Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design, etc.
Some background information:
I was at a friend’s house a while ago, and he offhandedly asked me if I was a “new-earther”; that is, if I believed that the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago, instead of the commonly accepted scientific answer of 4.5 billion years ago.
“Who cares?!” I said. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other.” This left him momentarily speechless, but he eventually recovered and we went on talking about whatever it was we were talking about.
A couple of days later, he sent me an e-mail with his reasons why he thought it mattered. I sent him a huge reply, with footnotes and the whole works. I asked his permission to post his original e-mail here, which he graciously gave me. I have lightly edited his e-mail and my response, to correct most spelling errors and to clarify some of my wording where I think I was being a little obtuse.
It matters to think of life as changing when dealing with AIDS, Flu, etc. If we view life as static, and germs as fixed species, we can get surprised at adaptations which organisms make. An idea clearly not from the Bible is that of adaptation.
Adaptation of organisms through natural selection is just a means; it is one of the means by, and rules within God has made our world work. Thanks to Darwin, we understand the primary means by which organisms adapt so as to thrive when their environments change. Gaps in the fossil record seem to indicate that we don’t have it all figured out yet, but the theory of natural selection is still enormously powerful and elegant in its simplicity.
Natural selection is a fact, it’s been proven, it’s just the way the world works. I don’t understand why I should ignore or pretend to believe that something isn’t true when it’s clearly been proven. There are many aspects of modern life which the Bible doesn’t utter a peep about; so what? The Bible is most relevant when speaking to problems and issues facing culturally situated human beings; it is not a science text. I’m hesitant to predict the future course of the evolution of the human race, but the fact remains that for now we are still culturally situated people.[1]
And viewing “life as static, and germs as fixed species” doesn’t follow necessarily from believing in the Biblical creation story, whether one believes said story literally or ontologically. When I read Genesis, I see that God created the heavens, the Earth, and everything in it, but I don’t see where it says that nothing is allowed to change. (In fact, one could argue that everything in the world changes rather drastically just two chapters later in Genesis 3.)
It comes from the theory of evolution. Ideas matter and while intelligent design folks view micro changes within species as acceptable, they would not, had it not been for the theory of evolution. Did humans come from goo?
Yes, but it was God-Given Goo. Or “Celestial Snot”, if you prefer. “Majestic Mucus”, to carry the alliterative theme a bit too far.
[I told Peggy about this part and she objected strongly to it. “The Bible clearly says it was dust, not goo,” she said. Point noted. — ed.]
I do not know, are the idea of adaptation, structural changes in response to environment, and competion with other species, are helpful ideas at a very practical level.
I’m not quite sure how to parse that sentence, but I’m going to assume that you’re saying that adaptation, etc. are helpful ideas at a very practical level. Of course they are! I just think that the implications of natural selection are not as clear-cut as what others would make them out to be.
While some of my atheist friends would argue that the theory of natural selection proves that God does not exist, I think that they have only discovered a single naturalistic mechanism which could partially explain the origin of the amazing diversity of life on the planet.[2] But this doesn’t mean that they’ve discovered anything about God at all.
But you tricked me! If you read footnote number 2, then you’ll see that I start explaining what I believe about the creation of the earth, when I should just be explaining *why* I don’t think it matters whether God started creating the universe 4.5 billion years ago or whether he started on October 23, 4004 BC.
See, I’m much less interested in how I got here on this planet than I am interested in what to do with my life now that I’m here. What I do now in the present is infinitely more important than what happened 4.5 billion (or 6,009, depending on who you listen to) years ago, in the sense that the present is now and I have a chance of affecting it. How the earth was actually created[3] has zero impact on my life today, and what I believe about how the earth was created has only a marginal impact on the present and is really only relevant in a very few limited circumstances. That is why I believe that for the most part it doesn’t matter, and why, to be quite honest, I don’t really give a shit.[4]
John.
Footnotes:
[1] “Ah, but whose culture is the Bible relevant for?” one could ask. The answer is all of them; see Rev. 5:9: “you ransomed people for God from every tribe, and language and people and nation”. Christianity is the world’s largest religion, with 2.2 billion followers, the majority of which are not located in “Western” countries. Contrast the cultural openness of Christianity, in which, for instance, the Bible can be translated into a multitude of languages, with that of Islam, whose adherents believe that every word of the Koran is not just divinely inspired, but cannot be truly understood in any language other than the original Arabic.
Some may point out the Crusades, or the countless Anglo-Saxon missionaries who forced converts to follow an explicitly Western lifestyle are examples of culture-destroying Christian imperialism. I disagree. The Crusades were wrong, of course, and so were those misguided missionaries. I would argue that yes, these are both prime examples of cultural imperialism (in this case, specifically Western cultural imperialism.) But the fault lies with the misinterpretation of the Bible by and the arrogance of the Crusaders and the missionaries, not with Christianity itself.
Vast portions of the New Testament are devoted to pointing out how this Gospel is not only for the originating culture, the Jews, but for all cultures, which is pretty much what is meant by the Gentiles. The Gentiles *are* everyone else, by definition. Paul argues that Christians need not give up their own cultural traditions, nor adopt alien traditions once they become believers. Indeed, he implies in 1 Cor. 10:32 (and other places) that Christians should be extra careful to respect the cultural traditions of others.
While some Christians have certainly been guilty of it in the past, there is no support for the argument that cultural imperialism is specifically Christian, nor that Christianity as a religion is necessarily culturally imperialistic.
[2] There are many problems with teasing an entire theory of the origin of life out from a single rule under which life operates. I mentioned gaps in the fossil record earlier, but perhaps the most damning of the objections is the lack of a specified mechanism by which life arose from non-life. We know a lot about chemistry, so we should be able to figure this out for ourselves. Why rely on random chance? Starting from inorganic elements and molecules, simply design a series of reproducible chemical reactions which result in the creation of a single celled living organism. Heck, just come up with the reactions on paper; figuring out ways to make them work reliably on the tiny scales involved is probably impossible.
My Intelligent Design friends would say that either aliens have somehow done exactly this, or, that designing such a *sequence* of chemical reactions is actually impossible. It may be possible, they say, to create a single celled organism ex-nihilo without relying on chemistry, but if chemistry is all you got, you got nothing.[5]
There is a subtle point here that just about everyone overlooks.
Until such a specific sequence of chemical reactions is discovered, I’m afraid that applying evolutionary theory to the *ultimate* origin of life remains unproven and is not a “fact” like my evolutionist friends like to claim.
(The theory of Common Descent, that all living things evolved from a one-celled organism of some sort, is at least plausible, for at that point natural selection has something to work with. Heck, the theory of common descent may even be true. But the idea that there is a naturalistic explanation for life arising from non-life is far, far less plausible, and, at present, is not even remotely close to being proven.)
Unfortunately for the evolutionists, even if someone comes up with a sequence which generates life from non-life, all they have done is proven that life can be designed. Quantum indeterminacy pretty much permanently deals God a hand in the creation game, for if the universe is not deterministic at the most basic level, well, hot-damn if that’s not a pretty good mechanism for the Hand of God to move in the universe. “Random” mutations suddenly aren’t so random if they’re the result of God moving to direct Creation in his way, in the direction of his choosing.
Some people might claim that this is an example of Christians “moving the goalposts” as science marches on, but I disagree. My attempts to reconcile my understanding of the Christian faith with my understanding of current scientific theory is merely the line of scrimmage. One can’t just kick the ball down the field to score a field goal, it has to go through the posts, just like the atheists can’t just prove that there are naturalistic mechanisms by which everything could have been created, they have to come up with a way to prove that God doesn’t actually exist, because otherwise He could still be behind the curtains, running the whole show on a quantum level.
[That said, I don’t really like the football analogy, because it describes an antagonism which I don’t believe has to exist. Football games have to have two sides, but truths about the natural world, as discovered by scientists, are aspects of the natural world created by God, just as theological truths are truths about the relational, cultural, and supernatural world revealed by God. Both are truth, and while I believe there is a primacy of importance, there can be no hierarchy of truth. (”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is far more important to me than the fact that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum, but both are equally true in their respective frames of reference.)
In other words, any scientific discovery, if true, cannot disprove any aspect of Christian theology. If I perceive any conflicts between the two, it is because my interpretation of either science or the bible is wrong. Both the universe and the bible have been authored by God, so how can there be a conflict? — ed.]
“Ah, but doesn’t a 4.5 billion year old universe contradict the Biblical creation story in Genesis?” you may ask. If interpreted literally, then yes. But why do we have to interpret the Genesis creation story literally, anyway? When Jesus says he is the living water, or the true vine, we see those as metaphors.
The number one rule of Biblical interpretation is that one cannot interpret a passage in such a way as to negate the meaning the original recipients of the Word would have heard. With that in mind, it’s my personal belief that the original hearers of the creation story in Genesis understood it in both a literal sense and in an ontological sense. Ontological means “of or relating to essence or the nature of being”, but what I mean here is understanding what the creation story teaches us about our relationship with God, and our relationship with each other.
Not having a very advanced knowledge of science, it’s possible and even probable that most of the original hearers believed in the first few chapters of Genesis literally. But I don’t think it’s very important to believe in the creation story literally, whereas there are very important relational lessons to be learned from the early chapters of Genesis; these relational lessons could not have been lost on the first hearers of the Word.
[Also, it is important to consider what the gods of the gentiles in the lands surrounding the Israelites were like. There were sun gods, tree gods, moon gods, star gods, and a zillion different kinds of fertility and nature gods. Note how deftly the first chapter of Genesis sets aside any such gods as completely irrelevant. God creates the sun, he creates the moon, he causes the earth to be fertile, not some mystical fertility force (Gen. 1:11).]
I agree with what you said earlier, that Christians need to be less fearful of myths. The creation story is a myth, in a definitional, not judgemental, sense, and it would behoove the Church to focus less on literalism and more on teaching the underlying relational truths of Genesis. Understanding the creation story in an ontological sense frees us from all of the messy science stuff but preserves the most important original meaning without discarding it altogether.
[3] You can interpret “created” here as meaning “created by the Big Bang” if you like.
[4] By which I mean, I’m not ready to die, be tortured, or even be slightly inconvenienced for my beliefs about the origin of the Earth. This doesn’t mean that I don’t have some pretty strong beliefs about the issue, I just don’t think my strongly held Earth-origin beliefs are very important.
[5] I tenatively consider myself a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, but I reserve the right to change the name of what I believe in if enough Creationists crash the party and morph ID into a farce. There are some indications, sadly, that this is already happening.
Personally, I still have my doubts whether or not ID is a real scientific theory, simply because it violates the primary rule of the Science Game, which is “see how much stuff we can figure out for ourselves without relying on external, unexplained forces”. Nevertheless, ID is important to understand because it clearly points out two things: that 1) we have no proven theory regarding the naturalistic origin of life from non-life, and 2) that there are certain biochemical systems with intrinsic complexity, the origins of which are impossible to explain using only natural selection.
ID is controversial because proponents then make the magic leap of assuming that such irreducably complex biochemical systems must have been designed, because there are no naturalistic mechanisms which can explain their origin. But I’ve already explained above how a mechanism for creating life from non-life could be proven, and it’s possible that there is a yet undiscovered mechanism which explains intrinsically complex biochemical systems. If scientists were to come up with either or both of these, ID would be seriously weakened.
I guess I agree with the ID folks in principle but I’m not convinced they really want to play by the rules of the Science Game.
October 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 am
Regarding theories of how life sprung from the primordial ooze, read this page. Ignoring the rather condescending tone at the beginning, you’ll see that there is at least one theory of abiogenesis. It, like the theory of evolution, posits that life came about from a series of very small steps that eventually resulted in simple life.
It’s not a proven theory as there is no such thing (that’s one of the basic tenets of science), but it hasn’t been disproven.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:51 am
I pretty much agree with all of the science on that page (the condescension I could do without.) I agree that if abiogenesis occured as my evolutionist friends claim it has, it would have to occur in such a manner. And I’m pretty skeptical of most “it’s so vastly improbable, here, look at these big numbers!” creationist non-theories.
My point is that we know a lot about biochemistry now. Can’t we get (on paper, at least) from chemicals to organism? No handwaving about a hypothetical “hypercycle of auto-catalyzing molecules”; I’ll be more convinced when I know exactly what kinds of auto-catalyzing molecules you’re talking about. And yes, I know about simple self-replicating protiens! I want more gaps to be filled in before I put my full confidence in it, that’s all.
*smile* But once again I’ve been tricked into arguing something I don’t really care about! The real point of that post was that, in a certain sense, it doesn’t matter what scientists say about how the earth was created. There’s no biblical reason why I have to interpret the first few chapters of Genesis literally, in fact, by interpreting them metaphorically and ontologically they make a heck of a lot more sense. Because (how I interpret it) there’s no time limit involved, and there’s not all that much science there (it says what God did, not necessarily how he did it), there’s no contradiction between what science is telling me about how God created the earth on the one hand, and what God is telling me about how he created the earth on the other.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I take it that you’re also an amillenialist, John? ;)
[I’m with you that I don’t really care much how we got here—it’s interesting and important to study for practical applications, though. I’m glad there are people who jones on this. I’m just not one of them. My one biochemistry class was skull-numbingly boring for me—but I’m sure that aerodynamics would be similarly dreadful for others.]
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
John,
Thanks for doing an excellent job of articulating pretty much exactly my thoughts about this issue.
Jon
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:40 pm
The problem with the Science Game is that the working assumption of zero supernatural effects is rarely stated explicitly, even among scientists. They think of the Science Game as a search for Truth, and that’s how they portray it to the general public. The end result is to marginalize theology as irrelevant superstitions.
According to Genesis (I take it much more literally than my husband does) Creation was a significant act of God, by processes that are not at work anywhere today (breaking another assumption of science), over a limited time span, and humans and animals were created separately. To me, the Science Game is just not applicable here. It would be like using Newtonian physics for electrons in heavy atoms: wrong, wrong, wrong. Electrons are very small, so you need quantum mechanics, and very fast, so you need relativity.
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:52 pm
In other words, any scientific discovery, if true, cannot disprove any aspect of Christian theology.
Unless the theological claim is inherently scientific, like heaven is “up” (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51) and dead people come back to life. I’m a history major with a religion minor, and although I study astrophysics and biology for fun I’m by no means an expert in either field; but I’ve never seen any of my dead relatives once they were buried, and in thousands of pictures of our galaxy and our universe taken from telescopes all over the world and in low-earth orbit in multiple spectra of electromagnetic radiation, I’ve never seen heaven.
But I’ll tell you what I have seen in those pictures…breathtaking beauty. The same breathtaking beauty I’ve seen on the face of a child playing with a new frien, and on the face of a new mother seeing her newborn for the first time. You’re right in that we don’t have to search far and wide for God, nor do we have to try to fit science and Biblical theology into the same mold; but I don’t think we have to divorce the two entirely, as you do. Instead, what’s needed is a redefinition of spirituality, a redefinition of Christian theology and what it means to believe in God.
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Its interesting (frustrating) to me that claims of Creationists (and I mean to use that word broadly, including ID, etc) are challenged not on the content of their arguments, but right off the bat on the fact that “its not science!”
My beleif in a creator is therefore laughable and misguided not because of any contradicting (scientific) evidence, but because someone has defined “Science” in a particular way. This ought to set off some warning bells that we are not really talking about science here, but philosophy and theology (atheology, really). How did a beleif in the scientific process come to mean a beleif in naturalism and atheism?
Those old apologetic “tricks” for the existance of God have come around on us (remember those “If you imagine a supreme being, one of its characteristics would be that it exists” nonsense arguments). Now its the other way around:
1) We define science as the understanding of naturalistic processes, without the appeal to the divine.
2) Any origin story that appeals to the divine is therefore unscientific
3) Therefore the Universe/Earth/man must have come about through wholly natural means
4) There is no divine creator
Wow - I just proved God doesn’t exist, and I didn’t even have to pull out my microscope or telescope. Pretty neat trick, huh?
We need to get better at pointing out and distinguishing real science (by that I mean the scientific process) from philosophy-in-disguise “Science” (the presumption of naturalism). The first is good and healthy and essential to our appreciation and interaction with the natural world. The second is not based on emperical evidence, but requires as much faith (more I beleive) as any theistic religion.
People get upset they say when religion trys to interefere on scientific territory. The problem is that we really presume that there is no limit to scientific territory. The question really becomes: “Is the origin of the universe a naturalistic process?” And that question can not be answered by science, because it asks about the limits of science. Perhaps theists and philosophers should be complaining that scientists are encroaching on their terrritory.
I don’t argue with anyone’s right to claim that there is no divine creator, just don’t think that your faith is inherantly more scientific than mine.
And please don’t call your faith “Science” because it really confuses things.
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:33 pm
They think of the Science Game as a search for Truth, and that’s how they portray it to the general public. The end result is to marginalize theology as irrelevant superstitions.
Exactly!
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:10 pm
“They think of the Science Game as a search for Truth, and that’s how they portray it to the general public. The end result is to marginalize theology as irrelevant superstitions.”
or rephrased to express one of my big issues with religions
They think of Christianity as the Truth, and that’s how they portray it to the general public. The end result is to marginalize all other beliefs as irrelevant superstitions.
October 2nd, 2005 at 7:21 pm
I agree with Corey.
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Agreed. Jesus is truth, he said so himself (although “irrelevant superstitions” is certainly too strong. Incomplete and lacking would be better) I don’t claim anything less about Christianity. What is disingenuous is hawking religion in the name of “Science”
I would venture to guess that you think that your religion (secular naturalism) should be taught in schools and in general established as the state religion. You may not use those terms or think of naturalism as a religion, but it is just as much as Christianity, requires just as much (if not more) faith, and definately has just as much of an agenda.
If we can get to the point where we can admit that we have different faiths and differnt worldviews, and agree that each of us has a right to our opinions then we’ve gotten somewhere. Howewver, I just don’t think that naturalists want to give theisits an equal voice in the public sphere.
So whose being intolerant?
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Theists can have their voice all they want. Just keep intelligent design out of science classrooms.
And like it or not, ID isn’t science. It’s not falsifiable, it’s not subject to repeat experimentation, any sort of explanation essentially boils down to “that’s the way the creator designed it”, all of which doesn’t even come close to being science. Teach ID all you want in religious private schools and religious studies classes in public schools, just don’t teach it in science classes.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Is naturalism falsifiable through science?
Of course not! Science presumes natural processes, and it therefore has no ability to contradict its initial assumtions.
We both know the answer before we start. I think there is a creator, and when I look at the world I see plenty of evidence for that (I have a Masters in Physics). Others think there is no creator, or at least not one that has any significant or nessecary role in creation, and when they look at the evidence that is what they see.
The answer is determined before you ever get to the evidence - before you start “doing science.” So we are not debating about what is scientific and whats not, we are comparing religions. The difference is that I admit I’m advocating a religious beleif (albeit one I think is consistant and supported by a scientific view of the world), whereas they pretend that their views - their presumptions - are not religious at all and are appropriate to be unilaterally taught in public schools.
The beleif in no God is just as much a religion as the beleif in one.
So when did naturalism and atheism become our state sponsored religion? Why should they be taught in public schools any more than theism?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
I’m with Brad on this point, because a secular state has two options: not mentioning the topic, or mentioning every possible theological origination theory. While I’m not a fan of either [1], I’m a fan of the former more than the latter.
GFM
[1] I don’t see, however, how you teach history without at least mentioning religion, because religion has been such a powerful influence on world history. I’m not sure if it’s done being such a massive societal influence, either; as much as I love what The Federalist Papers have to say on the subject, I sometimes wonder if the Evangelical Right will continue to exert real power. I hope not!
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:14 pm
By the way, I hope I’m not creating any bad blood here. I really enjoy discussing this stuff, and I don’t intend to disrespect anyone.
I appreciate the opportunity to hear from other voices and to refine what i think about all this.
Thanks!
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Honestly, I get it. As much as I’m annoyed by the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) nonsense, I understand their point.
However, I think that somehow we’ve arrived at a place where we default to atheism. “Secular” does not mean “atheistic”.
The problem is that there is serious bias - not just in schools, but in the scientific comunity - for atheistic naturalism. The ID folks just want to be able to say that some people beleive in naturalistic processes, and others beleive that the world evidences a creator. Theres only 2 options - either theres a creator or theres not. We’re not talking about opening up Genesis here.
I’m less concerned about the issue of schools as I am the broader issue of the appropriateness of voices of faith in the public sphere. This is just one example of a bigger issue. I just don’t think you should be disqualified from the public discussion because you come from a religious position. Because that in effect makes the state sponsored religion athesim.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Geof - I wholeheartedly agree that you can’t teach history without extensive mentioning of religion. You’re absolutely right.
Jon - I don’t see religion being stamped down anywhere. Religion has its place. However, its place is not in the science class, where kids are being taught about the physical world around us. There’s no physical evidence for a creator, so creation myths shouldn’t be a part of science class. Religious studies classes, yes. Faith-based private schools, yes. But not publically-funded science class.
Yes, you’re right, science is about naturalism. It’s about understanding all we can about the physical universe around us. And you’re right, science should be taught in a secular fashion, not in an atheistic fashion. It’s harmful for a science teacher to say “and there isn’t any physical evidence that there’s a creator.” That sort of thing doesn’t belong in a science classroom, and neither does anything about ID.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:52 pm
“There’s no physical evidence for a creator, so creation myths shouldn’t be a part of science class.”
“It’s harmful for a science teacher to say “and there isn’t any physical evidence that there’s a creator.” That sort of thing doesn’t belong in a science classroom, and neither does anything about ID.”
???
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Note that I’m not a teacher, and this isn’t a science class. =)
I can sit here and say “there’s no physical evidence for a creator,” but I don’t believe that a science teacher should say that in their classes.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:13 pm
:)
But isn’t that exactly what I’m complaining about? Make a presupposition, then sweep it under the carpet and pretend to be unbiased? How can you use something for the foundational basis of what to teach or not to teach in the classroom and then say that you shouldn’t talk about it in that classroom. I think if you are going to teach purely naturalistic origins, you should come out and say “Now, because we know there is no divine creator, this is how we think the universe/life came to be…” At least thats honest and upfront.
Bottom line, because its the presupposition for everything else, you *are* teaching it, even if you never say it.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Can you expalin to me what would satisfy you as scientific evidence for a creator? (Because I think there’s plenty)
I would guess that its impossible since opting for a supernatural explaination of any evidence is ruled out from the start.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
There’s no presupposition necessary. You can study the natural world all you want and not have to mention a creator anywhere. You can study Newton’s Laws of Motion without mentioning a creator (or lack thereof). Ditto for anatomy (although you might be treading close to dangerous waters with things like the appendix). Ditto for chemistry. Ditto for nearly everything you could possibly study in a high school science class. It’s only with the “beginnings” that you run into some sort of troublezone — beginning of the universe and beginning of life.
I’m not advocating a stance of “anti-religion in science classrooms”, I’m advocating a stance of anti-”religion in science classrooms.”
As for what would satisfy me as scientific evidence for a creator, I don’t know. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Maybe I think that if you dig far enough, you can’t avoid arriving at religious issues. The idea of religion-neutral is impossible.
Keep thinking of possible scientific evidence for God. If you can’t think of any, what does that say about your assertion that we havent discovered any such evidence yet?
If you are closed to a potential outcome from the very beginning, you will never arrive at that outcome.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:33 pm
I’m not closed to a potential outcome. You haven’t presented any evidence that God (or any other deities) exists. How am I supposed to be closed to evidence that hasn’t been presented to me? You were the one who originally said that there’s abundant evidence for a creator, so the onus is on you to present that evidence.
And me not being able to come up with possible scientific evidence for God in no way means that I’m close-minded. Twenty years ago I couldn’t have come up with possible scientific evidence that electric charge is quantized either, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t believe that it’s not, it’s that I didn’t have the fundamentals down in order to realize what evidence exists and how to discover that evidence.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Perhaps, but I’m comfortable with being agnostic on a primary and secondary education level. I don’t think that kids are qualified to make good judgments on what they really think and believe about what are certainly complex issues at an early age, and it’s not education’s job to give them the complete story at all times about all subjects, but rather to provide a basis of knowledge from which we go forward. Those questions are indeed bound to come up, but the issue to me seems that adults have too much expectation as to what is and isn’t being taught at the primary and secondary education levels.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I wasn’t trying to say you were closeminded, just that whatever I would point to for God, a “scientist” would have to try to find a naturalistic explaination, and that if one was not readily available, the answer would most likely be that we don’t understand enough to explain it yet, rather than accepting the possiblity that there are supernatural causes.
Arguments for God:
Resurection of Jesus:
Why would all the apostles choose to die (all but one were martyred for their faith) for what they knew to be a lie?
Life:
Seems really improbable. I read the article you linked to, and I must say, I learned a lot. I’m not a biologist, and wasn’t aware of such therories of intermediate proto life forms. Thanks for the link and it seems theres a lot of other good info on that site which I’ll have to look at. However, it still seems a huge stretch to claim life came from non-life, and that a divine creator seems a much more straightforward answer. Insert all sorts of other ID type arguments here
Humans:
Selfless love, appreciation of beauty, even homosexuality - all sorts of things that don’t seem to me to be possible to come from evolution
Morality:
You and I both know the difference between right and wrong. Not just whats socially acceptable and important for a functioning society, not just whats been culturaly ingrained, but real good and evil.
My own life experiences:
I know God. I commune with God. I have felt God’s presence. I have seen miracles in my life. I have prayed for healing and have been healed. I have seen people’s lives changed.
I’m sure there are possible natural explanations for many of these things. I don’t claim to be able to prove without a doubt that God exists. But why not choose the most straightforward answer?
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:21 pm
And me not being able to come up with possible scientific evidence for God in no way means that I’m close-minded. Twenty years ago I couldn’t have come up with possible scientific evidence that electric charge is quantized either, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t believe that it’s not, it’s that I didn’t have the fundamentals down in order to realize what evidence exists and how to discover that evidence.
But you did claim that there is not any scientific evidence for a creator, whereas you wouldn’t have made such a definative statement about an electron.
My main point wasn’t related to the quality of evidence for or against God, or even our ability to produce it, but that the very idea of scientific evidence excludes the possibilty of “discovering” God, if we only are willing to consider natural phenomenon.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Arguments against evidence of God:
Ressurection of Jesus: No proof this actually happened. The Bible does not count as proof, else I could point to Lord Of The Rings as proof that elves existed.
Life: I’m not an abiogenesis expert. I can only point at pages like the one I pointed at previously that describe in detail what biochemistry experts have found. There are a number of theories about the origin of life. See, e.g. this Wikipedia article.
Love: Chemical reactions inside the brain.
Beauty: What is beauty? As they say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” There is no standard for beauty, some people find beauty in things others would find repulsive. Further, it’s probably tempered by cultural values and upbringing, and can be boiled down to chemical reactions in the brain, just like every other emotion.
Homosexuality: There’s some evidence that genes for homosexuality could be beneficial. Studies in bonobo chimpanzees show that homosexual behaviour can be some kind of “social cement”, helping out the social elements in the group and making the group stronger as a whole. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother’s side, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men.
Morality: There is no such thing as a standard morality across humanity. In some cultures cannibalism was considered moral. In some cultures rape was considered moral. In some cultures stoning was considered moral. In some cultures human sacrifice was considered moral. Most of us in the Western world would consider all of these things “immoral” or “wrong” or even “evil”, but other cultures haven’t and wouldn’t. Who are we to say that our current western morality is “right”?
I cannot argue against your personal life experiences.
“God exists” is not the most straightforward answer. Why should the Christian god be the right answer? What about the Pantheon of Greek gods? Or Norse gods? Or Native American gods? If the Bible says that the universe was created in seven days, why is that more right than the earth, underworld, and night coming about from the mixing of Chaos and Eros? Or being hatched from an egg?
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:46 pm
(Ah, hate to interrupt for a minute, but Jon D, I lost your e-mail address; can you drop me a line at (my tech email address)@gmail.com?
Thanks. Just thought I’d stick this here where you’re likely to see it.)
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Jon D.,
Thanks for the link about The Flying Spagetti Monster! Finally a religion that makes sense!
I am of the belief, however, that The Flying Spagetti Monster would never condone such a disgrace as tomato sauce! Tomatoes are the root of all evil!!!!! The Flying Spagetti Monster sacrificed his own son, The Jolly Meatball (or TVP depending upon your denomination), so that we could be forgiven our tomato transgressions. Just think, if it were not for The Jolly Meatball, all of you tomato eaters would be bound for the deepest, darkest dungeons of Hell!
October 4th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Keir,
You may scoff at Jesus all you want. Thats between you and Him.
Scientific arguments aside, we are all built with a need for something more, and an emptiness we can’t fill ourselves. Someday when you are being honest with yourself you will open your eyes to the reality of your brokeness and pain and your need for redemption, and I hope that you will know at that time that God does not reject you, but he loves you and wants you to be with him.
October 4th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I’m not scoffing at Jesus. I’m just having fun with flying spagetti monsters!
I did the Jesus thing for awhile. I determined that it may be right or it may be wrong, but odds are I won’t find out until I die, if ever. I figure that if there is a god who can do anything, then anything is possible. This includes the possibility that a god would make up a bunch of different religions and say that each one is the only true religion and then watch in glee as terror runs rampant. Better yet, the god could make the religious texts so vague and contadictory that hundreds of denominations could spring up in each religion and then proceed to reek havoc on the members of there own religion as well as the opposing religions. I find that much more believable than a “good” god allowing such things to happen in its own religion. If a god were to allow such things to happen, the god could hardly be considered good. I would, in fact, consider them a sinner. As both a god and sinner, leading by example, the god would be condoning sin. If that god were to condone and condemn sin at the same time, that god would be a hypocrite. Who wants to worship a hypocrite?
Now look what you did. You made me scoff at religion in general. Now to me fair, let’s look at science. What is the origin of the universe, life, etc? It just ummmm… happened. SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!!! Each is a believable at the other.
As a professional scientist, my opinion on ID in public science classes is this: Tell the kids that one theory is that an all powerful being can do anything it wants, including laying false leads, and that if that’s the case, there’s really nothing to explain; Anything is possible. After the 30 seconds it takes to explain that, they can proceed with the next theory and examine those false leads.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Honestly, I pretty much agree, except the bias that your tone reveals. In my limited reading of the ID community theres not much assertion as to mechanics of creation or age of universe or anything. Simply that information requires intelligence and that “somehow” God must be behind creation. As for the “false leads” you refer to, I think that such comments are perhaps appropriate for strict young earth people, but I don’t think that many intelligent Christians really beleive God threw in a bunch of rabbit trails to “throw us off”. I think that we ought to continue to “do science” as far as we can, I just think that we can’t assume that we will be able to find all the answers with purely a naturalistic worldview.
So in essence, yes, science class should be reserved for “doing science” not religious speculation. Thus not much more is needed than 30 seconds of “All this assumes that only natural phenomenon are at work here, and our theroies are only as good as that assumption.” And then move on and continue “doing science.”
May 26th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
well everybody has different thoughts and opions on these things I however am a big christain so yea . but i am doing a science project on this u know evolution/creation/intelligent design. They say this conflict will never end , but I think we need to respect each others thoughts and how we fill about it , and there just might be less conflict .
May 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
well everybody has different thoughts and opions on these things I however am a big christain so yea . but i am doing a science project on this u know evolution/creation/intelligent design. They say this conflict will never end , but I think we need to respect each others thoughts and how we fill about it , and there just might be less conflict .
May 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
im telling you , you better take my name and info off ur site or i will sew you