Msgr. Charles Pope, of the archdiocese of Washington, wrote a helpful post yesterday titled, “Can a Catholic Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically?” Although he addresses it to Catholics, I think most of my fellow evangelicals would agree with his approach:
It is common to experience a rather simplistic notion among Catholics that the Theory of Evolution can be reconciled easily with the Biblical accounts and with our faith. Many will say something like this: “I have no problem with God setting things up so that we started as one-celled organisms and slowly evolved into being human beings. God could do this and perhaps the Genesis account is just simplifying evolution and telling us the same thing as what Evolution does.”
There are elements of the truth in this sort of a statement. Surely God could have set things up to evolve and directed the process so that human beings evolved and then, at some time he gave us souls. God could have done that.
The problem with the statement above is less theological than scientific because there is a word in that sentence that is “obnoxious” to evolutionary theory: “God.” The fact is that most Catholics who speak like this over-simplify evolutionary theory and hold a version of it that most Evolutionary Theorists do not hold. They accept the Theory of Evolution uncritically.
[ . . . ]
Now what this means is that God is excluded as a cause by evolutionary theory. It would be fine if evolutionists (as natural scientists) were either silent on the question of God. Or, perhaps if they simply stated that things may be acted upon by an outside force or intelligence but that is beyond the scope of their discipline. But that is not what is being said by most proponents of evolutionary theory. They are saying that biodiversity results MERELY from natural selection and random (i.e. non intended or non-purposeful) genetic mutations. They are saying that observable effects of biodiversity are wholly caused by something natural, random and without any ultimate goal or plan.
But a Catholic cannot accept all of this. Even if a Catholic wants to accept that things have evolved in some way (whether through macro or microevolution) a Catholic cannot say that this process is simply random, chance, blind, or with no purpose. We believe that God alone created all things, and that he sustains all things. Neither do we confess some sort of “deist” God who merely started things off and then lets them take their own course. Rather, God sustains and carries out every detail.
No doubt some people will take issue with his brief handling of technical concepts. But on the broad issue he is right to point out that what many Catholics and other Christians affirm when they say they have no problem with evolution is a position that would be repugnant to many natural scientists.
In my experience, most people haven’t considered the issue of how the theological and scientific claims can be compatible. For instance, to be a “theistic evolutionist” in the sense that modern scient will accept, requires one to adhere to polygensism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for “mankind”). That position, however, is not compatible with the teachings of the Bible, the Church, or of Jesus. (Msgr. Pope will be taking up the question of polygensism later today. I’ll post a link to that when it is ready.)
The polygensism problem is, for me, the biggest stumbling block to uncritically accepting the theory of macroevolution. I’m not sure how to resolve the issue, so for now I’ll simply follow Pope’s advice when I’m asked about evolution: Seldom Affirm, never deny, always distinguish.
October 18th, 2010 | 3:42 am
I appreciate the archbishop’s words. Another aspect of evolutionary theory that Christians must struggle against is that evolutionary progress is achieved at via death and destruction — only the fit adapt/survive, all others don’t. As Christians, we believe death is the wages of sin, not a process in the original order of God’s good creation. If we claim Jesus is “the Life”, then we must object to any assertion that he established a natural order by which life is only advanced through death.
October 18th, 2010 | 3:59 am
Surely, the definition of randomness as “non-intended or non-purposeful” is rather contentious. As commonly used in a scientific, statistical or mathematical context, it means no more than unpredictable.
So, for example, the telephone numbers stored on my cell-phone form a random series – Knowing the first ten digits does not enable one to predict the eleventh and so on (One can never derive n + 1 from n1, n2…). Of course, it does not mean that the compilation of the list was not purposeful. Or take the case of a cryptologist compiling a one-time key, where the randomness of the set of numbers is essential to his purpose.
Now, if this is all that is meant by random genetic mutations (and it is difficult to see what other meaning can be ascribed to it empirically) where is the problem? If some scientists claim that this unpredictability is evidence of the absence of intelligence or purpose, it is surely sufficient to point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Nor, from a Christian perspective, do I see why we need suppose divine interference with the process of genetic mutation, which after all, takes place within the context of the biological, chemical and physical laws that are part of the created order God has established.
October 18th, 2010 | 5:01 am
Michael Surely, the definition of randomness as “non-intended or non-purposeful” is rather contentious. As commonly used in a scientific, statistical or mathematical context, it means no more than unpredictable.
There is a bit of equivocation on both sides when the term “random” is used in this debate. Evolutionists tend to pull out the technical definition to claim that their critics don’t understand the concept. They may be correct in the strict semantic sense, but when you press them about what their critics mean by using the term—that its connotation is “unguided” or “non-teleological—they’ll usually admit that the process is indeed “random.”
A consistent naturalistic evolutionist would say (as Stephen J. Gould did) did that if you “ran the tape again” the process of evolution would never create humans like us. Because the mutations that natural selection selects for are “random”, they would not lead to the same results. (If they did, they would not be random.)
A theistic evolutionist would say that since God guided the process, the mutations could be random and the outcome would still be the same—you’d still get humans since that is what God intended. This is why few non-theistic evolutionists take such a view seriously. It’s merely creationism that attempts to try to piggyback onto evolutionary theory, adding a layer of unnecessary theological speculation.
If some scientists claim that this unpredictability is evidence of the absence of intelligence or purpose, it is surely sufficient to point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What they claim is that the process itself is evidence of that intelligence and purpose are not needed. Since the process works without the need to invoke an intelligence or purpose, their is no need to bring them into the theory. That is another reason that theistic evolutinists aren’t taken seriously by secular evolutionists. TE’ers are trying to glom on to the theory by saying that purpose is compatible with evolutionary theory. The secular evolutionists say that teleology is not necessary for the explanation, and since it adds nothing useful can be cut away with Ockham’s razor.
Nor, from a Christian perspective, do I see why we need suppose divine interference with the process of genetic mutation, which after all, takes place within the context of the biological, chemical and physical laws that are part of the created order God has established.
Because that is not the “Christian perspective” but the view of deism. As Pope says, “Neither do we confess some sort of “deist” God who merely started things off and then lets them take their own course. Rather, God sustains and carries out every detail.” It is not “interference” in the process since God is intimately involved in every step of the process. The natural laws of creation are sustained by God and thus are not independent of his will.
Consider a violinist playing a piece of music. If he stops playing, the music stops. We would not say he is interfering with the notes of the music since they only exist because he is creating them by his playing. God’s interaction with the universe is similar. He did not wind up the process like a watchmaker, but is, like a musician, intimately involved in every step of creation.
October 18th, 2010 | 5:09 am
the biggest stumbling block to uncritically accepting the theory of macroevolution
please note that mainstream evolutionary biology does not accept ‘macroevolution’ as a semantic utility. in other words all evolution is microevolution, macroevolution is simply simply microevolution scaled up to the level of the taxon. this is called the ‘scale independence of evolution.’ a small minority of biologists disagree with this position (mostly paleontologists i believe).
October 18th, 2010 | 5:17 am
please note that mainstream evolutionary biology does not accept ‘macroevolution’ as a semantic utility.
That is true, though I’m not sure why they do not. Microevolution is a term used to refer to an empirically observable fact. Macroevolution is a term used to refer to that which cannot be observed but which, it is theorized, can be extrapolated from microevolution. You would think they’d prefer semantic precision to distinguish between the uses of the word as a fact and as a theory.
October 18th, 2010 | 7:17 am
Do you truly mean ‘euphemism’ in the second to last paragraph?
October 18th, 2010 | 7:26 am
Just a clarification: Monsignor Pope is a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, not the Archbishop. Donald Wuerl is Archbishop. See: http://blog.adw.org/blog-authors/monsignor-charles-pope/
October 18th, 2010 | 7:36 am
Joe Carter
I do not see how, from the absence of correlation between observable events (“randomness”), one can draw any conclusions at all about “intention” or “purpose” underlying those events.
Again, given the constraints of viability, along with the underlying chemical and physical laws, there is not an infinite range of possible life-forms that could co-exist in a given biosphere and, so, no reason to think that any sequence of random genetic mutations would not eventually yield the same results as any other. In the present state of our knowledge, no one is in a position to demonstrate this either way.
Evolution through natural selection put paid to the Argument from Design (first advanced, I believe by Paley in 1802), which rested on the nice adaptation of the instincts and endowments of animals to their environment. This took no account of the vast extinctions that have taken place amongst animal species; it presupposed, also, the fixity of animal types. But evolution left the Argument from Order just where it found it (The first Christian writer to use it was St Athanasius in the 4th century, in the De Incarnatione) It is not merely in the adaptation of means to ends, but in the reign of law throughout the whole field of Nature, that we find evidence of a creative Intelligence.
October 18th, 2010 | 8:41 am
In my experience, most people haven’t considered the issue of how the theological and scientific claims can be compatible. For instance, to be a “theistic evolutionist” in the sense that modern scien[ce] will accept, requires one to adhere to polygenism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for “mankind”).
This is simplistic, Joe. You don’t necessarily have to accept evolution to accept polygenism. When Pope Pius XII wrote his encyclical in 1950, the understanding of polygenism then was the notion that the different human races (Asian, African, European, etc) each had their own separate origin. He denied this–and was quite right to do so. [In the 19th century polygenism was used to justify racism.] Evolutionary anthropology if anything more starkly shows the unity of the human race by tracing its history back to a single population of humans. We are, as the Pope insisted, all part of the same humanity.
Your problem is with genomics, not evolution. As far as I have been able to tell, given the level of genetic variation in the human race today, as sampled from all over the world, it is simply not possible that the human race was founded by a population of less than a few thousand individuals.
Now, to preserve Adam as the father of the human race is possible, I gather, but it will require some pretty speculative scenarios.
BTW, the archbishop does not mention the International Theological Commission’s 2004 document, which tacitly accepted a founding population of humans. Pope John Paul II was also open to this.
October 18th, 2010 | 8:44 am
Joe –
Speaking of “brief handling of technical concepts” – were you being sarcastic in mixing up ‘fact’ and ‘theory’?
In any case, to give a taste of why the micro/macroevolution distinction isn’t taken seriously by “many natural scientists”:
“There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of microevolution over much longer times. It’s like saying that there’s ‘microwalking’ which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years, walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America – that’s ‘macrowalking’ and it’s impossible. God must have put them there.” – Anthony Steele
October 18th, 2010 | 9:02 am
Seems to me that the nub of the issue is expressed by Michael, and Joe’s response to him. I would put it this way. The article by Pope (an interesting name for the bishop of Washington), seemingly a challenge to Catholics who easily accept evolution as God’s way of doing it, is really a challenge to the secular scientists who claim scientific objectivity while crossing that perilous line between science and philosophy.
The question is, how does one interpret the meaning of what humans are in the habit of calling “random”? Seems to me random does not mean “without cause” but instead, “of unknown cause.” If the scientists imply that random means without cause, they are self-contradictory. To have effects without causes is contrary to the scientific method. I think that the scientists who make appropriate distinctions recognize that “random” does not mean uncaused, but instead means that which is caused by agencies for which we have incompete knowledge, ie at least partial ignorance.
The key, it seems to me, is to recognize that the concepts of cause-and-effect, and randomness, as we understand them, are artifacts of living in Time and Ignorance. What are cause-and-effect and randomness to a Being who lives outside of Time and Ignorance? We can’t know.
To illustrate, I offer a fanciful tongue-in-cheek addition to a rather strange scene in the gospel. Picture Jesus with a coin in his hand and a twinkle in his eye saying, “Now with my thumb I will flip this coin which my friend Simon just removed from the mouth of the fish he caught. If it comes up heads, we will pay the tax. If tails, we refuse to pay! Oop. It’s heads. We’ll pay.” To his audience, Jesus just took a 50-50 chance of becoming an outlaw. But of course Jesus never intended not to pay, and “knew” “in advance” the outcome of the coin toss!
October 18th, 2010 | 9:30 am
Joe DeVet
I think we are on safer philosophical ground by talking of a corrolation, or lack of it, between events, than in terms of cause and effect, difficult concepts both of them and very much entangled with ideas of necessity and universality, neither of which can be ascertained empirically. “Corrolation” and “unpredictability” do not carry the same baggage.
October 18th, 2010 | 10:32 am
Michael – indeed, we are better off not dealing with causality so much as teleology. The question is whether evolution shows evidence of purposeful progression.
Take a look at this link, and search the page for “mouse genes”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
The differences between human and mouse genes fit an unbiased (that is, unmodified by intelligence) Gaussian distribution very well. That doesn’t prove that very subtle tweaking wasn’t going on, of course… but there’s a definite lack of positive evidence for such tweaking.
October 18th, 2010 | 11:28 am
JM Do you truly mean ‘euphemism’ in the second to last paragraph?
I think so. I just copied the wording that Pope used.
Frank Just a clarification: Monsignor Pope is a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, not the Archbishop.
Oops. Thanks. I meant to say he was of the archdiocese, not the archbishop. Even an evangleical like me should know the difference between a Monsignor and an Archbishop.
Michael I do not see how, from the absence of correlation between observable events (“randomness”), one can draw any conclusions at all about “intention” or “purpose” underlying those events.
Well, in a way, we do this all the time. For example, if you are a batter in a baseball game and you do not swing at a pitch I can draw the conclusion that your intention was to not swing at the ball. From the absence of correlation between two observable events—the ball going across home plate, you not swinging at it—I could deduce your intent. I could be wrong, of course. You might have intended to swing but suffered from paralysis. But it would still be a valid inference.
. . . no reason to think that any sequence of random genetic mutations would not eventually yield the same results as any other. In the present state of our knowledge, no one is in a position to demonstrate this either way.
If you mean that given an infinite number of attempts, a sequence of random genetic mutations could eventually yield the same results as any other, then I would concede the point. Take away an infinite number of attempts, however, and the chance of that occuring falls to zero.
It is not merely in the adaptation of means to ends, but in the reign of law throughout the whole field of Nature, that we find evidence of a creative Intelligence.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be implying that the process of natural selection is an example of the “reign of law throughout the whole field of Nature.” But that is certainly not the case. As the atheist philosopher David Stove said,
As Stove reminds us, natural selection, which is a “universal generalization about all terrestrial species at any time” can’t just be true sometimes: “If the theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another), then it is not true–finish.” Stove claimed that this was not only not true of our species now, it could never have been true:
This is simplistic, Joe. You don’t necessarily have to accept evolution to accept polygenism.
I didn’t say you did. My claim was that to be a consistent theistic evolutionist, you have to accept polygenism not that to be a consistent polygenist you had to accept evolution.
Your problem is with genomics, not evolution.
Are you saying our genome was not the result of evolution? If it was, then my problem is indeed with evolutionary theory.
Now, to preserve Adam as the father of the human race is possible, I gather, but it will require some pretty speculative scenarios.
It takes a pretty speculative scenario to assume our genetic ancestry can be traced back to a few thousand individuals too.
BTW, the archbishop does not mention the International Theological Commission’s 2004 document, which tacitly accepted a founding population of humans. Pope John Paul II was also open to this.
I’m not a Catholic so I really don’t have a dog in that fight. But I will say that polygenism is incompatible with the Bible. Both Jesus and St. Paul make statements that depend on a historical Adam.
Ray Ingles In any case, to give a taste of why the micro/macroevolution distinction isn’t taken seriously by “many natural scientists”:
What your example shows is that “many natural scientists” don’t seem to take logic seriously either. Mr. Steele’s analogy is a bit silly. A more apt anaolgy would not be walking from Africa to South America, but walking from Africa to the moon. It is simply not sufficient to say that man put one foot in front of the other and was able to reach the Sea of Tranquility. There has to be more to the explanation since the pathway is not clear.
Likewise, microevolution is observable; macroevolution is not. To extrapolate the latter from the former requires believing that small scale changes are sufficient to create new body types. That may be possible, but it has never been observed, hence it is not “fact.”
October 18th, 2010 | 11:42 am
As regards to being a theory, “evolution” might quallify as a good theory. However, as truth is truth, I accept God’s Word in Genesis as the real thing.
October 18th, 2010 | 12:00 pm
Joe –
Have supernovas been observed? We only have light, which we know must be millions of years old. What if that light was created in transit and no supernova actually occurred?
If you’re willing to accept supernovas, then we turn to fossils, and… well.
Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the top of the jawbone. Wriggle your jaw a bit to find the very tip. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that’s been cited, even, as ‘irreducibly complex’ – just Google around a bit.)
It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals… and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over 11 separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn’t work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.
Your ‘moon’ objection is more like someone today objecting that no one could have walked from Africa to the Americas because there’s an ocean in the way. Of course, we have evidence of land bridges in the past…
October 18th, 2010 | 12:06 pm
Joe Carter
If you mean that given an infinite number of attempts, a sequence of random genetic mutations could eventually yield the same results as any other, then I would concede the point. Take away an infinite number of attempts, however, and the chance of that occuring falls to zero.
On the contrary, I meant that, given the condtraints of viability, any sequence of random mutations would end up giving the same end result, with all paths winding up in the same place
October 18th, 2010 | 12:32 pm
But I will say that polygenism is incompatible with the Bible. Both Jesus and St. Paul make statements that depend on a historical Adam.
Meaning that you don’t hold Eve (and women) responsible for any part of the Fall–simply because Paul did not mention her?
Interesting.
October 18th, 2010 | 1:05 pm
Ray Ingles
Either genetic mutations only occurs in certain circumstances – in which case they can be correlated to those circumstances, or it can occur in any circumstances – in which case, it is random by definition.
I do not see what theories of teleology or causality add to that description.
I am not an advocate of the “tweaking” theory, which is unneccessary.
Suppose I put 20 numbered balls in box A. I then call over a random series of numbers, from 1 to 20. Every time I call a number, I transfer the corresponding ball from box A to box B, or back again, from B to A. I will soon reach a situation in which there are 10 balls in each box and that situation will be stable, one or two balls moving from box A to Box B and one or two balls moving from B to A. The actual series of numbers that I call is quite irrelevant to this final state of equal distribution. Thus, I can achieve an intended result by the use of a purely random series.
October 18th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
Btw, Joe – If Stove said, “Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one of us does…” then whatever this ‘Darwinism’ thing he was talking about certainly isn’t modern evolutionary theory.
If nothing else, there’s the balance between quality of offspring vs. quantity (which includes how much one invests in the care of those offspring). Honestly, I suggest you take a look at David Sloan Wilson’s “Evolution for Everyone”. He covers all this and more in a very engaging way. You don’t have to agree with him… but I think it’d help you better understand that which you criticize.
October 18th, 2010 | 1:29 pm
I wonder if there are not a number of points at which evolution and the Christian faith experience some tension.
For example:
Did (or do) our souls evolve along with our bodies?
If evolution has not stopped and we are still evolving how are we the pinnacle of God’s creation?
Following on from that what exactly was it that was “made in the image of God”? Given evolution, what does that mean?
October 18th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
Macroevolution is a term used to refer to that which cannot be observed but which, it is theorized, can be extrapolated from microevolution.
it’s been observed.
October 18th, 2010 | 1:50 pm
As the atheist philosopher David Stove said
i’ve read david stove’s works on evolution on the recommendation of a reader who was blown away by the awesomeness of his arguments. after reading stove’s arguments i ignored the reader after that point. stove simply didn’t know what he was talking about. many of his imputations were ‘not even wrong.’
October 18th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
razib it’s been observed.
I’m not sure how that fits as an example. Wasn’t the result that the finches were still finches? It certainly doesn’t seem to be an observed change in phyla.
many of his imputations were ‘not even wrong.’
Can you give us an example?
Also, do you completely dismiss Stove’s claims that evolutionary biologist never “cash out” the language they use into non-teleological terms? I’ve never seen a biologist refer to evolution without using terms that imply intention, design, etc.
If the process doesn’t require them then why are they needed to explain the process?
October 18th, 2010 | 2:45 pm
Joe –
And you’ve read how many journals of population genetics, versus popularizing treatments?
Some things can’t be talked about precisely without mathematics. E.g. quantum mechanics…
October 18th, 2010 | 2:57 pm
There is no question that “evolution” has occurred. But there is no scientific proof that it occurred by any particular means–simply because there is no way to test it, including the Darwinist version. Obviously random mutation and natural selection played a role–but the ONLY role? No proof whatever.
The real issue beneath this debate is the nature of science. In the rationalist version that has determined the West’s understanding of science since the Enlightenment, all science is “strictly material” (because all true thought must be purely objective),so if biology is to be a science it must be strictly material (hence Darwinism). False. As Karl Rahner wrote, some true sciences are not strictly material–and they tend to be those that deal with humanity.
October 18th, 2010 | 2:57 pm
Ray Ingles And you’ve read how many journals of population genetics, versus popularizing treatments?
I’ll concede that it may simply be an observational bias. So why don’t you send me the text of a major paper on evolutionary theory that does not use any such language. I’ll concede the point if someone can do that.
In the meantime, perhaps you can explain something for me: Why would popular treatments need to use such language?
It seems rather bizarre that the only way you could explain the theory to a general audience is by using language that means that exact opposite of what you are trying to convey. Why do they do that?
Some things can’t be talked about precisely without mathematics. E.g. quantum mechanics…
We’re not talking about mathematics. We’re talking about the language of teleology (design, intention, etc.).
October 18th, 2010 | 4:19 pm
“I’ll concede that it may simply be an observational bias. So why don’t you send me the text of a major paper on evolutionary theory that does not use any such language. I’ll concede the point if someone can do that. ”
I have a better idea. You “google scholar” the word “evolution,” read the first four articles and set out any isntances of teleogical language.
While you;re at it can you pelase tell us what “restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps” are and whether they have any teleological signifcance?
I don’t think you’ve taken any time to do your homework to investigate biology and are in no position to know what a biological “fact” is.
Do you think that DNA evidence should be admissible in court to convict murderers? DNA from cat hairs has been used to convict a person of murder. That DNA evidence would be impossible without evolution being a very (very!) good appoximation to reality.
Your efforts to knowledgably address biology are the equivalent of my efforts to discuss arcane points of Hindu theology–ignorance prevents any useful comments.
October 18th, 2010 | 4:58 pm
Joe Carter writes: “You would think [evolutionists would] prefer semantic precision to distinguish between the uses of the word as a fact and as a theory.”
Of course, that is precisely why they do not distinguish between the uses and constantly equivocate between observed microevolution and inferred macroevolution, engaging in semantic imprecision being so much easier than actually proving their theory.
Michael writes: “Evolution through natural selection put paid to the Argument from Design . . .”
Actually for over 100 years evolution through natural selection was thought to have put paid to the design inference. Then, beginning in late 20th century we learned that life at the cellular level is for from the bag of protoplasm Darwin and his contemporaries thought it was. Instead, we found that cellular life is a marvel of nano-robotic and information technology that our present technology cannot even begin to replicate. It turns out that Darwin’s theory is a Victorian relic looking for a place in an information age.
Razib says macroevolution has been observed. Did I miss the Nobel Prize award to the researcher who finally grasped the holy grail of evolutionary science? Or is razib equivocating on the term “speciation”? Hmmm. I pick the latter.
October 18th, 2010 | 5:06 pm
Really? So, should that be accepted as a defeater argument against hereditary evolution?
No one’s trying to suggest that several thousand individuals miraculously [errr, coincidentally] expressed the same precise, species-crossing mutation[s] more or less concurrently, right?
October 18th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
The American Scientific Association, a orgaization of scientists who take their Christianity seriously, has a great article on Darwin’s discussions with Asa Gray regarding teleological implications of evolution:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html
quote:
“I believe that there are at least two lessons that those of us involved in current debates about these matters can learn from this discussion about evolution and design that took place between Darwin and Gray. First, we need to be cognizant of which way we are arguing: are we arguing from design to God or from God to design? If the former, then we must be careful to include the whole of Nature–physical and biological, “good” and “bad,” ugly and beautiful–and be prepared to answer questions of suffering, evil, and the like. If the latter, then, it seems to me, we must be prepared to accept the fact that science may be done identically by the Christian and the non-Christian, with identical “results,” but the connotative meaning will be different. For the non- Christian, the results may be either ends in themselves or the starting points for future work. For the Christian, they are evidences that lead us to greater praise of God.”
October 18th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
It’s striking how the history of science is littered with theories that seem nonsensical now, or even pernicious like eugenics. Scientific theories definitely have their season, and science is not immune from fashion.
Many scientists seem to be infatuated with the elegance of the idea of evolution, even though there may never be enough evidence to know whether evolution alone accounts for the diversity of flora and fauna that we see. They could teach the religious something about blind faith. In any case, I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t look out on the world and see something essentially mysterious.
October 18th, 2010 | 6:20 pm
I am all for looking at things critically and not being overly flippant. But why is this a whole lot different than, say, Catholics accepting Christianity when there are Calvinists who think it means accepting Calvin’s teachings or some other teachings contrary to the Church’s teaching’s? I can take the truth where I find it and reject what doesn’t fit. Evolutionists have a good theory as long as it stops at a certain point. Calvinists have some good stuff as long as it stops at a certain point (IMO). I can fill in the rest with truth found elsewhere. Now, if the theory doesn’t work without the false elements, then there is a problem, but evolution, IMO, works fine without the materialist atheist stuff, so, yeah, I’m gonna go with the flippant Catholic response and say that I’m good with evolution.
October 18th, 2010 | 8:55 pm
John W. Gillis –
For a much clearer picture of how species really do come about, look up ‘ring species’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) The Larus gulls are several subspecies where variants live in a ring around the Arctic. The Herring Gull in the U.K. can interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the American can interbreed with the Vega Gull in Russia. And so on, until you come to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull in the Netherlands. It can’t breed with the Herring Gull.
So, is it a separate species? You could breed with its relative to the East, and so on. But what if, say, the Vega Gull went extinct? Would you have separate species then?
Now, imagine such variations happening across time instead of (or as well as) space, and you’ve got an idea how species actually do form, instead of the ‘saltationist’ strawman that is often put forth.
October 18th, 2010 | 10:00 pm
Joe – Take a look at this paper, which is relevant to the discussion that’s taken place here about historical contingency: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
Please explain exactly how the language used in this paper is misleading.
October 18th, 2010 | 10:14 pm
Ray Ingles Please explain exactly how the language used in this paper is misleading.
Well, let’s start with the second sentence:
No it doesn’t. Natural selection has no intentionality, it does not do “work” much less do it “systematically to adapt populations.”
Or how about this sentence:
No it doesn’t. Natural selection has no intentionality, it does not “find” adaptations “despite the vagaries of history.”
Or this one:
No it doesn’t. Natural selection has no intentionality, it does not do “favor” some steps over others.
This is but three examples from two pages of a rather technical paper. Now imagine an entire field of study that constantly and consistently uses such language in a way that equivocates the true meaning of the process and its easy to understand why people start to believe that evolution has its own internal teleology.
October 18th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
“Did I miss the Nobel Prize award to the researcher who finally grasped the holy grail of evolutionary science?”
Apparently so.
Check out the Nobel prize winners in Physiology and Medicine. All are obviously based on evolutionary science.
Pay particualr attention to those awarded in 2009, 2005 and 1962.
Also re-read the Ray Ingles link to the Lenski paper. You are probably reading the paper of a future Nobel Prize winner.
October 18th, 2010 | 10:37 pm
To Mr. Carter:
I simply don’t agree that because Jesus or Paul talked about Adam as a historical individual, that that proves Adam was a historical individual.
That assumes what you need to prove in the first instance: that Jesus and Paul had the same standards of historical facticity and concreteness that you are working with.
Nor can you argue that by rejecting those standards I am somehow rejecting the truth of Jesus’ or Paul’s proclamation, since it is precisely the epistemological validity of those standards as a priori assumptions that is open to question.
October 19th, 2010 | 3:19 am
I believe that Joe McFaul’s quotation from the American Scientific Association is right.
That is why I have argued that we should try to discuss the shbject in philossophically neutral language and insist that our opponents do the same.
The Argument from Order eschews any attempt to read the divine purpose – We can simply point to such obvious facts as the regularity of our physical functions, such as the beating of the pulse and the heaving of the breath; of the recurring sensations of hunger and thirst; of the alternation of waking and sleeping, and the succession of youth and age. In like manner we have experience of the great recurring phenomena of the heavens and earth, of day and night, summer and winter. Also, we have experience of a like uniform succession in the instance of fire burning, water choking, stones falling down and not up, iron moving towards a magnet, friction followed by sparks and crackling, an oar looking bent in the stream, and compressed steam bursting its vessel.
This is indeed evidence of the rule of law in Nature and presupposes a lawgiver, without any appeal to supposed divine purposes at all.
October 19th, 2010 | 6:34 am
A more helpful paper for Joe would be this one, by Peter Godfrey Smith. Biologists are quite aware of the limitations of the language they use to describe natural selection.
October 19th, 2010 | 6:41 am
To be specific (from the article):
“Perhaps there is something strange in this way of putting things, whereby a trait like T* can be made more common by natural selection, without being selected for. One may wonder whether an implication of agency isn’t lurking in the term ‘selection’. That is in fact what Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini claim. In which case, the thing to do is to set the suspicious terms aside and see whether it is possible to describe the same sequence of events without using them. If it is, the theory of natural selection is not called into question, and at most there is an awkwardness in the terminology. This turns out to be the case. Suppose we say, for example, that individuals with T and T* had more offspring than individuals with U and U*, and did so because T helped them avoid predators. T* also increased in frequency, but only because it is passed on along with T. However we choose to talk about it, the theory does distinguish between two different cases, one where a trait affects survival and reproduction and another where it doesn’t. In practice, confusion arising from the unwanted connotations of the term ‘selection’ is rare in biology, but it is always possible to shift to a more careful description if they intrude.”
October 19th, 2010 | 7:13 am
Joe – ‘Natural selection has no intentionality, it does not do “work” much less do it “systematically to adapt populations.’
I rather suspected you might take such a tack – that’s why I picked this paper. Now, let me ask you carefully – are you sure you found no examples of ‘cashing out’ in this paper, expressing the findings in neutral language?
Do you hold other disciplines to this standard, btw? Do you berate geologists for talking about continental plates grinding
October 19th, 2010 | 7:20 am
(The site layout doesn’t work for a small screen on a moving bus) into each other? Does lightning actually ‘strike’? Does friction steal energy? Does a bubble actually minimize its surface tension? Do atoms really prefer to ‘donate’ or ‘steal’ electrons?
In electrical engineering, it’s not just electrons flowing in one direction. I learned about ‘holes’ flowing in the opposite direction. It makes the math so much easier, and in practice is very close to true. Should electrical engineers be ashamed of themselves?
Humans like stories, and think about nearly everything in terms of stories with actors. Using such language is part of being human, not a dishonest conspiracy.
October 19th, 2010 | 10:01 am
Michael –
As Bertrand Russell put it, “…the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave…”
If we found a rock that fell up tomorrow, the ‘law of gravity’ would be wrong, not the rock. If we find a particle with a large mass and a positive charge, we haven’t found a particularly unruly electron – we’ve found a proton!
October 19th, 2010 | 10:02 am
[...] Charles Pope on the Archdiocese of Washington web site. (H/T Joe Carter on First Things) [...]
October 19th, 2010 | 11:12 am
Those who believe that evolution occurred, entirely undirected,have the formidible task, od convincing the rest of us, that an entirely undirected process, could “create” such spectacular order, and richness of diversity. It seems almost as if we’re required to believe something magical.
So the short answer, to your question, can a Christian accept evolutionary theory uncritically? the answer is no. And it should be the answer of any rational person, whether he’s Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever.
Many non-theistic types, would accept this assessment, but then counter that, well, we have to, on an a priori basis, reject any supernatural intervention in biology, or any science, because as soon as we allow one foot in the door, the whole body will come with it, and then science will lose its autonomous, critical spirit, and all hell will break loose.
While this is a danger, there’s also the danger this science can become corrupted the other wasy, and ignore legitimate empirical support for teleological action in biology, by being so fearful of religion, entering the scientific turf.
Having said this, there’s abundant empirical data, for evolution, by natural selection. There’s a plethora of data supporting humans descending from previously existing humoid creatures. Humans and chimps, clearly have arisen from a now extinct common anscestor, the empirical basis of which is supported by the incredible similarity between the chimps DNA, and our DNA.
October 19th, 2010 | 12:05 pm
If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
–Vatican Council I, Canon 2:1
The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason …
Catechism of the Catholic Church #286 (Cites Vatican Council I, Canon 2:1)
We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. …
Catechism of the Catholic Church #295
… God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events …
Catechism of the Catholic Church #303
In light of the above it seems to me that orthodox Catholics, to remain so, must accept not only that the Universe and the life within it are the direct result of the intentional, creative act of God, but that it is self-evident that this is so to a mind capable of objectivity. Furthermore, even the shallowest grasp of the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence should make clear that for God there is no such thing as chance or randomness. The concepts of “chance” and “randomness” are the necessary inventions of finite minds. The idea that the Universe and humanity came about by chance is irreconcilable with the idea that they were intentionally created by God. A theory of theistic evolution, if it is to remain rational, cannot be an attempt to reconcile these two notions.
Disregarding the atheistic evangelism inherent in many materialistic explanations of evolution, the theory for orthodox Catholics should be a question whether it sheds any light on how God did what He did, not at all one of whether He did it or not.
A final thought. From dust we came and to dust we shall return. Nothing is impossible for God. Taking these two scripturally based ideas into consideration, if we don’t consider it at least a possibility that God intervened in natural course of events and directly, immediately fashioned the body Adam from dirt, then how is the immediate, direct fashioning of our bodies from the dust to which they returned a possibility at the Resurrection? If we don’t believe God is going to intervene in the natural course of events at some point and fashion the bodies of every human being who ever lived and died from the lifeless matter to which they returned, we are not Christians. If we are Christians, then we should allow for at least the possibility that the direct fashioning of a body from the dirt might have happened also in the case of Adam. Can we deny that possibility and still insist we believe in the Resurrection?
October 20th, 2010 | 5:53 am
Harry
To believe that God eternally decrees, not only the events that come to pass, but the causes of them and the order in which those causes operate, is perfectly compatible with a belief in an event not corrolated to any antecedent and, hence, “random” – emissions of radiation, for example.
October 20th, 2010 | 10:42 am
Hi, Michael,
“an event not correlated to any antecedent” as far as finite minds can determine. If an omniscient and omnipotent being launches a process knowing and willing its eventual result and knowing and willing every single event that will take place between the launching and the intended result, and how each of those events will will tend towards the intended result, none of the events are random from His perspective.
If God creates an environment that will generate what appears to us to be random events, His knowing in advance exactly what each of those events will be and their results, and His intending those results, renders those events non-random from His perspective.
October 20th, 2010 | 11:20 am
Another thought. If God created an environment that generates events that will appear random to us, does that mean He set things up so that He “cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made” since the results of mindless, random events are not intelligently designed?
Nope. If an explosion in a lumber yard resulted in the “accidental” assembly of a house, we would assume somebody put some thought into setting up that explosion. “Random,” “mindless” events resulting in intelligent, self-aware beings, a single cell of which we have no idea how to assemble from scratch due to its astounding complexity, cannot really be random events brought about mindlessly. Like our assumption about the house assembled by the explosion in the lumber yard, it is entirely reasonable assume somebody put some thought into those “random” events.
October 20th, 2010 | 11:31 am
How fortunate that natural selection isn’t random!
October 20th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
Hi, Ray,
“How fortunate that natural selection isn’t random!”
Hey! We agree on something! ;o)
Natural selection, if it is indeed the process by which humanity came about, could not be random in the sense that random events have no intelligent cause and no purpose.
The big question is whether natural selection could have obtained the results attributed to it if it was a process brought about mindlessly and had no purpose.
Why is it we do not see other examples of non-trivial, functional complexity coming about mindlessly if lifeless matter was assembled into life mindlessly?
All simulations of a prebiotic environment require massive intelligent intervention simply to bring about the most trivial results, which, as you know, have been nowhere near metabolism. All that has been demonstrated so far is the necessity of intelligent intervention to even take the first step in a journey of trillions of miles.
Mindless, unguided replication of lifeless matter is only going to get you a lot of whatever lifeless matter it is that is being replicated, until the environment allowing the replication ceases to be. Then whatever hasn’t already dissolved into non-replicating matter will do so. That’s it.
Here is an excerpt from The Mystery of Life’s Origins, by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen:
“Clausius, who formulated the second law of thermodynamics, summarizes the laws of thermodynamics in his famous concise statement: “The energy of the universe is constant; the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum.” The universe moves from its less probable current arrangement (low entropy) toward its most probable arrangement in which the energy of the universe will be more uniformly distributed.
“How does all of this relate to chemical evolution? Since the important macromolecules of living systems (DNA, protein, etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids, heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not spontaneously form. Roger Caillois has recently drawn this conclusion in saying, “Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right.”"
You can’t get increasing, non-trivial functional complexity mindlessly. If you could we would see instances of lifeless phenomena that were, say, a third of the way towards the complexity of life. I know Darwin thought anything close to becoming life would be gobbled up by existing life forms before we could examine it. But that assumes that that which is increasing in complexity must be something resembling life and consumable by existing life forms. Mindlessly increasing functional complexity does not have to be in the process of becoming anything similar to life as we know it. If such mindless increases in functional complexity happen at all, they could be in the process of becoming anything. The problem is that we just don’t see it happening at all. We just assume it must have happened at one time in order to explain life. If lifeless matter was ever capable of assembling itself into massively complex functional systems of any kind, it is still capable of doing so and should still be doing so. It isn’t. And wasn’t.
What materialists are really looking for is the equivalent of a mindless, natural process that would explain the inscription on the Rosetta Stone. It is more likely that that inscription is indeed the result of mindless erosion than it is that the functional complexity of life is the result of a mindless process.
October 20th, 2010 | 6:09 pm
“Roger Caillois has recently drawn this conclusion in saying, “Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right.”
Roger Caillois is neither a biologist nor a physicist. Never heard of him. Based on the stupidity of the remark, I guess “philosopher.”
Thaxton, of course, is a Young Earth Creationist at the Discovery Institute. Science means nothing to him.
October 21st, 2010 | 8:25 am
Harry –
Argument by vigorous assertion? :)
Right. A few decades of research frequently duplicate a few hundred million years of processes.
October 21st, 2010 | 10:28 am
Hi, Ray,
“Argument by vigorous assertion?”
Well, my point was that life requires metabolism and reproduction. Replication alone is not life, metabolism alone is not sufficient – if a unit of metabolism assembled itself from lifeless matter but didn’t have the ability to reproduce, the process that brought it about has to start all over again when it dies.
An environment sustaining the replication of a unit of lifeless matter without the instructions embedded in a DNA molecule for it to create the protein machines required for metabolism is only going to last as long as the environment that allows the replication, but a unit of non-reproducing metabolism can live for a while without the ability to replicate itself. So, as I said, in the case of replicating lifeless matter all you would have is “… a lot of whatever lifeless matter it is that is being replicated, until the environment allowing the replication ceases to be. Then whatever hasn’t already dissolved into non-replicating matter will do so. That’s it.” Why this is what we should expect was explained in the excerpt that followed from Thaxton’s book, the point being that things would naturally go from a higher order, low entropy arrangement to a less ordered, higher entropy arrangement.
Why don’t you think this is the case?
Do you not agree that the second law of thermodynamics presented an obstacle that chemical evolution, if it is what brought about the first primitive life form, had to overcome?
October 21st, 2010 | 10:48 am
Correction:
“An environment sustaining the replication of a unit of lifeless matter without the instructions embedded in a DNA molecule for it to create the protein machines required for metabolism is only going to last as long as the environment that allows the replication”
should have been:
“In an environment sustaining the replication of units of lifeless matter without the instructions embedded in a DNA molecule for them to create the protein machines required for metabolism, the units are only going to last as long as the environment that allows the replication”
That is what I meant. ;o)
October 21st, 2010 | 10:28 pm
“Do you not agree that the second law of thermodynamics presented an obstacle that chemical evolution, if it is what brought about the first primitive life form, had to overcome?”
No. Anybody who makes this suggestion is an idiot.
October 22nd, 2010 | 9:13 am
Harry –
Why not?
Seriously, that seems to be the hallmark of life. Some people do define viruses as nonliving, but that seems overly pedantic to me.
Well, it doesn’t have to be DNA. There’s the whole RNA-world hypothesis. RNA and amino acids – long chains of them – can be produced naturally by freezing and thawing cycles in water. The whole point is that the first reproducers don’t have to be complex; they just have to reproduce with occasional errors.
Heck, I’m prepared to argue that auto-catalysis is a (very simple) metabolism. All metabolisms take input from the environment and reorganize them ultimately toward reproduction. Auto-catalyzing chemical systems take available building blocks to make more of themselves. Plants take minerals from the soil, air, and light to make more of themselves. Predators take other living things to make more of themselves. Where’s the principled line dividing these?
As Joe says, no, the second law doesn’t pose an obstacle. Here’s the actual math: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/entropy_and_evolution.php
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:04 pm
Hi, Ray,
Take a look at this:
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf
Thanks
October 22nd, 2010 | 2:03 pm
Sewell is another young earth creationist hiding out at the Discovery Institute, and is a non-biologist and non-physicist.
A mathematicain who actually knows his stuff and is intellectually honest shreds him here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Sewell.cfm
October 22nd, 2010 | 11:10 pm
Oh. Well, that settles it fer sure, dude.
October 24th, 2010 | 10:58 pm
Joe, McFaul:
Hello, my friend,
Perakh does not offer any examples of naturally occurring functional complexity that approach the functional complexity of life. Biological functional complexity seems to be a spectacular exception to the Universally exhibited inability of mindless, lifeless matter to assemble itself into arrangements that exhibit massive functional complexity. Yes. There are examples of complex order that occur naturally. Order is not functional complexity. Order can be explained by physical laws and is the inevitable result of the operation of such laws given the appropriate environment. Complex order is not functional complexity. Functional complexity is always organization that was not inevitable, but is a specific arrangement that exhibits functional complexity out of many arrangements that were possible, but would not exhibit functional complexity. Why is life the only exception, and such a spectacular exception in that its astounding functional complexity is light years beyond anything else naturally occurring in nature as well as anything that is the product of human intelligence? Sewell’s interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics seems to shed some light on why this is so. Perakh’s remarks shed none at all. If Sewell’s remarks demonstrate nothing else, they at least demonstrate that there are very thoughtful, educated people who don’t think any combination of chance and physical laws are capable of assembling mindless, lifeless matter into intelligent, self aware beings
What one does not know a single way to construct intentionally, due to its complexity, one has no scientific basis for claiming came about mindlessly and accidentally. Ray, on another thread, responded to this point with “So, in the year 1632 – long before anyone was doing any experiments with electricity – could one credibly propose that lightning arose ‘mindlessly and accidentally’?”
We eventually came to understand electricity. We know how to create electrical discharges so we can explain how natural occurring circumstances can bring one about. Before we understood electricity there could be no scientific basis for insisting that it came about accidentally. We don’t know how to create a living organism from lifeless matter due to the fact that the technology that brings about living organisms is beyond us. Until we know at least one way of bringing about life from lifeless matter intentionally, there is no scientific basis for insisting that it came about mindlessly and accidentally.
Perakh wrote in his rebuttal to Sewell:
“A general remark: evolution theory cannot be proven or rejected by applying any mathematical equations or laws of physics. ET is an empirical science based on immense experimental and observational material. The fact of evolution has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, although mechanisms of evolution continue to be discussed by evolutionary biologists. If certain mathematical equations or laws of physics seem to contradict ET, the reasonable explanation is that the equations or laws in question have been misapplied or misinterpreted.”
Contrast that remark with the following statement signed by twenty five Ph.D. mathematicians:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Their names, along with the names of hundreds of other Ph.D. scientists from various fields who signed it as well, can be seen here:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
A significant mathematical objection to the supposed creative powers of chance and physical laws operating on lifeless matter was expressed at the Wistar Symposium. This took place in Philadelphia in 1966. Mathematicians and other scientists assembled to assess whether Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar chaired the conference. Many meeting participants simply did not think that Neo-Darwinism is a mathematically feasible explanation of the origin of life.
Sir Peter Medawar, at the outset, stated:
“[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. … There are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing … These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.”
(Sir Peter Medawar, “Remarks by the Chairman,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5)
Yes indeed. Something is missing. Physical laws and chance no doubt play some role in the origin of life. But they do not appear to be sufficient to bring it about. What is missing will explain why biological functional complexity is a spectacular exception to the Universally exhibited inability of mindless, lifeless matter to assemble itself into arrangements that exhibit massive functional complexity. And what might that missing factor be? Intelligence is a reality. It is therefore legitimate for science to consider it as a causal factor in bringing about a given phenomenon.
I think the vitriolic response to any questioning of whether the combination of chance and physical laws operating on lifeless matter can assemble it into astoundingly complex functionality capable of intelligent self-awareness is not a scientific one; it springs from fear; it is in self defense; it is a reaction to one’s deepest religious/philosophical beliefs appearing to be challenged.
Is this not the real reason for the intense, hysterical reaction of the scientific establishment to alternative scientific theories regarding the origin of life? Those who react this way would claim that this is not a matter of suppressing alternative scientific theories, since Intelligent Design theory is not really science at all, but religion masquerading as science.
That claim is a two-edged sword: Inherent in atheistic materialism is a belief about God, even though it is that God doesn’t exist. There is no way to prove God doesn’t exist; this belief must be taken on faith. Beliefs about God that must be taken on faith are essentially religious beliefs. Could it be that those who so vehemently oppose ID are not really defending objective, religion-neutral science? Their intense zealotry suggests that what they are really doing is desperately defending their own atheistic religious beliefs.
Contrary to the mistaken assumption of many, science is not restricted to that which affirms atheistic materialism. Authentic, relentlessly objective, religion-neutral science seeks out the truth wherever the evidence leads it, regardless of whose religious/philosophical ox might be gored by its doing so.
Yes, science should look for natural explanations. Nobody is disputing that. Again, intelligence is known to be a reality. To deny that is only to confirm its absence in one’s own instance. There exist phenomena for which the best explanation is an intelligence. The inscription on the Rosetta Stone is an example of this. The Lascaux cave paintings are another example. It is certainly not unscientific to attribute to an intelligence these prehistoric images of animals on the Lascaux cave walls.
It is abundantly clear to all reasonable people that those caricatures are very unlikely to have been arrived at by mindless chance. If it is very unlikely that a simple caricature of a prehistoric bear is a mindless accident, it is entirely reasonable to assume that it is even less likely that an actual living instance of the bear is a mindless accident.
Science can quite legitimately question the view that functionally complex biological systems are mindless accidents and remain true science; in fact, it must allow that question to be examined if it is to remain true science. It is a distorted science perverted by religious atheism that hysterically rejects the legitimacy of this scrutiny of the likelihood of mindless, lifeless matter accidentally assembling itself into functionally complex biological systems. If it is evident that an intelligence was behind a simple caricature of a bear, it is legitimate to ask if one was behind the actual instance of the bear.
What if the simple truth is that it is not only the image of the bear on the Lascaux cave wall that is the work of an artist, but the actual bear is, too? To scientifically determine that that is most likely the case would be, to understate it, very momentous. If this can be done, genuine science, not science perverted by atheism, will do so.
Yes, this determination would not surprise the vast majority of humanity who already consider it a “no brainer” to conclude that life on Earth is the work of a divine Artist. Even so, to scientifically assess the likelihood that an intelligence of some kind is responsible for life on Earth is an incredibly interesting, truly scientific endeavor. Religious atheists, as well as theists, should let science gather the evidence and then follow it wherever it leads. Those presenting their religious atheism as though it has the certainty of science, and as though it is “science” when it most certainly is not, do, of course, vehemently claim such an investigation would not be scientific.
A final thought for theists who object to a philosophy of science that is completely religion-neutral: If God is the author of nature then ultimately there can be no real conflict between true religion and true science. That is why theists should have no fear of a philosophy of science that is devoid of a religious agenda (that is not the same as being devoid of values), and it is also why many devout atheists have conniption fits when religious atheism’s perversion of science is questioned; to them this appears to be an assault on their most deeply held religious convictions. If they want to pretend their religious beliefs are “science” that is fine, but this perversion of science must not be imposed on the rest of us.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact