In connection with five myths about science:
Most Christians would accept treatment recommendations for cancer if 95% of oncologists embraced that treatment as the best. But 95% of biologists, paleontologists and scientists in related areas accept the general theory of evolution, but most Christians do not. Are Christian views regarding evolution rational and, if so, why? There are at least four criteria for when it is rational to go against the overwhelming percentage of experts in an area of science, e.g. those who accept evolution:
(1) Make sure there is not an alternative interpretation of the Bible that is interpretively reasonable and that resolves the tension.
(2) The presence of a band of highly trained, academically qualified scholars with a good track record for publishing in top journals or with highly regarded book publishers, and who are unified in rejecting the view held by even a vast majority of the relevant experts.
(3) There are good historical, sociological, or theological explanations for why the expert majority holds to the problematic view (for example, evolution) instead of their adherence to the problematic view being largely a rational commitment based on a lot of good arguments and strong evidence.
(4) Given that Christianity is a highly rational worldview with much evidential and argumentative support, any view that cuts against central components of a Christian worldview should be rejected precisely due to that fact.
J. P. Moreland, “Five Myths About Science” at Crossway
Thoughts?
J. P. Moreland is the author of Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideologyand, more recently, Finding Quiet.
See also: Theologian, battling depression, reaffirms the existence of the soul J. P. Moreland reasons his way to the evidence and captures his discoveries in a book.
“But 95% of biologists, paleontologists and scientists in related areas accept the general theory of evolution, but most Christians do not.” MOST??
I gotta believe that if you ask the audience at a random PTA whether or not they “believe in Evolution”, you’ll get better than 75% “Yes, I believe” response. And I would also guess that better than 50% of that same audience are “Christians”. Obviously, before religion fell out of favor in the mid-20th century, essentially EVERYBODY who believed in Evolution was also a Christian. (The non-Christian corners of the world have never HEARD of the theory.] Did Darwin himself ever declare he was an Atheist?
In fact, even today I assume that only some tiny number of Fundamentalists reject Evolution because it disagrees with some literal reading of the Old Testament. For most Christians, what matters is the New Testament, and God could have simply used Evolution as one of the tools to get from the original void to the Birth in Bethlehem. Up until Intelligent Design showed up, EVERY educated person who had been taught about Evolution in grade school accepted The Theory of Evolution the same way they accepted the statement that the Sun was just another star. (Doing the technical reading and conducting the experiments to confirm the “star” statement is not the kinda thing you do in junior high.)
Vmahuna
^^^^^^
What he said.
It is not only right, but imperative, that, not only Christians, but people who want to practice science that does not devolve into sheer insanity, reject any supposed scientific worldview that presupposes reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism as being true as a starting presupposition.
Science itself simply cannot be based on reductive materialism and/or methodological naturalism. The prime example of this is Darwinian evolution itself. Darwinists love to claim that their worldview is the ‘scientific’ worldview and that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science, but the reality of the situation is quite the opposite. In fact, the science of biology itself certainly does not need Darwinism as a starting presupposition.
As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs, yet in an article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.
Again, the science of Biology itself owes nothing to Darwinian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution is simply a metaphysical belief, i.e. atheistic materialism, that is, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to in the preceding article, added onto, even forced onto, biological discoveries as a ‘narrative gloss’ after the discovery was made.
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:
Jonathan Wells weigh in here:
Ann Gauger weighs in here:
In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with the science of Biology, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is not even on the correct theoretical, i.e. metaphysical, foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:
By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether something is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.
The main reason that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science is that, although falsification is considered the gold standard to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, Darwinists themselves simply refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory:
As Karl Popper stated, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Moreover, since science itself was born out of the Christian worldview itself, by men who were, by and large, devoutly Christian in their beliefs, then Christians certainly have nothing to fear from all the bluff and bluster coming from Darwinists, (i.e. from their false claim that only their worldview is the supposed ‘scientific’ worldview, and that Christianity is a anti-scientific myth). The reality of the situation turns out to be quite the opposite from what Darwinists constantly try to portray to the general public. The reality of the situation is that, as shocking a it may be for some people to hear, Christianity is the scientific worldview and Darwinian evolution is the anti-scientific myth!
Verse:
Yap, I’m in agreement with Vmahuna and AaronS1978. Claiming that most Christians reject evolution is a very strange statement. as far as I’m aware, most major Christian denominations don’t have a problem with evolution.
Yes, most people will believe in “evolution” when it is explained as “cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms over time”.
Do most Christians believe that human beings evolved from bacteria to non-human animals (chimps) through an entirely materialistic process?
Even when I was a believer in evolution, I could never accept that humans evolved from irrational animals. And the bacteria-to -human story always seemed absurd. I think a lot of normal people actually feel the same way about it.
Of course Christians don’t think “human beings evolved from bacteria to non-human animals (chimps) through an entirely materialistic process” because they believe in God’s presence in everything that happens. I don’t see how that precludes a Christian from believing that life has evolved over the last four billion years under God’s “invisible hand”, as a Christian might describe it.
So who is correct? Well if scientific evidence itself is to be given any place as a guide in a scientific debate about the origin of humanity, then the 18% of Americans who reject evolution entirely, are, in all likelihood, the ones who are correct as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned:
First off, although the fossil record from the Cambrian explosion onward reveals a very un-Darwinian pattern of sudden appearance of a ‘kind’ and then overall stasis,,,
Although the fossil record from the Cambrian explosion onward reveals a very un-Darwinian pattern of sudden appearance of a ‘kind’ and then overall stasis, no where is the fossil record more distorted from what it actually is, (i.e. suddenness and overall stasis), than it is in when Darwinists try to link man with chimps/apes:
Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem’s series reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones”. (The last videos listed in the series also deal with the misleading genetic evidence).
Moreover, the death of Adam and Eve from the supposedly incontrovertible genetic evidence is, much like Mark Twain’s death, greatly exaggerated.
There are several problems with the genetic evidence. First off the strength of the 99% figure is far weaker than is commonly believed: As Richard Sternberg noted, “One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical.,, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.”
Moreover, the way in which the 99% figure for genetic similarity was originally derived, to put it mildly, has much to be desired. In fact, the original DNA similarity comparisons, according to a Darwinist, “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
More recent research has brought the fallacious 99% figure down substantially. As the following article states, “Ann Gauger, estimates that humans and chimps share around 92% of our DNA. To put that in perspective, scientists tell us that we’re 90% identical to cats.”
And even more recent research by Jeffrey Tomkins and Richard Buggs has brought that figure down to 85%:
Even if DNA were as similar as Darwinists have falsely portrayed it to be, the basic ‘form’ that any organism may take is simply not reducible to mutations in DNA, (nor is the basic ‘form’ reducible to any other material particulars in molecular biology, (proteins, RNAs, etc.. etc.. ,,), that Darwinists may wish to invoke). That is to say, ‘you can mutate DNA til the cows come home’, (Stephen Meyer), and you will still not achieve a fundamental change in the basic form of any organism. And since the basic ‘form’ of an organism is forever beyond the explanatory power of Darwinian mechanisms, then any belief that Darwinism explains the ‘transformation of forms’ for all of life on earth is purely a pipe dream that has no experimental basis in reality.
To further drive this point home of biological form not being reducible to mutations in DNA, Dolphins and Kangaroos, although being very different morphologically from humans, are found to have very similar DNA sequences to humans. In regards to dolphin DNA, Richard Sternberg states, “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”
Where tremendous differences are found between chimps and humans (and all other distinct kinds of species) are in alternative splicing patterns. As the following article states, “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”
In fact ., due to alternative slicing, “Alternatively spliced isoforms,,, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,” and “As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms,,”
And although the purported evidence for human evolution is far weaker and illusory than most people realize, it is very interesting to note where leading Darwinists themselves admit that they have no clue how evolution could have produced the particular trait of language in humans.
Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book entitled ‘Kingdom of Speech’ on the subject. The following quote provides an overview of Tom Wolfe’s main argument in his book:
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates,,
What is more interesting still, besides the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information and have become ‘masters of the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. (In fact, the failure of Darwinian processes to be able to generate information is the number one source of contention between Darwinists and ID advocates)
As Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ ,,, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.,,,
Verses:
Perhaps a more convincing evidence that we are made in the image of God and that our lives have meaning and purpose could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God. That just so happens to be precisely the claim of Christianity:
Bob O’H:
That all depends on what definition of “evolution” you are using.
I addressed that question a bit in 6.
Hazel
Yes, that is a very common view, it is the theistic evolutionary view. There are three (at least) problems that Christians have to reconcile with that view.
1st, if God is involved in evolution, then there can be no valid argument against Intelligent Design theory.
2nd, following this, why should God conceal all His actions beneath a “silent hand” and have, as a result, a process that makes it appear as if God does not exist?
3rd – Christians would still need to reconcile the Darwinian-gradualist view of the origin of human beings. Supposedly, the rational-intellect, consciousness and moral conscience of human beings evolved from random, physical mutations. This greatly conflicts with Christian doctrine (aside from all the problems it has scientifically). Morals would be oriented towards survival and reproductive success and not towards the goal of heaven in the afterlife.
So, yes, probably most Christians would want some kind of mixture of Christianity and Darwinism and they think such a thing is possible. But they’re either not really believing in evolution or not believing in Christianity – or both.
Thanks for the reply, SA
You write, “1st, if God is involved in evolution, then there can be no valid argument against Intelligent Design theory.”
That of course depends on the details of Intelligent Design theory, and it appears to me (with my limited reading), that there is no clear specifics about what that entails. I assume all Christians believe in Intelligent Design of some sort, at least of the “invisible hand” type.
You write, “2nd, following this, why should God conceal all His actions beneath a “silent hand” and have, as a result, a process that makes it appear as if God does not exist?”
I don’t understand this objection. Christians believe, I think, that God created the universe that makes it possible for atoms to exist, but they don’t expect to see signs of God’s active hand in chemical reactions, for instance. If it is apparent to the Christian that God has created something (the universe, chemicals, life, human beings), that how could the process of those things happening make it appear he doesn’t exist?
You write, “3rd – Christians would still need to reconcile the Darwinian-gradualist view of the origin of human beings. Supposedly, the rational-intellect, consciousness and moral conscience of human beings evolved from random, physical mutations. This greatly conflicts with Christian doctrine (aside from all the problems it has scientifically). Morals would be oriented towards survival and reproductive success and not towards the goal of heaven in the afterlife.”
I’ve already pointed out that of course the Christain doesn’t believe in a materialistic viewpoint, but I don’t know what a Christian view would preclude a gradualist view of change; or the existence of rationality, consciousness, and morality in human beings; nor the existence of events that look “random” to us but are in fact guided by God.
To repeat, of course the Christian rejects a materialistic metaphysic, but I don’t see how that precludes a belief in “God guided” evolution, which is a phrase I think is commonly used.
You write, “So, yes, probably most Christians would want some kind of mixture of Christianity and Darwinism and they think such a thing is possible. But they’re either not really believing in evolution or not believing in Christianity – or both.”
To repeat, they are just not believing in a materialistic viewpoint about evolution, but I don’t see that accepting the gradual development of life over the last four billion years is a necessary conflict with Christianity.
Syncretism always comes to a bad end.
Hazel
I think we have to sort some things out because there appears to be a conflict in our mutual understandings.
I’ll start here. You’re saying that there are no clear specifics, but that all Christians believe in Intelligent Design of some sort. You’re indicating that you understand the specifics well-enough to assign the belief to all Christians. Intelligent Design is the theory that some aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by intelligence. So, if you think (I believe, correctly) that all Christians accept that view to some extent, it means that Christians believe that there is some observable evidence in nature for the Intelligent Design of God. To me, that seems pretty obvious. I don’t know how anyone could be a Christian and deny it. But, believe it or not, I have met Christians who are totally opposed to Intelligent Design and claim that there is no, zero, evidence of Design in nature. In my view, they twist themselves in knots to defend that, and actually distort Christian teaching, but anyway … let’s start with the notion that all Christians believe that evidence of Intelligent Design is found in nature. By evidence, I mean scientifically observable evidence. If it is scientifically observable (that is what ID looks at), then science should know about it, right? Science should agree “yes, this is evidence that there is or was Intelligent Design in nature”. But I don’t think science quite agrees with that. Evolutionary biology does not present evidence and state “this is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature”. However, we said that all Christians believe that there is evidence of Intelligent Design. Can we see the conflict here?
Well, as we agreed above, all Christians believe in some sort of Intelligent Design idea – that there is evidence of Intelligence in nature. So, all Christians observe this, somewhere. Whether in chemicals, life itself, or the meaning of human life.
Here is the conflict. If it is “apparent” that God created something, how is it apparent? By what we observe? Well, if nothing that we observe shows evidence of having been designed by intelligence, then there is no reason to believe that God is an invisible hand. God would just be a meaningless proposition. God would simply be invisible, not even a hand. To say that God created every atom and put it into the exact position that it exists in today and for all of the history of the universe is to say that it is impossible to observe the act of Intelligence. A random occurrence of cloud formations is no more significant than Michaelangelo’s sculpture. It is just God moving molecules into various places. But instead, we observe things, like the fine tuning of parameters for life on earth, that contrasts with what we see of random effects of an explosion for example. One shows precise order, the other chaos. So, we discern the presence of design in one.
It is not a conflict with Christianity, it is a conflict with evolution. In fact, scientists will say that it is not evolution. For example, where can I find a “non-materialistic evolutionary” idea? In biology textbooks?
A Christian could say “Yes, I believe in evolution. God evolves things by taking dirt from the ground and then creating various plants and animals out of the dirt. So, everything evolved that way. God shaped Adam and Eve and all the birds and plants and mammals, all evolved from dirt and shaped by God’s own hands.”
So, there’s a Christian evolutionary view. It is perfectly compatible with Christianity. But did evolutionary theory have to change in order to make it compatible? Yes, obviously – it’s just Creationism presented in a style of evolution. So, why not? Why can’t we have that in biology textbooks?
You write in the middle of your first main paragraph, “By evidence, I mean scientifically observable evidence.”
I didn’t mention “scientific evidence”. I believe Christians derive many of their beliefs from other than scientific evidence, including their internal spiritual sense of their relationship with God. I certainly know people who have exclaimed at the beauty of a sunrise on a lovely spring morning and exclaimed that it all spoke to the wonderful existence of God and his design for the world. I think they would perhaps scoff at the idea that somehow “scientific evidence” was a consequential or compelling part of their belief in God’s design at that moment.
This is why I mentioned that there are no clear specifics, as far as I can see, as to what ID means. I see here at UD lots of arguments about complex mathematics that mean to provide scientific evidence that intelligence (to the Christian: God) is involved, but I don’t pay attention to those (partially from lack of background knowledge). However, as I’ve said, I know Christians who use Intelligent Design to describe their overall belief in the pervading presence of God, and who would be as uninterested in the mathematical arguments as I am.
If you restrict the idea to a Christian that ID is a belief that scientific evidence for God’s presence can be found, then I think many Christians would say that is not what they mean by God’s design, and say they don’t accept ID. But this is a disagreement among Christians about what ID means, and one that Christians would have to discuss among themselves.
You write, “ If it is “apparent” that God created something, how is it apparent? By what we observe? Well, if nothing that we observe shows evidence of having been designed by intelligence, then there is no reason to believe that God is an invisible hand.”
As I said above, I believe that many (most?) Christians believe that they have a spiritual access to truth beyond the mere experience of the senses. See again my first main paragraph above. If you are limiting the belief in God to one that is only justified if one can see at least some distinct, observable, scientific evidence that he exists, it seems you might be falling prey to the very materialism that you don’t believe in: that only material evidence counts.
I just wanted to add my two cents here about whether or not Christians can believe in God and in evolution. Chapter 1 Genesis verse 20 through 24 Speaks of God commanding the earth and the waters to bring forth all the life that exists. For example genesis 24 it states “then God said let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature”
This is not the only time this is stated and it is taught especially among Catholics that it is gods word that commands the world to bring forth all the living things. God himself does not sit down and construct these creatures from scratch in a grease monkeys overalls with a wrench. It is simply a command that he gives the world that he has created to bring forth these living creatures. The power of God’s word
It does not give any detail of how the earth accomplishes this or how the waters accomplish this (It does say that God is responsible for creating all the creature in the sea but again by his word)
It is just that God gave the word and the earth brought it forth as it did with all the plants and all the creatures of the sea.
This leaves plenty of room to believe that evolution took place.
Then in Genesis chapter 1, 26 it is stated “ Then God said let us make human beings in our image after our likeness let them have dominion over the fish of the sea the birds of the air the tame animals all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the earth”
27 “God created mankind in his image in the image of God he created them male and female he created them”
This is where God specifically creates humans but again it is not specific how, Just that God creates humans in his image
This is the very thing that almost every anti-theist attempts to attack this is what motivates most animal cognitive science this is the thing that causes 100% of the contention between the idea of evolution and Christian belief
It is the attempt to knock this down “in the image of God”
It is not until Genesis chapter 2 number 7 that God is described taking the dust of the earth, molding us like clay and breathing the breath of life in us.
Again the only thing that this really truly implies is that we are of the earth and God had a specific hand in our creation. It can be taken that the breath of life is the soul of humankind and even though evolution produced our bodies, our mind and soul were created by God himself. God uses the earth to create our bodies and our bodies come from the earth hence ashes to ashes dust to dust. God also doesn’t just snap his fingers and make us pop into existence he molded us like clay instead (molded Natural selection has been described as sculpting a living organism).
So the idea that Christians can’t believe in evolution and can’t believe in God is not exactly true, there’s plenty of room for both, how God does things is how God wants to do things and we truly cannot question it. The real issue comes in when scientists specifically anti-theist attacked the idea of the image of God and this is were all of the fighting starts and this is were almost every single one of the anti-theist try to knock down
We’re only different from animals and degree
There’s no immaterial soul everything can be described materialistically ( God use material to create our body)
Humans have no special abilities over animals abstract thought as an illusion or animals can do it too kind of maybe
The mind is an illusion ( go fig the thing that is attributed to the soul)
Morality is just an evolved survival tactic ( God gave us the capacity to know the difference between good and evil) Again another attack on in image of God
Why are certain scientist calling for humanzee, This is both in human does not prove that we aren’t exceptional and created in God’s image, But the idea is to show that our abstract capacities are material in nature, that we don’t have a soul, and we are directly connected by evolution to the animal kingdom.
The only thing this proves is that we are monsters if we do it, and that we are only going to create a defective human or a defective chimpanzee. There is no reason for this, And the people that suggested think it’s going to humble us. I have never heard such a stupid statement in my life
If you all see the pattern you can probably understand why Christians have a lot of contention between certain contemporaries of science
It is amazing that people like Francis Collins can do his work in neuroscience, biology, and genetics and Christians don’t just come out and start attacking him for doing science. He’s a Christian and he doesn’t attack the “in the image of God”
However a large majority of anti-theist scientist specifically target this and even do experiments to just prove it is wrong, which is highly biased even though they state their not being biased. It is so convenient that everything they find somehow supports we are not exceptional.
And then people wonder why the other group gets so upset.
Because when you attack the idea that we are created in the image of God you were also attacking the idea that God exists and God had a hand in the creation of all that exists
In parallel with DNA and the environment which are entirely and totally intertwined, being made in the image of God and the existence of God are completely intertwined attack one and you attack the other
Many people had no problem with believing in evolution until it was wielded as a weapon against the idea of God and was used to undercut the idea that we were created in the image of God
This contention was created, evolution can be believed in by Christians very easily with no real problem and many Christians used to and still do believe evolution took place. In fact it can be argued that God had no direct involvement in the creation of all the things that live as it was God’s command of the earth and the sea that brought these things forth
So can Christians believe in evolution? absolutely. But when evolution is used to try to undercut what we are then you’re going to end up getting a fight, it’s not evolution it’s self that’s the problem, it’s the people that like to interpret it that way and vice a versa.
Hazel
When we refer to Intelligent Design on this particular blog, we are talking about the theory of Intelligent Design, which is a scientific theory. If you’re talking about various understandings of God that use aspects of design in nature, like beauty or philosophical ideas of purpose and causality, those are not-scientific, yes. There is St. Thomas’ 5th way argument from Design, which is also not scientific. Yes, also Christians can have an intuitive sense. All of this said, we are applying the ideas to “evolution”, which also has a lot of conflicting definitions. A Christian can say that they see a spiritual, intuitive beauty in evolution and therefore there is no conflict with Darwinism. But I have already explained the problems with that idea.
I also write from a Catholic perspective and the idea that there is no observable evidence of the existence of God to be found in nature, is a proposition that has been condemned as a heresy. So, strictly speaking, a Catholic-Christian cannot deny the observable, non-intuitive evidence of Design. Other Christians can think all sorts of things, including that Christ did not rise from the dead as a living human being, but as a spiritual manifestation. That idea is also condemned by Catholicism, but many Christians believe it.
So, talking about “what Christians believe” or “what evolution is” or “what Design is” requires all sorts of agreed-upon definitions.
That is fine except we are talking about a reconciliation of evolution and Christianity. Evolution proposes distinct ideas that Christianity must respond to. Christianity cannot merely say that it will accept every and any idea that evolutionary theory comes up with. I already mentioned the idea that morality evolved from mutations and natural selection. That idea gives an origin and therefore purpose to moral norms. This conflicts with Christianity. Evolution proposes that religion itself is a feature of human life that evolved from mutations and selection.
As above, when we talk about ID here we are talking about a theory that has a definition. It is not equivalent to all arguments about design in nature. ID does involve probability, statistics and math. It is a scientific theory. So, if a person says they accept ID but they do not accept that there is scientific evidence for Design, they are confusing and contradicting the issues. ID has a definition and meaning on this site. You can look it up in the glossary of definitions provided here.
You did not address my point about theistic evolution, but it remains. If a person is going to reconcile Christianity and evolution, they have to talk about evolution. Yes, they can say they believe, spiritually, that God placed fossils on the earth in various locations. They can say that God created mutations to make it look like things evolve, but nothing ever really evolves. But ID is materialistic because it attempts to speak to evolutionists using evolutionary ideas. Clearly, atheists are not going to listen to someone who claims that God creates all organisms out of nothing and that scientific observations are just illusions. ID is trying to speak the language of the people it is trying to convince. ID is not a theological proposition. ID can support Christian theology but it is not a replacement for it.
AaronS1978
Right because if we were created for a purpose by a loving God, and we are made in the same image as God, then we have a responsibility in using our life for a purpose. We have respond to the gift of creation by showing gratitude to God, and by living in the way that God directs us. But people do not like that and want to imagine that they are free of all restraints. They use the gift of life and their own qualities (given to them that they did not create themselves) to attack the idea of God, who is the one who gave them life and those gifts in the first place.
SA, you write, “SA, you write, “When we refer to Intelligent Design on this particular blog, we are talking about the theory of Intelligent Design, which is a scientific theory.”
I didn’t know that Intelligent Design was restricted to that meaning. Then I think my points stand that many Christians would not consider themselves supporters of Intelligent Design if they were aware of this distinction.
You write, “I also write from a Catholic perspective and the idea that there is no observable evidence of the existence of God to be found in nature, is a proposition that has been condemned as a heresy. So, strictly speaking, a Catholic-Christian cannot deny the observable, non-intuitive evidence of Design.”
It seems to me that believing that one has observable evidence of God in nature is different than saying that is “scientific” evidence. For instance, is not a rainbow observable evidence of God? Does the fact that we know how the physics of water and light count as scientific evidence for God?
You write, “I already mentioned the idea that morality evolved from mutations and natural selection. That idea gives an origin and therefore purpose to moral norms. This conflicts with Christianity.”
But if God guided those mutations, helped the physical brain to evolve over time, and implanted a soul with moral capabilities, what is the conflict?
I think again you are arguing against a materialistic metaphysical viewpoint about evolution, and the world in general. Of course, the Christian rejects those.
You write, “Yes, they can say they believe, spiritually, that God placed fossils on the earth in various locations.”
I am surprised at that sentence. Fossils form when creatures die and their remains are preserved for various reasons. God doesn’t have to place them. What problem might a Christian have with the existence of fossils.
You write, “They can say that God created mutations to make it look like things evolve, but nothing ever really evolves.”
If God created mutations and other aspects of evolution that caused gradual changes in creatures over time (which is what the Christian I am describing most likely), what is the problem with that? One would still say “things evolved”.
Again, I repeat, I think a deep conflation of what happens and a metaphysical interpretation of the world behind what happens is running through this discussion. For instance, I am sure every religion has well-educated people, including evolutionary scientists, who accept both evolution and their religious interpretation of it, and are aware that there are both materialistic and non-materialistic metaphysical ways to view what they understand.
P.S., for kf: “Lewontin”. Ha, beat you to it! 🙂
I actually really enjoy the different perspectives here on this op I really do, this is been a nicer discussion 🙂
Agreed, Aaron.
In his 1985 Gifford Lecture, which are prestigious lectures on natural theology sponsored by Scottish universities, Carl Sagan had some interesting things to say about science, the universe and religious experience.
According to Sagan,
“The word ‘religion’ come from the Latin for ‘binding together,’ to connect that which has been sundered apart… And in this sense of seeking the deepest interrelations among things that appear to be sundered to be sundered, the objectives of science and religion, I believe, are identical or very nearly so…
By far the best way I know to engage, the religious sensibility, the sense of awe, is to look up on a clear night. I believe that it is very difficult to know who we are until we understand where and when we are. I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky. This is reflected throughout the world in both science and religion. Thomas Carlyle said that wonder is the basis of worship. And Albert Einstein said, ‘I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive in scientific research.’”
Sagan then shows, and comments upon, several pictures of astronomical objects that invoke in him a sense of awe and wonder. As an amateur astronomer many of them are very familiar to me. Indeed, as an amateur astronomer I personally share Sagan’s experience of awe and wonder.
However, Sagan then ends his lecture in an odd way. After showing us what an awesome and wonderful world we live in he writes:
“as Ann Druyan [Sagan’s wife] has pointed out an immortal Creator is a cruel god, because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should he do that? If He’s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies… There is a clear imperative in Western religion that humans must remain small and mortal creatures. Why?”
To me this seems to be totally contradictory. As long as the God of traditional religion doesn’t exist the universe is a place of awe and wonder. But then He show up and suddenly those wonderful thoughts and feelings disappear. The cup suddenly goes from more than half full to more than half empty. My question also is why? Why would it, and does it, make any difference?
It appears to me that as human being we are “hardwired” to think and believe a certain way.
For example, why do people, like Ann Druyan, who do not believe in immortality think about it and ponder it? Why does she get upset with a Creator she does not believe exists? Or, why do atheists, like Sagan, ponder whether or not the universe has some kind of higher meaning or purpose? Are those who seek out E.T. intelligent beings (who may after all be more advanced and therefore wiser than us) really seeking a God substitute because that is the way they are hard wired? On naturalistic evolution why would we be hardwired this way? Or, is it all just an accidental fluke?
“as Ann Druyan [Sagan’s wife] has pointed out an immortal Creator is a cruel god, because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should he do that? If He’s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which many parts of it and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies… There is a clear imperative in Western religion that humans must remain small and mortal creatures. Why?”
This is a very odd thing to say and I say this because the fact that it is complete disregard to the very center of all Christian belief. God became flesh and was named Jesus Christ, he was crucified died and was buried and he grows again on the third day.
One of my very points of the reasoning for why God came down and became flesh was to show exactly that he could experience the fear of death and come back from it that, he could be like us. That he could share in the very same thing he created.
This is only one point of many but as AS would say, Only a loving God would do something like that.
And for me only a just God would make himself part of his own creation to show that God could experience the same pain and suffering we do
Now you can argue that Jesus was armed with the knowledge that he could not die but that’s not true Jesus was fully human and was not given that knowledge, god it separated himself for that reason
My main point above @ 22 was to ask: what business is it for a scientist like Carl Sagan to tell everyone else what think and believe about religion? Has science answered the “big questions?” Has Sagan been proven correct in his belief of an oscillating universe and therefore the universe is eternal? Or, that the origin of life could be explained in purely naturalistic terms and by the early 21st century we would pretty much understand how it happened?
On the other hand, I think Moreland makes a big mistake by using the term evolution very loosely and imprecisely. A lot of Christians believe that God has guided and directed evolution and accept the idea of common descent. (Personally, I am agnostic about common descent but believe that “evolution” is in some sense guided and directed.) Of course that clashes with the view the first chapter of Genesis must be interpreted literally. Ironically, St. Augustine (354-430 AD) did not interpret Genesis 1 literally but rather allegorically. He was a student of Greek science and was quite prescient about modern science and the so-called conflict between science and religion (which even existed in the 5th century.) For example, long before Einstein, the theory of general relativity and modern cosmology Augustine argued that space and time were actually created at the beginning of the universe. He believed that God existed, or transcended space and time and therefore there was no “before,” before the beginning. On the other hand, he cautioned people against thinking too deeply about such questions. For example, he rhetorically asked the question: “what was God doing before the creation of the universe?” Answer: “Creating hell for people who ask questions like that.” He was joking!
hazel:
What question?
You posted:
belief would be about right as there isn’t any evidence for it. Also it goes against the Bible so why even bother calling yourself a Christian if what you accept is contrary to what the Bible says?
JAD,
I know he described such a theory in Cosmos, but did he actually believe it was “true”? My take was that he simply offered it as a possibility, conditional on the amount of matter in the universe.
hazel:
Intelligent Design is the detection and study of (intelligent) designs in the universe, including the universe. How do we do that? We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
Hazel
I agree. If ID is meant as “the scientific theory”, then many Christians would not accept it, as I think most do not today. If ID is meant as “something in nature that makes me think about God” (or something like that), then most Christians would accept it. But the latter case is not really “evidence”, except that it is a subjective feeling. “The rainfall sounded sad and I cried”. Is there “evidence” that the rainfall made a sad sound? I’d say, no. It’s just a subjective feeling the person has. We can’t observe the sadness in the sound of the rain. Another person hears the same rain and feels nothing.
It’s a challenging question. In the Catholic teaching, for example, the evidence is not primarily scientific, but rather logical or metaphysical. We see an ordered universe and then life which moves towards the completion of actions, or purposes. So, yes, not everything we see in nature is necessarily reducible to science, and as you said, beauty is evidence in itself. Additionally, there is subjective, intuitive evidence which is spiritual and not reducible to science. The Christian faith is based on that kind of evidence, where prophets or seers had direct vision of God, or heard divine words, etc. So, it’s a good point to offer that we have many kinds of evidence and we could apply that to the understanding of evolution. The conflict comes from the evolutionary community itself, which will not accept any evidence except for observed, empirical, material evidence. When we say there is a conflict between Christianity and evolution, it refers to evolutionary teaching in mainstream biology today.
If God guided the mutations, then they are not random and then it would be false to say that “evolution proceeds without direction or purpose” which is what biology texts state. The development of life on earth would not be the result of random mutations and selection, but rather “mutations guided by God and the guiding hand of God”. Evolution could exist, but it would have a purpose. That means that the mutations could not come from blind, unintelligent effects. The mutations are guided by intelligence. Nowhere in evolutionary biology does it accept that notion. Why don’t Christian biologists just say it? They could write papers stating that mutations are actually guided by God, and evolution is guided to the purposes of God. But nobody does it. Instead, they say that mutations are random and evolution proceeds blindly.
Right, that’s the key point. When we talk about a conflict with “evolution”, it means the materialistic view of evolution that is found in textbooks and scientific papers. Many people have come up with their own ideas of evolution, non-Darwinian evolution or guided evolution or theistic evolution of various kinds. But none of these are “mainstream evolutionary theory”. There are no peer-reviewed papers (maybe a few on non-Darwinian evolution) supporting those views scientifically. I am not saying that there can only be one evolutionary theory, the materialistic one, but that is the only one used in mainstream science today.
Ok, two things. First, we assume that fossils are formed in the way you describe. There is no way to prove that God did not place them into the earth, one at a time. Second, consider the point:
Theisitic evolutionist: “God could have guided all of the mutations and then adjusted populations so that new features appear”.
Evolutionist: “New features form when mutations accumulate and preserved in a population under various selection pressures. God doesn’t have to place them. ”
I have just paraphrased your response on fossils and used evolutionary artifacts. That is exactly what evolutionists will say if someone says that God guides mutations. If God guides mutations, then He could have planted fossils.
The reason Christians could have a problem with fossil evidence is that evolutionists make it appear as if humans evolved from ape-like ancestors since the fossils show similar morphology. So, they could say that the fossils look similar and are found in similar places, but God actually placed them there after He created Adam and Eve and their ancestors. There is no way to prove that wrong.
My point is that it is a radically different notion of what evolution is than what mainstream science teaches. But yes, I agree, a Christian could claim that there is no disagreement between evolution and Christian faith by adjusting various aspects of both, somehow as you point out. For myself, I see evolution as one thing, making certain claims. It’s the Blind Watchmaker, that Dawkins defined. A blind, unintelligent process created all life from bacteria to humans. It has no plan or purpose. That’s evolution. It is entirely materialistic and a person could claim that there is an invisible, non-detectable presence of God in the process, but a person could also say there is zero evidence of this invisible God and there would be no difference to anything in evolution in either case. God would be an unnecessary element added to evolution, and also difficult to explain God’s presence since evolution is supposedly blind and not directed towards purposes.
I fully agree with you and I have met several Christians who fit that profile that you offer. They are evolutionary scientists and believe themselves to be good, practicing Christians. But I totally disagree with those people and I think they are confused. Usually, they will distort Christianity to fit evolution. One scholar, Ken Miller, a Christian, claims that God didn’t know that humans would form from evolution. So, he has to change the nature of God to fit the evolutionary story. But he feels fine about it, and will claim that there is no conflict between evolution and Christian belief.
DaveS @ 26:
My take was that it was his pet theory because it fit perfectly with his naturalistic/materialistic world view. Most people I know believe their pet theories to be true. So are you saying that Sagan was only feeding his national T.V. audience a bunch of B.S. he didn’t really believe to be true?
He also presented it as a scientific explanation not as a metaphysical (philosophical) explanation which it truthfully and honestly is. Cosmos was billed as a science education program not Carl Sagan’s personal opinions, beliefs and philosophical speculations. This is not to say that science, specifically astronomy and cosmology, doesn’t have some deep philosophical and theological implications.
If it was just one of several possibilities why didn’t he mention the other possibilities? I don’t recall that he did anything like that. For example, why didn’t mention the possibility of an eternally existing transcendent cause? Isn’t that a logical possibility? I would argue that it is.
If Big Bang cosmology is true then the universe had a beginning. Furthermore, if we accept the standard model of the big bang, based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, not only did the universe have a beginning but so did space and time. Therefore, based on what we presently know there was no time (no before) the origin of the universe. So that empirically rules out any possibility of an infinite regress. In other words, there is no evidence that the universe always existed—yet logically something must have always existed. What is that something?
Leibnitz argued that there are two kinds of being: (1) contingent being and (2) necessary, or self-existent, being. Contingent beings or things (books, ink, paper, planets or people, rocks trees and poison ivy etc.) cannot exist without a cause. By contrast, a necessary being does not require a cause. Everything we observe in the universe, including the universe as a whole, appears to be contingent. However, it is logically possible that whatever it is that caused the universe exists necessarily or, in other words, is self-existent. An eternally existing (or self-existing) transcendent being, does not require any other explanation because it is the explanation. To prove this simply ask yourself the question, ‘what caused the always existing something to exist?’ The answer should be obvious to anyone who considers the question honestly. Obviously, since it has always existed, it wasn’t caused by anything else, therefore, doesn’t need to be explained by anything else.
The evidence from the big bang itself suggests that whatever caused the universe transcends the universe. Furthermore, if it is the cause of the universe it must, in some sense, have always existed. It must be eternal. Transcendence and eternality are attributes of what theists call God. So big bang cosmology gives us two thirds of what we mean by God.
Theists also believe that God is personal. He has a mind and intelligence, volition and the ability to communicate with other personal beings. I would argue that for God to be the ultimate explanation He must be personal. If the eternally existing, transcendent being is not personal then we are back at an infinite regress. Because whatever it was that caused the universe must have created it freely and intentionally. In other words, there wasn’t anything that caused God to create the universe. He created it simply because he wanted to.
Does this argument prove that God exists? No it doesn’t. However it does offer a viable, logical and rational alternative to naturalism and materialism, as well as other world views, like pantheism.
In his book, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science & Cosmology, R.C. Sproul, outlines the parameters of logic on this question– whether or not the idea of a necessarily existing being is logically valid– as follows:
Again, I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists. My argument is really very modest. I am only arguing that (1) the concept of God is a logically valid and rational. And, (2) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. The philosophical arguments for God’s existence are not the only reason Christian theists believe in God. Indeed, many people become Christians without even knowing about them.
JAD,
Of course not. There are obviously many possibilities besides selling a pet theory and (inexplicably) feeding his audience a phony theory he thought could not be true. Recall that when Cosmos aired, whether the universe was closed or open was a more wide-open question than it is now. So it was natural to ask what would happen if the universe eventually collapsed.
I beg to differ. The full title of the tv series was Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. The entire series was infused with Sagan’s personality, values, beliefs, and speculations.
It could be a logical possibility. Lots of things are logically possible though, and not all of them can be included. And Sagan was an astronomer, so perhaps he knew more about a possible “Big Crunch” and rebound than transcendent causes.
Before we can discuss evolution I require you to tell me something you know. Not something you heard from somebody else, not something you saw in a book, not something you are commanded to believe. I want you to tell me an actual fact, something you can point to and say “That is evolution.” Do not change the subject to “evidence”. Tell me one thing you know.
SmartAZ, I think if you applied that criteria to what you consider as known, you would know very little, as almost all knowledge is something you heard from someone else. What is the highest mountain, who was President in 1920, what is the capital of Mongolia, what does the liver do, what is the molecular structure of water, how far does a falling object go in 5 seconds, and so on?
We are all extremely dependent on knowledge acquired by others and passed on to us.