly deciphered nature wrongly? The problem here is that scientific methods tend toward a precision that theological methods cannot attain. Not that scientists are never wrong; it's just that scientific misinterpretation can't last very long. Due to science's rigorous scrutiny, experiment, and replication, mistakes eventually yield to the facts...You can say "evolution is just a theory," but that doesn't make it any less accurate in its description of the way life on earth works...Theories make it possible to trust medicines...[to] type on computers and drive our cars and check weather forecasts... (italics in original, bold mine)
There are several problems with this argument.
The first problem is what is written in bold print. "Tend toward a precision" is actually probably more true than the author may have intended. There is an important difference between accuracy and precision - and Harrell hit it on the head when he said that scientific methods tend towards a precision. Accuracy is how close a given measurement is to its true value. Precision is how similar our measurements are to each other. For example, if I have a ruler whose markings are flat-out wrong, I may have very precise measurements, but they won't be very accurate. On the other hand, if my ruler's markings are all correct, but it is missing all markers smaller than a foot, then my measurements may be accurate, but they are not very precise.
So, let's say that we are measuring the velocity of a car. We can make very precise and very accurate measurements of that car's velocity. But let's say we want to know where that car was an hour ago. Then, using our velocity measurements, we may be able to attain a precision for our estimate, but our accuracy is dependent on whether or not we know the history of the car's velocity changes.
Second, for any science to apply, especially as Harrell defines science (as naturalistic), this only works if God has chosen not to act within history. Again, if God has chosen to act, then the scientist's work moves from being accurate to only being precise, because science (as Harrell points out) does not have the methodology to incorporate non-material causation (note that I think that it could, but only if it allows in ID - but I'll leave this topic alone for the rest of the review). So if non-material causes occur, then that simply invalidates the frame of reference used by science. If science uses a frame of reference which has been invalidated by God's involvement, then it is simply wrong.
Third, Harrell doesn't seem to realize that there are multiple types of scientific methods, each with their own epistemological (epistemology is the study of knowledge and its limits) restrictions. For discussion purposes, I'm going to focus on three of them.
Of course, Harrell believes in naturalism, though I don't think that he is aware of the results. If you truly believe in naturalism, then that literally removes the possibility of choice from nature. If you hold to the same worldview that the evolutionary biologists do, then that means that true choice is non-existent. This is why I am saying that naturalism is not a Christian assumption. It denies choice. Harrell makes a big deal about integrating body and soul. I don't have so much of a problem with that, except that he does so on the basis of naturalism! Harrell doesn't see it, but in doing this he actually removes choice from humanity. If body and soul are integrated (my own mind is not yet made up on this one), then the only way it could happen is if we imputed the non-natural elements (i.e. choice) onto the material body. This is just as non-naturalistic as the body/soul split, but it just works it differently.
But here is my big rub - scripture. Harrell believes that the precision of science means that we should take science's word over scripture. This is terrible. What is so great about Scripture is that God reveals to us the larger-scale involvements that He has done with His creation. Therefore, while the evolutionists proceed without being checked by history, on the basis of naturalism which we do not assume, and on the basis that God has not made any moves in history, Creationists instead are able to use Scripture to understand when God has involved Himself in important ways, and therefore alert us to when we need to step outside of our materialist framework in Earth history, and provide for us a historical record against which to check any of our suppositions.
So now, if you're still reading, we'll get to the tragic portion of the book - Harrell's wrestling with evolutionary theory. You will see why I call it "tragic" towards the end. Harrell has believed in science over and above what Scripture has revealed. Therefore, Harrell must wrestle with evolutionary theory in order to fit it into his faith. But which evolutionary theory? On the Researching Creation blog, I've pointed to several different ones. The one that Harrell chooses to wrestle with is Natural Selection. But why? My guess is that he's bought into not only science, but the media's portrayal of science. The fact is that Natural Selection is being phased out as an evolutionary mechanism. I forgot where, but Harrell has also said that Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of Microevolution. Even PZ Myers does not believe that this is the case. His view of evolutionary theory is woefully colored by Dawkin's 1980s version of it, a version of evolutionary theory that does not match what biologists are doing today (in fact, if you want a book that wrestles with modern evolutionary biology and faith, by a working Paleontologist, I would suggest to you Life's Solution by Conway-Morris). The recent Altenberg conference was the prelude to redefining evolutionary theory where natural selection has a much smaller, maybe insignificant, role. Some of the attendees of the conference (all of whom are top-level evolutionary biologists) think that natural selection is "wrong in a way that can't be fixed". How tragic is it that Harrell was convinced by someone to give up his faith in scripture to a theory of evolution that is being abandoned by biologists, because he thinks that it is true because it is scientific? In 10 years, will Harrell be defending Natural Selection against the scientists who say that evolution happened a different way? How bizarre would that be? Or will Harrell simply have to redefine his theology every few decades when science turns a different direction?
Or perhaps God gave us Scripture so that we wouldn't be lured into chasing after the wind of man's opinion?
For more discussion on the book, you might check out the conversation that's been happening on Jesus Creed. I planned on commenting on that conversation, but maybe another time. This post is already too long.
Many times the phrase "The Fact of Evolution" gets thrown around without any further explanation. Most people don't understand that there are several different things meant by "The Fact of Evolution", and the problem comes in when we just assume that they are correct, or unintentionally read more than one of these meanings together.
Meaning #1 - There are dead things in the ground at a lower strata than ourselves and they look different from us. In addition, there are clearly discernable strata which tend to produce similar fossils.
Meaning #2 - Everything now living (a) has parent(s), and (b) is slightly different from its parent(s)
Meaning #3 - The universe operates mechanically
The problem is that most people stating "The Fact of Evolution" never seem to be able to separate out Meaning #1 and Meaning #2, and therefore consider that Meaning #2 is not the causitive agent for Meaning #1. Even if you assume evolutionary timescales, there is nothing in the pattern of fossils in the record which would recommend it over, say, progressive Creationism, unless of course you also mixed in meaning #3. If we assume other possible causes for the layering and the ordering, then #1 and #2 could be completely different phenomena altogether!
The problem is that most evolutionists will not disambiguate what they mean by the "Fact of Evolution". The idea that you should read #1 and #2 together is so engrained in their thinking that the possibility of splitting them sounds insane to them.
This is just a monumentally stupid thing to do. I'm glad I am no longer officially associated with the Methodist Church. Let's take a look at the letter:
"Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth."
"Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."
Disagree. Another purpose is also to show God's action within history. To solely put scripture in the "transform hearts" category is to do it twice the injustice as treating it as a scientific textbook.
"believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist"
Somewhat agree. The problem is that it is a blanket statement about science. Which is somewhat stupid considering that (a) science has social and theological underpinnings, just like everything else, and (b) science is always changing. To make a blanket endorsement all of science is idiotic - there's plenty of junk science going on. But who is to distinguish? Are theologians allowed to distinguish? If so, then they have contradicted the purpose of their statement. If not, then they have voluntarily let themselves be held hostage by a different authority which does not necessarily hold to their assumptions, which is a monumentally stupid mistake.
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
Which part of evolutionary theory? Abiogenesis? Descent from a common ancestor? Lamarckianism? Natural selection? Their lack of specificity tells us either (a) they really don't know what they are talking about, and just want to "look scientific", or (b) they are being intentionally vague so as to not invite scrutiny. If they just said, "many people in science use an evolutionary paradigm", well, that's obviously true. But it isn't obviously true that it is foundational for any experimental science, or anything which forms the basis of engineering. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.
"To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children"
This is the real rough statement. The problem with this is that it is the equivalent of the Church's teaching with regard to Gallileo. The Church had made its peace with the science of the day - how dare someone try to oppose it! It's one thing for a Church to allow, even explicitly allow, various views, but this actually calls people names. I'm curious if they allowed a discussion of the evidence before making this, and invited opposing scientists to make their claims? If not, then the Church is dealing more in scientific ignorance than the people they claim to be opposing, because it dismissed ideas without examining their merits. Also, as was pointed out earlier, their vagueness regarding what part of evolutionary theory they are talking about makes this just a bunch of authoritarian garbage.
"We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought"
"the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator."
Somewhat agreed. You could take this too far and say that everyone should be an academic. I wouldn't agree with that. I also don't believe in the academic culture's superiority-mindedness which thinks that those who aren't academics must simply take the word of the academics on all things.
What is left out of this discussion of mind, however, is that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. What does it mean to love God? For one thing, it means submission to Him, and recognition that He is loving, He is powerful, and that He is wise. Our wisdom is foolishness in His sight. Therefore, the life of our mind should be first characterized by submission to God, and not to submission to man. There is certainly disagreement on what submitting my mind to God looks like, but the UMC wants me to submit my mind first to modern science. Otherwise they would be making a theological case for evolution, not a scientific one.
"To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
No one in Creation is limitting God. What we are doing is listening to what He has said about what He did. It is the evolutionists who are limitting God, by only allowing God to work through secondary causes, no matter what He has said about how He works.
"We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
If by "core component of human knowledge" it simply means "what most academics are thinking today", then I actually have no problem with this statement. I think evolutionary theory should be taught to everyone.
"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
The NOMA principle is simply false. If Christianity says anything whatsoever about reality or history, then NOMA is invalid. And, last I checked, Christianity was primarily rooted in the history of God's actions in Creation, and therefore is an invalid principle specifically regarding Christianity. Many scientists who espouse NOMA know this, and just use NOMA to keep outsiders from asking too many pesky questions.
To show you how dumb the endorsement of the Clergy Letter Project by denominations is, let me show why the opposite would also be eggregiously dumb. Let's say that a fundamentalist denomination wanted to support Creationism. The worst theing they could possibly do is to point to the Creation Research Society, AiG, or some body of Creation Science knowledge, and declare this to be the standard that all Christians should believe. I'm a member of CRS, I like AiG, and I contribute to the body of Creation Science knowledge. Howver, the problem is that all of these are still man's opinions. Our standard is Scripture, which leaves a lot of details out. For a denomination to essentially mandate or endorse a set of non-Biblical details is horrendously foolish. I teach Creation in churches. But I think it would be foolhardy to elevate anything that I teach to the level that the UMC has raised evolutionary theory.
Many people think that science is done in a theological vacuum. However, it is not. Take for instance, a recent paper on the flagellum - Coordinating assembly of a macromolecular machine:
Finally, it seems that the bacterial flagellum is a structure of great complexity. In an attempt to understand why, it is not necessary to resort to intelligent designers, because surely a designer would have fashioned a simpler structure and gene regulation system. We only need to be reminded that evolution demands that changes occur on the existing structure — no starting from scratch. It is fair to say that we are at long last making a dent in our understanding of how this evolutionary process might have occurred for the reducibly complex bacterial flagellum and the beautiful result it has produced.
So, the reason we are not resorting to design is not because it doesn't evidence design, but rather because a designer would not have done it this way! That is a statement of both theology and engineering that the authors have no grounds to say.
Here's an article on the flagellum:
Is the flagellar motor unique?
Yes and no. As a device that powers flagellar rotation, yes. As a device composed of rings, rods, and external filaments, no. There is a homologous structure, called the needle structure, assembled by the same kind of transport apparatus, used by pathogenic species (such as Salmonella) to inject virulence factors into eukaryotic cells. Some argue that the flagellar rotary motor evolved from the needle structure, but it was probably the other way around,
since flagellated bacteria existed long before their eukaryotic targets. Perhaps they evolved from a common ancestor. What was the rotary motor doing before the helical propeller was invented, if indeed that was the order of events? Serving as a secretory apparatus that acquired the ability to spin? Packaging polynucleic acids into virus heads? Food for thought.
So now, not only is the flagellum IC, but even the supposed "precursor systems" don't make sense until long after the flagellum supposedly developed. What we are finding, over and over, is that there is no such thing as a simple life form. Therefore, we can conclude that those who view evolution as progressing from simple to complex are doing so because of theological commitments, not because of evidence. I have no problem with people engaging in science from theological commitments (it's actually impossible not to), I just wish they would admit it.