Search News


Browse Archives

News

Believing in God and Evolution

October 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

An anti-evolution group is capturing headlines with its plans to distribute a special edition of The Origin of Species to tens of thousands of college students at secular universities next month, hoping that an introduction that promotes creationism will change the views of those who read it.

But while that group is fighting for the hearts and minds of students at secular colleges and universities, there is also a theological and scientific struggle taking place at Christian colleges. Some professors, with support from prominent scientists, are trying to defend the teaching of evolution and to make it safe for those who teach biology and the Bible to talk about ways in which belief in evolution need not represent an abandonment of faith. Many Christian colleges have statements of faith -- which in some cases must be followed by all students and faculty members -- that endorse the literal truth of the Bible or of specific parts of the Bible (six literal days of creation, for example, or that Adam and Eve are the parents of all humans). So teaching evolution as scientific fact, which would just be taken for granted at many non-Christian colleges and universities, raises all kinds of delicate issues.

And yet some proponents of this new movement say the push is long overdue.

If Christian colleges don't permit the teaching of evolution, "they could be left behind," said Richard Colling.

He knows how sensitive these issues are. Colling this year left Olivet Nazarene University, where he taught for 30 years, after a dispute in which he was barred from teaching general biology or having Random Designer, his book, taught at the university that is his alma mater. When the book appeared in 2004, some anti-evolution churches campaigned to have him fired, and while the university initially defended him, it subsequently put limits on what he could teach and barred his book from being taught. Those limits were lifted after an investigation by the American Association of University Professors found that his rights were violated. But Colling continued to be subjected to intense criticism from some Nazarene church members, and he resigned in an agreement with the university.

Colling said he hopes the new movement will "open up the possibility" that he and professors who teach evolution at Christian colleges can have more security, allowing their colleges to gain more respect within academe. "If the colleges don't change, no one will take us seriously. If we require students to check their intellect at the door of our churches and colleges, they will not come in."

Much of the push for change is coming through the BioLogos Foundation, a group founded by Francis Collins to promote "the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives." Collins led the Human Genome Project and now leads the National Institutes of Health -- and he is also someone who takes his Christianity seriously, and believes that there is no incompatibility between his faith and his science.

BioLogos currently has two major projects in the works that relate to changing the discussion about evolution at Christian colleges. A series of faculty workshops is being organized, starting with one at Gordon College, a multi-denominational Christian college in Massachusetts, at which biology and religion professors at Christian colleges will talk about issues related to evolution and how it can be taught at Christian colleges. In addition, BioLogos leaders are writing several books on how evolution can be taught within Christian colleges, and have an agreement from InterVarsity Press to publish the first in the series, and possibly additional titles.

Going with InterVarsity -- a Christian publisher that has released numerous books about creationism and intelligent design -- is intentional, as was the decision to have the academic gathering at Gordon. Organizers are looking for venues that will increase the comfort level of professors and presidents at Christian colleges, some of whom might be reluctant to have such discussions in secular settings.

"We want to help the church and colleges come to terms with Darwin's theory and not feel threatened by it," said Karl Giberson, president of BioLogos, a professor at Eastern Nazarene College, and director of the Forum on Faith and Science, at Gordon.

Giberson calls himself "an orthodox Christian," explaining that "the tradition I embrace and promote believes that truth comes from a broad cross-section of sources, that all knowledge comes from God, and that includes science, so we shouldn't take the Bible and say that all truth in all areas has to come from the Bible."

It is "difficult to the point of impossible, said Giberson, to look at the scientific evidence, and believe that creation of the Earth and its creatures took place in six days. The difficulty for many Christian colleges, he said, is that they have statements of faith that require such a belief. Liberty University's statement, for example, explicitly rejects evolution: "We affirm that all things were created by God. Angels were created as ministering agents, though some, under the leadership of Satan, fell from their sinless state to become agents of evil. The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth. Human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God."

Gordon College also has a statement of faith, but it is less detailed on creation. And Gordon's "Philosophy of Education" statement outlines both a religious view about creation and a strong commitment to academic freedom.

Of the former, the college says that "[a]ll creation testifies to the God Who called it into existence, sustains it and remains sovereign over it. From this, creation derives its coherence and meaning." Of the latter, the college says: "Both the student and professor are accorded the right to know all pertinent data and relevant interpretations in all areas of study. Moreover there must be mutual insistence upon candor in revealing assumptions and in clarifying perspectives. Within our common commitment to the Bible, from which the Gordon College Statement of Faith is derived, each person in the college community may exercise the right of free judgment. If scholarship is to proceed without coercion, there must be freedom within our commitment to raise questions and explore diverse viewpoints."

Giberson said that the statements of faith of many colleges pose a real challenge for those wanting to teach evolution. Many colleges, he said, "would not create a mission statement that would make a fundamentalist feel unwelcome," and so may end up making scientists feel unwelcome. As a result, he said, there are plenty of scientists who teach at such institutions who teach evolution, but quietly.

A biology professor at one such institution, who agreed to talk only on condition that he and his institution not be named, said that his institution officially permits the teaching of evolution as one theory among many, so that students can learn what others think.

This professor said that he and his colleagues will freely talk about "micro-evolution" in which they describe evolutionary science without getting to primates. Talking about human evolution would be off-limits, this professor said. So too would "interpretation of time scales" for the earth, since the "young earth" belief of some anti-evolutionists holds that the Bible yields information to date the earth. Others interviewed for this article said that such "creative approaches" were in fact common at all but a handful of Christian colleges, but that naming professors or institutions could get both in trouble.

Leaders in Christian higher education who are supporting the BioLogos efforts deserve praise "for real courage," Giberson said, noting that Gordon's president has been criticized by some parents and alumni who don't appreciate his support of the ideals of the foundation, on whose board he serves.

R. Judson Carlberg, Gordon's president, said that the first question he received this year when he spoke to the parents of new students was from a woman who wanted to know if her daughter would get an F in classwork "if she holds to a late creation theory of literal fixed days." Carlberg said he answered by saying that the college "isn't in the business of indoctrination," and that such a student has no assurance of an F or an A. "I said she's not going to get an F if she can mount a strong argument in favor of it, but if she mounts a weak argument, she will be forced to go back."

Carlberg said that the work of BioLogos "is a very significant movement within the Christian framework today." He said he is worried about the college's reputation being hurt by a sense that all committed Christians deny evolution.

Studying the geological evidence, he said, makes it hard to credit the the "young earthers" who believe that the Bible is the only guide needed to date the earth: "If you accept the young earth argument, you have to think that God is trying to trick us [with the geological evidence] and I don't think He would do that." Carlberg said he wants to see Christian colleges speak out publicly about their ability to embrace faith and science.

"For years, Gordon College has stood for the fact that God created the heavens and earth, but he didn't give us a textbook to tell us how it was done," he said.

Giberson and others said that part of the reason they can promote more discussion of evolution today is the prominence of Francis Collins. Having the director of the NIH be someone who talks about his own Christianity challenges the idea that there is a clear divide between science and faith. And, indeed, some scientists have expressed discomfort with Collins' faith.

The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities has invited Collins to its international meeting in February -- a move that is notable because Collins is not only someone of faith, but a strong supporter of stem cell research that many Christian leaders oppose. (The council represents 108 "intentionally Christ-centered institutions," and while all of them have statements of faith, they vary widely and represent a mix of denominations as well as Christian non-denominational members.)

Paul R. Corts, president of the council, said that Collins was invited "in a fellowship with people of faith," to create an opportunity for the Christian educators to talk with him about faith and science. The discussions are likely to be "civil, healthy and spirited," Corts said. "Will everyone come away from the forum in complete agreement with Dr. Collins or any of the other speakers? Probably not. But we as an association are able to host these opportunities for our members to have these discussions."

Just as Corts noted likely disagreement about Collins's views, not all biology professors at Christian colleges agree with the push from BioLogos. Fred Van Dyke, chair of biology at Wheaton College, in Illinois, said that he teaches students "an understanding of what these [evolution] positions are about," but that it was a "false dichotomy" to ask, as this reporter did, whether evolution was a fact. He said that the college does not oppose "evolution as a way of understanding some biological data," but that "you probably wouldn't find anyone at Wheaton who would be an advocate for evolutionism as explaining all that has happened."

Wheaton's statement of faith is specific about origins: "We believe that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness."

Van Dyke said that he affirms that belief. "That isn't something that is necessarily a fact in all biology courses, but in some it is," he said.

Giberson, the president of BioLogos, said that he doesn't want to change anyone's religious belief in the Bible. But he said the case of Colling, the former Olivet Nazarene professor, showed how urgent it was to advance the discussion. "The church is never going to get over its fear of Darwin until we can discuss it openly at colleges without people losing their jobs."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Believing in God and Evolution

  • Richard Collings , a rational Christian
  • Posted by feudi pandola , Financial Aid Officer on October 14, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • What a shame that small-minded adminstrators can silence the voices of rational Christians like Professor Richard Collings. I read the "Random Designer" and found it revelatory - if I am permitted to use that word - in helping to explain how a person can believe in both evolution and in a Creator. His resignation is a great loss to the students attending Olivet Nazarene University. I would urge all science majors at that school to examine very closely the material that they are being taught now that Professor Collings was forced to resign.

  • Three clarifications
  • Posted by Mike on October 14, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • 1) The Christian doctrine of creation - the belief that God created the heavens and the earth - is not the same as creationism - the belief that God created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days. A Statement of Faith that asserts belief in creation does not imply a belief in creationism.

    2) Francis Collins supports embryonic stem cell research, not just "stem cell research." Most conservative Christians have no problem whatsoever with adult stem cell research. They oppose the creation and destruction of human embryos for scientific research.

    3) In the area of evolution, InterVarsity Press has published books on much more than "creationism and intelligent design." For example, IVP has published The Bible, Rocks, and Time, a defense of the standard geological dating of the earth by two Calvin College professors, and IVP has recently published John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One, which argues that Genesis 1 has little to nothing to do with scientific theories of the origin of life. Yes, most secular academics know IVP for its publication of Philip Johnson and William Dembski, but if you ask around, you will find that IVP has a reputation among evangelical Christians for its willingness to publish books from a variety of perspectives on controversial topics. (In fact, one of IVP's ongoing series is its "Four Views" books, which present side-by-side essays from scholars who disagree with each other.)

  • Setting the record straight
  • Posted by Marsha on October 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Dr. Colling was not "forced" to resign. He chose to.

    The problem people had with Random Designer was not the science in it. People took issues with the theology he wove into the book, which was significantly off the mark. One way his book could (and was) interpreted by many was that God started the ball rolling on the creation process, but then completely stepped aside to see what happened, never to intervene again. (I.e., God had no plan or purpose, and he doesn't work through miracles today). I'm not sure that this accurately portrayed what he actually believes, but you can see how that would have significant negative implications on a faith community. As a scientist, Dr. Colling was out of his league. He was no more prepared to explain theological intricacies than a pastor would be to explain complicated scientific processes.

    His book was also self-published, therefore never going through the rigorous review that goes with the traditional publishing process. The more controversy stirred up, the more books he sold.

    Question for Inside Higher Ed... Have you ever attempted to contacted the pastors who had issues with Random Designer, or did you simply take Dr. Colling's word for it that they were simple minded fundamentalists opposed to scientific fact?

  • Where are the Accreditors?
  • Posted by Anonymous on October 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Sadly, the real question is being lost here in a discussion of faith and evolution. How well are the graduates of Olivet Nazarene University qualified to lay claims to a higher education degree? Knowing of two such graduates who are nothing short of functional illiteracy, I question the accreditation of the place. So long as educational competency takes a back seat to "faith" and "belief," the educational mission of a university will be compromised, in this case, apparently, fatally.

  • accreditation?
  • Posted by Belinda on October 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Nice article Scott. It's good to see faculty who are trying to provide a solution to this issue facing many campuses today.

    I do have some questions (not being personally acquainted with the accreditation process) How can these colleges be accredited if they are teaching creationism as hard science? Shouldn't the Biology program lose it's accreditation?

    As a student, what value does accreditation have if this is occuring?

  • Thank You Mike!
  • Posted by Robert , Dir. Comms at Multnomah University on October 14, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Great clarifications, Mike - Genesis is more about the character of a Triune God and the personhood of humans than it is about biological origins. Christian thought about "non-salvation" issues is much more diverse than most give it credit for. Debate amongst "believers" is alive and well.

  • Why evolution and the Bible are impossibly opposed
  • Posted by Kyle Simpson , Computer Science at Texas State University on October 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Whenever I hear someone claiming that the theory of evolution can co-exist with the Bible's story of creation, I always bristle. To me, if someone believes that, it's because: a) they don't understand the Bible's story b) they don't understand evolution c) both.

    It's quite simple to explain why the two are diametrically opposed, and always will be.

    The Bible states that God created everything that was to be created, and then mankind, and then, after all of creation was done, mankind sinned, and that was when sin first entered the world. There is no disputing this order of events according to the Bible, it's black and white. The Bible is also quite clear on the fact that sin = death. Therefore, death did *not* enter the world until mankind sinned. There are lots of verses to be cited to support this. It cannot be argued that sin/death were in the world before "the fall". If you do, you don't understand the Bible and the reason why Jesus came to save mankind.

    Now, with evolution, at least macro evolution, it's based on a simple principle. Selective adaptation. This means that little genetic mutations, in response to environmental factors, occur in a generation, and the beneficial ones survive to the next generation, and so on, through millions of years. Again, when you boil down evolution, it comes down to this simple concept. Death, generation after generation, for millions of years, is how we got the diverse speciation we see in today's world.

    So, evolution teaches that death was an integral part of creation. The Bible teaches that life was an integral part of creation, and sin/death did not enter in until after creation was done. Therefore, God did *not* use evolution (death) to create this world.

    You can choose to believe in evolution. Or in the Bible. Or in something else entirely (aliens, etc). But you cannot mix the Bible and evolution, they are fundamentally opposite at the core. Any attempt to say otherwise is simply deception, or at least ignorance of one or both concepts.

  • Posted by jim on October 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • When I was a young lad my family taught me to be a good, practicing member of the Roman Catholic church. I went to a catholic grade school, catholic high school and a catholic college. In all that education I never once encountered the view that in order to be a good christian (catholics ARE christian) I had to believe in creation in 6 24-hour days or that evolution was "evil" and a forbidden doctrine. Of course I was familiar with the ideas but only as misguided confusion by misguided people who were not important to my thinking.
    Grade school was with well-meaning sisters who didn't seem to think that evolution was a necessary school subject for 6th graders. High school was with the jesuits, a group now declining in membership but to whom I will be forever grateful. They taught me that my reason was paramount and that nonsense in ANY area was to be discarded. And they too were christians!

  • Genesis
  • Posted by angie , home at home on October 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I believe man and Earth was made fully whole in the beginning... I also believe that the Earth look older than it appear. Kinda like Adam when he was made. When he was only few days old, he did not look like an infant. he was fully man who PROBABLY look like he is 33 years old at the time.

    I also believe that evolution is part of the curse from the fall of Adam (disabilities, mutation, illness, diseases, evolution of bacteria, etc. ) and a blessing from God (gifted, healthy, etc.)... I am NOT, NOT saying God damn some people and blessed others. I'm saying everything was made in his glory which is why we wouldn't know what miracles and healing are if we didn't have anyone who was blind or deaf. Everything has a purpose to show who he is and who we are.

    I also believe that we don't know exactly how Adam and Eve look like. As far as I'm concern, God could have made them look hairy (knowing they would try to be like him and sin) , and it probably was a good thing because when they were sent out of the Garden of Eden, They probably didn't know anything about survival. We know now, though. I also believe that The evolution process began at the fall of Adam which why I have no problem studying evolution for possibility of how our body might change in the future. I have no problem studying animals and plants and how we are alike as we have the same DESIGNER, NOT the same ancestor although we could have been made from the same materials that God used (kinda like studying different art paintings, professionals tend to know who the artist is by his technique)

    But if you ask me what happened in the past before human came into existence or where humans came from, then that's where I have a problem.

  • nothing new
  • Posted by withheld on October 14, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • There are some Christian colleges that have been teaching the theory of evolution, preparing students for medical school and valuing scienetific rigor for years. Check out "The Fourth Day" written by Calvin College professor Howard Van Til in 1986 and that wasn't the start for their group.

  • Go To The Source Dear Friends ... The Word!
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 14, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • When I have difficulty with a concept like evolution, I go directly to the most reliable source on the Internet, i.e., the very highly regarded Conservapedia. There I learned (and these are direct quotations) ...

    1. “Currently, there are several theories of evolution. Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.”

    2. “As far as public support for the evolutionary viewpoint, an article by CBS News begins with the observation that, ‘Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved.’”

    3. “A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that “Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.” The study also reported that one-third of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.”

    4. “There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States. The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: ‘The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.’”

    5. “In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: ‘Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.’”

    6. “Intelligent design advocate John West offered the following commentary behind the decline of public support of the evolutionary position: ‘The Darwin-only crowd is losing public support. There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.’”

    7. “The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: ‘My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.’”

    8. “The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums. Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, was forced to confess: ‘In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.’”

    This is not some half-baked blathering science-talk ... I’m quoting the very prestigious Conservapedia. So you Darwinians, broaden your perspectives. Remember John 8:32: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution

  • Kyle
  • Posted by chris on October 14, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Evolution and scripture don't meld if you take the scriptures as a literal, chronological account. However, there is plenty of literary evidence that they were not intended that way. Look up the "framework hypothesis" as an example. Essentially, we believe scripture was written using the worldview and understanding of the human author, inspired by God to impart a spiritual message. Denis Lamareaux does a great job of expressing this view in his book "Evolutionary Creationism".

    On the article, I am very excited to hear about these efforts to get Christian schools to open up to discussion and consideration of evolutionary theory. My oldest son graduates high school in 2011; he has a deep interest in entering a scientific field, most likely physics or chemistry, and has all but ruled out most Christian schools because he feels he won't get a solid education. I know a few of his friends aren't even considering scientific fields because they feel it would be "anti-Christian". This is a shame - if we want to ensure that true science stays separate from the atheistic worldview, we need strong Christian scientists. It's as simple as that.

  • Probability Problem for You Fizbane
  • Posted by Margot Z. on October 14, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • In Runnels county Texas early in the century, so my elders told me, there were two Model Ts. Two cars in the whole county. One day they collided.

    What are the odds? Do the odds actually decrease as towns, roads, cities grow and automobiles proliferate into the mind-boggling traffic flows we now take for granted? That is, does a culture of more or less aware, cooperative driving habits evolve, or adapt to, a relative level of safety that was lacking in the 1920s in Runnels County before the culture learned to drive with skill, sophistication, and cooperation?

    Somehow this has to do with the Aristotelian (A/Not A) vs Hegelian (principle of the excluded middle, or dialectic) mindsets I see at work here, that is, whether the Bible is compatible or utterly incompatile with Evolution.

    Could humans ever cooperate economically (with, of course, the occasional screw-up) the way my elders in a two-car county could never have conceptualized? If so, what would such economic cooperation do to culture, art, philosophy, theology, even math?

  • Setting the record straight Marsha...
  • Posted by Richard Colling , Author - Random Designer at Olivet Nazarene (retired) on October 14, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Marsha,

    It is unfortunate that the uninformed surrogates continue to make inaccurate claims regarding my teaching, my book Random Designer, and my theological positions - ALL of which were in accord with the University statements AND the Church Christian demoninational statements.

    Why do critics continue to engage in such disparaging conduct? While a professor at the school, I was unable to speak on my own behalf publicly in forums like these since a continuous and insidious case against me was being contrived over several years. I no longer need be silent when folks spread false and misleading information of this sort.

    The University's own internal grievance committee found no fault with the accuracy of my teaching or theological positions. Both the AAUP and the Grievance Committee supported and encouraged open communication and dialogue.

    Marsha, have you ever spoken to me about these matters? Obviously, you are repeating false and misleading things you have heard, but sadly, as I have discovered, just because one is told something by a "respected Christian leader", does not establish it's veracity.

    Your accusations of "theological problems" based upon snippets from my book taken out of context, or the 'word' of another religious leader claiming to be knowledgeable of the matter,is not only inaccurate and non-scholarly, you also forgot to note the preface to the second section of Random Designer where I formally disclaim any formal theological authority; inviting cordial and scholarly input and discussions relating to questions raised by the findings of science - particularly biology/evolution. Sadly, over three years and after numerous offers to meet with church/university leaders in an open forum involving biologists, geneticists, physicists and geologists, guess what? NO TAKERS! The official response, so as not to stir up anti-evolution creationist ire, was, and I quote: "No, I think it is better to let sleeping dogs lie."

    It seems disingenuous for you and others to claim theological problems when neither you nor any other critic was willing to discuss the many legitimate questions that arise during any discussion of science and faith issues in an open forum of biology and/or science faculty.

    Incidentally, for the record, there have been numerous reviews of Random Designer by both professional scientists and theological scholars both before and after publication. Guess what? Virtually all are glowingly positive and supportive. Only one raises the issues you reference. The source of that covert critique commissioned by a board member is a sad commentary on dismal scholarship, truth, and ethical conduct.

    The BioLogos Foundation has been organized by a wonderful group of individuals committed to open cordial, scholarly discussion of the sticky issues that surround the topic. Their goals are lofty, and I am optimistic regarding the impact of this work. If Christians are uninformed regarding matters of science, and/or unwilling to acknowledge the truths of our world revealed by science, how could I/we as Christians, ever expect them to take us seriously regarding matters of faith and belief which are much more difficult to define and defend? The credibility of the Christian faith is being eroded by those who insist that only those who deny evolution are worthy Christians.

    All I have ever desired is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. That message of peace and understanding continues to be my goal.

    I will look forward to hearing from you, Marsha. I know you know how to contact me. Perhaps some good can yet come of this.

  • religion is not about atoms and cells
  • Posted by jr on October 15, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • religion is not supposed to be a Theory of Everything - it is and always has been about what is the individual's relationship to civilization.

  • For Margot … From the Resident Probabilist At IHE
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 15, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Lucky you … I have answers to all of your questions.

    1. First of all, you can’t fool me with the Runnels County, Texas problem. For starters, I grew up near Madison County, North Carolina where all of my uncles – and even one of my aunts – put their lives on the line every day running moonshine. After a while they decided that was stupid, decided to put their lives on the line only on weekends, and became stock car race drivers. Put two of those hillbillies on the road at the same time in the same county, and Pr[collision]=1.0.

    2. Same thing with a couple of West Texas cowboys. Put two guys that crazy in two cars at the same time in the same county and Pr[collision]=1.0 … especially if they’re headed for the Stampede over at the beautiful tri-city area of Big Spring, Midland, and Odessa … and we all have our favorite cowboy who grew up over there before he became president. I’ll bet he had a few West Texas fender-benders.

    3. Now for your question of “whether the Bible is compatible or utterly incompatible with Evolution.” I’ll provide you with two different “no” answers and let you take your pick … and, by the way, you sealed your fate by saying “the Bible.”

    Argument A: In later editions of “On the Origin of Species” Darwin tried to explain why there had been, and continued to be, so much opposition to the concept of mutability of species. In Chapter XV, “Recapitulation and Conclusion,” he wrote …

    “Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.”

    Needless to say, the “load of prejudice” to which he was referring had been heaped on by the Church, broadly defined, and here we are 150 years later – and in the presence of overwhelming evidence already, not to mention the new and on-going supportive research from DNA studies … and not to mention the fact that Pr[earth and life scientists believe Darwin’s theory]=99.85 – and guess what? … it’s still the Church dumping on Darwin’s Theory. Follow this …

    Epistemology = effort to understand knowledge.

    Knowledge = that which is true.

    Ontology = study of existence.

    So what happened with “On the Origin of the Species” is that Darwin’s epistemology overwhelmed religious ontology. Darwin’s theory demonstrated that design in nature can be explained without necessitating an “intelligent” designer. In other words, his epistemology undermined one of the central tenets of religious ontology; i.e., the existence of an Unmoved Mover ... a Creator.

    Before Darwin, we were in a cause –and-effect crisis, and as has always been the case with primitive man (all the way up to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell whose God caused 9/11) when we can’t explain something, we need a god to whom we can assign responsibility, in this case a Creator. Darwin did not demonstrate that God doesn’t exist … he simply made it clear that we don’t need God to explain design in nature.

    Now comes Ockham’s Razor, the principle that encourages us to look for (1) a correct explanation and (2) the most parsimonious correct explanation. Since we no longer need God to explain something that we previously could not explain (but now can), what’s the point of God? If we’re going to be true to Ockham’s principle, we don’t need God; ergo, God doesn’t exist. That’s Darwin’s unintended contribution to creation.

    By the way, this is nothing new. We homo sapiens have had literally thousands of gods over the years. Imagine you’re an ancient Hawaiian, your specialty is fishing, and it’s not at all clear why your catch is excellent on some days and terrible on others. Well, it’s not really that mysterious … it all depends on the moods of Ku’ula-kai, the god of fishing. So you offer up a ceremonial prayer to him before you embark on your fishing trip, and you pay tribute to him when you return, including a share of your catch. Let’s hope he’s not one of those uncivilized gods who makes us pay him off with human sacrifices. But maybe you’re an ancient Hawaiian and you’ve got an occupation that entails some other mysterious cause and effect processes, say, building canoes … not to worry, there is a god for that occupation too. Fortunately, as time goes on, we learn a great deal about the “sciences” of fishing and canoe-making, and, before long, we start looking over our shoulders, hoping no one can remember when we had an intimate relationship with Ku’ula-kai (fishing)... or Mokualii (canoe-making) ... or Koleamoku (healing)... or my favorite, Pele, the goddess of fire and the volcanoes.

    But what if you’re an early Israelite and you’re still struggling with understanding creation and existence? Hmmm, I wonder where I and all of this other stuff came from ? Whoa, I’ve got an idea … Hello Yahweh! But today – and recall Darwin’s lament – there are at least 113 million of us adult Americans (and we’re hell-bent on indoctrinating our kids waaay before they’re capable of reasoning) who refuse to believe Darwin’s explanation of the design of the species and still give credit to Yahweh ... and please don’t bother us with what the scientists have to say; we’ve got a better “load f prejudice.”

    Argument B: Just last week in IHE, I told someone (check out “Darwin, From the Creationists,” Oct 7) that “Starting at a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a minute after the Big Bang and trucking along for the next 13.7 billion years, we know a Hell of a lot about what was going on with the Universe … we can explain waaay more than you might imagine … and what we’ve learned during just the past 80 years is simply mind boggling.” I went on to say “there is nothing I have written above that denies the existence of God, aka Yahweh [aka Allah]. Indeed, suppose that, in the millisecond before all our evidence started accumulating, there was an explosion of something smaller than a proton that started the ball rolling. Who lit the fuse? Well Yahweh, of course, an all-powerful God could choose to orchestrate creation any way He wanted. Very ingenious, clever, and even artistic I’d say.” Just ask Professor Colling. He’ll agree.

    But I’ll tell you why that won’t work. If you study the Bible with an open mind, you will soon discover that Yahweh simply wasn’t up to creating the Universe as we know it today. He may have been just marginally capable of creating the Universe as it was known to 15th century BCE Israelites, but he couldn’t touch the Universe that we know a great deal about today. Truth be known – and I’m coming up against my space limitation here – Yahweh was so worried about his truly petty first four commandments … and was so busy killing tens of thousands of completely innocent homo sapiens for not obeying the Petty Four … and lining up perfectly decent, friendly, loving, helpful guys, even like yours truly, to spend eternity skinny dipping in the Lake of Fire … and imbuing the 90 billion to 110 billion of us who have ever lived on this Earth with a cockamamie something called original sin that not a single one of us even wanted or asked for to begin with … and even telling us at several places in that book of his that the Sun is in orbit around the Earth … and so many other falsehoods and contradictions …

    Well you’ve got my point Margot. Maybe you could convince me there is an Unmoved Mover -- a Creator – out there somewhere, and maybe he’s even written a book describing all of his exploits, and maybe he’s got what it takes to create this magnificent, wonderfully complex Universe. But spend a day looking at the images the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes crank out in just one week, and you will know Yahweh/Allah could never have pulled off something like that. A guy with his hang-ups is just not up to it.

    What is interesting is that many of us have taken Yahweh/Allah, idealized him – and you’d better believe he could use some spiffing up – and then attributed practically everything that is to him. The wonderful God that most of us carry around in our minds is a far cry from the Yahweh the Israelites cooked up sometime around the fifteenth century BCE ... and then faithfully recorded, right there in the Bible, everything he wanted us to know. And Margot, that’s a long, long way from Runnels County, Texas.

    “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” … Thomas Jefferson

  • Christianity?
  • Posted by Jim , Assitant Professor of English at Tiffin University on October 15, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The most annoying and fundamentally ignorant feature of this article was its use of the word "Christian" for, essentially, "Evangelical." The Roman Catholic Church came to terms with the theory of evolution some time ago, even before the encyclical Humani Generis of the 1950s, and in fact evolutionary paradigms were a feature of scientific thought that followed organicist models rather than mechanical ones from at least the eighteenth century. Historians such as Boyd S. Hilton (A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People, 2006) affirm that Darwinian evolution really had relatively little initial impact because it presented ideas with which people were already long familiar. The rise of the Young Darwinians later in the 19th century provoked the science/religion debate as it exists in mass media today, but this debate really have very little to do with real science or with "Christianity" broadly conceived. The question about Christianity is never, what is orthodox Christianity?, but, which Christian orthodoxy are you representing in this debate?

  • Evolution
  • Posted by Wayne on October 15, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Dr. Francis Collins is lionized because he claims to be a Christian and a scientist.  In an address in my home town he made this statement; "They (scientists) start with the ASSUMPTION that there was an initial organism with DNA and a molecule that enabled reproduction." He offered no opinion as to where that 'organism' came from or how it got started. It is a very good declaration of faith, but very bad science.  He also said " the beginnings of life is in disarray" (read: they don't have a clue). 

    Applying a little common sense, if your theory can't supply a plausible beginning for life, all the "scientific evidence" for evolution falls apart.  In addition, the so called 'scientific evidence' depends entirely on the ASSUMPTION that evolution occurred. Remove that assumption and the 'scientific evidence' is only astute observations about how our physical world works.

    Christians who promote evolution don't seem to realize that they are dishonoring The Lord Jesus Christ who they claim to worship. He is the Creator proclaimed in the New Testament. ( John 1:3, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:16, 11 Peter 3: 5-6). He spoke of Adam and Eve being created "in the beginning" (Matt. 19:4)  Evolution theory puts them very close to the end of the process. If evolution is true, Jesus must have been either ignorant or an outright deceiver, simply parroting the misguided ideas of all the O.T. prophets. 

    Growing scientific knowledge of the intricacies and beauty of life, the interdependencies of  discrete forms of life, the mysteries of bird and bat navigation, the wonder of the human body with it's many systems (any one of these systems malfunctioning spells either death or a life of invalidity) --evolutionists simply cannot explain with their 'time and chance' idea.

    Consider the eye.  Evolutionists are struggling to construct a plausible sequence for it's evolution. But, without the neural connections to the brain the eye is useless.  And, without the brain, eye and the neural connections to the limbs, our body would be simply a glob of quivering matter. Evolutionists can compose 'just so' stories to 'explain' these things but their stories are riddled with "could, might, possibly, seems to, etc.. The "fact" of evolution rests on a very shaky foundation

  • Wayne
  • Posted by DFS on October 15, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Your comment "...common sense, if your theory can't supply a plausible beginning for life, all the "scientific evidence" for evolution falls apart" is simply irrelevant.

    This is what mathematicians, and logicians, call vacuous: if the premise if false, the conclusion is (vacuously) correct by default.

    Evolution still takes place, regardless of whether or not we will assume the mantle of God by defining the beginning of it all.

    Perhaps it's God's plan? Get a grip, Wayne.

    And, may God bless you and yours.

  • Jim - Genesis contains real history
  • Posted by Joseph on October 15, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • jim (Oct. 14, at 1:00pm) wrote:
    "I went to a catholic grade school, catholic high school and a catholic college. In all that education I never once encountered the view that in order to be a good christian (catholics ARE christian) I had to believe in creation in 6 24-hour days or that evolution was "evil" and a forbidden doctrine." It appears there were quit a few Catholic magisterial teachings that were not communicated to Jim: A few examples include:
    - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
    - Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
    . . .
    - The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
    . . .
    - All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
    - The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
    . . . - Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
    - Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs. References:What does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm Genesis 1-11"In the beginning God created ..." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version=NIV

  • Christian Universities' tentativeness a disgrace to higher ed
  • Posted by Zack Ford , Author, ZackFord Blogs on October 15, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • I wrote a response to this article on my blog. I welcome all comments and feedback: http://zackfordblogs.com/2009/10/christian-universities-struggle-with-teaching-legitimate-science/

  • Jim, take a breath, and then consider:
  • Posted by DFS on October 15, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • After the bang, there may have been an after-bang.

    Where was this covered in the Torah?

  • It was to be Joseph, not Jim
  • Posted by DFS on October 15, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Sorry, Jim, my bad, sometimes it's hard for an old guy to keep track of the prophets: Joseph, Joshua, James, John, Jerrimander, Jonah, Judas, June, July, Jejune, Jujubees, etc.

    My apologies, Jim.

  • Response to DFS
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 15, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Just a very small correction partner ...

    You said, “if the premise is false, the conclusion is (vacuously) correct ... by default.”

    It’s not the conclusion that is correct – it can be either true or false – it’s the implication that is true.

    In other words, if p is false, then p --> q is true for all q.

    Another one of those 15-hour days, huh?

    Anyway, I think the thrust of your post is otherwise correct.

  • evolution
  • Posted by Wayne on October 16, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Evolution still takes place?  I assume you are referring to natural selection, speciation, etc.  Evolutionists are currently trying to dodge the issue of life's beginning by claiming evolution is only about change. Certainly, changes can be established in many birds, animals, etc. but those changes have never been shown to result in a different kind of animal (even though evolutionary 'just so' stories say they have).  Natural selection and speciation are not evolution. Speciation only results in a slightly different animal or bird,etc., NOT in a different kind of animal

    Natural selection can only work on an already existing organism.  But the evolutionary theory tries to tell us where that organism came from or how it got here.  That is where speculation starts.  And, the speculation starts with the assumption that life had an entirely 'natural' beginning. And real evolutionists are NOT willing to give God any place in the process. If God had no part, then there had to be a natural beginning to life. To claim that, in spite of the fact that evolutionists have not been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the beginning of life, that "it happened"  and is going on today is a vacuous statement itself. (Check the dictionary definition of 'vacuous)

  • Re: Evolution
  • Posted by CC Prof on October 16, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Wayne argues that evolutionary theory must be false because scientists cannot currently explain the origin of life in naturalistic terms. This is simply an argument from ignorance. Wayne is stating that since scientists can't prove something now, it must be false. Of course, Darwin couldn't explain how traits are inherited, but that didn't mean that they aren't. In the past, many things couldn't be explained, but that didn't mean that they weren't true.

    Science makes progress over time. Who knows what scientists will be able to explain in ten, a hundred, or a thousand years. I think that it is a bit premature to throw up our hands and claim that abiogenesis is not possible because we currently don't have good explanations or theories about how it could have taken place.

    Furthermore, even if a plausible theory of abiogenesis is discovered, this will not mean that God does not exist. Perhaps God, or Nature, or some creator started everything in motion and is patiently watching it all unfold. Of course, this need not be the God of the Old Testament or any other religion. There are many possibilities for a creator. It would be equally premature to conclude that issues about the nature of possible creators have also been settled.

  • Response to Wayne ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 16, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Sometimes, when I interact with “Intelligent” Designers, I get so angry about their lack of intellectual curiosity, it just drives me crazy. For example, Wayne has pulled out that ancient canard about the eye -- that brilliant challenge by the IDers -- that has been refuted and refuted and refuted. How could he be unaware of that?

    Here is Richard Dawkins providing us with a short explanation of how the human eye – one of many eyes that have independently evolved over time – probably came into being.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related

    And if you’d like to see confirmation of several characteristics of the evolution of the eye from a much more scientific perspective, this video by Detlev Arendt, is quite spectacular ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnQGUQvtaPg

    Then if you’d like to see why the eye qualifies as Incompetent Design, not “Intelligent” Design, watch this ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxsnqamvl0Y&feature=related

    C’mon Wayne, get with it, quit looking for superstitious explanations for complex phenomena, and learn something. It’s never too late to learn. On the other hand, this may be more to your liking ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related

  • If there is a God
  • Posted by JC , None at None on October 16, 2009 at 7:45pm EDT
  • he/she/it must be laughing loud at human stupidity.

  • Response to Jim at Tiffin
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 17, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Jim, at Tiffin University, is correct ... but misleadingly so.

    First, we really should congratulate the Catholic Church for changing its ontology over the years ... from its shameful treatment of Galileo in 1633 ... to Pope Pius XII, who took a neutral stance on evolution in the early 1950s ... to Pope John Paul II who, in 1996, wrote ...

    “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical [Pius XII’s ‘Humani Generis],some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines,” although he coupled that with the warning, “Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man” ...

    all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI who wrote ...

    “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago.

    Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”

    Wow! ... what a guy!

    I think everything above is completely consistent with Jim of Tiffin’s claim ... and he’s exactly right.

    Where he’s misleading us is in the divergence of beliefs of the Catholic leadership and the Catholic laity. Just as we Americans are not going to let a bunch of scientists influence our commitment to God the Creator and the Young Earth, the Catholic laity in America is not going to be led astray by Church leaders.

    1. From the St. Petersburg Times poll published this February, and a few days before an important State Board of Education vote: “91 percent of evangelicals in Florida oppose evolution education. “79 percent of Catholics also took the anti-evolution education position.”

    2. From the New York Times (op-ed, July 7, 2005): Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna and the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote, “it's a misconception that the Catholic Church believes in evolution ... while evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, natural selection is not compatible with church teachings.”

    3. Again from the St. Petersburg Times (February 15, 2008): “Fundamentalist Christians, often portrayed as the heart of the antievolution opposition, weren't the only ones who expressed doubt. While only 9 percent of respondents who described themselves as evangelicals or fundamentalists wanted an evolution-only curriculum, the numbers still weren't very high for Protestants overall 16 percent or Catholics, 21 percent.

    4. The latest Newsweek poll found 91 percent of American adults say they believe in God and nearly half rejects the scientific theory of evolution. On the hotly debated issue of evolution, 73 percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. In contrast, 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agreed.

    So, if I were an American Catholic, I wouldn’t do too much bragging about the scientific acumen of the laity. On the other hand, it’s probably another case of what Charlie Pierce calls “Idiot America,” with the Evangelicals having undue influence on Jim of Tifflin’s good Catholics. In a 1999 poll of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops, and Protestant ministers/pastors, in England, it was discovered that ...

    1. 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

    2. 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

    Oh my ...

  • Thanks, Frizbane!
  • Posted by DFS on October 17, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Nice catch. I need a vacation.

  • The Futility of Arguing
  • Posted by Jerry Miller , Retired at None on October 19, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I am neither a theologian nor a scientist, but I am a thinker. That biological life evolves is well established. The flu virus is an annual example. But how biological life started will remain an imponderable until a full explanation of the beginning of all things can be demonstrated in the laboratory by (1) creating matter out of nothing, and (2) changing matter into biological life. Or, until the alternative is proven: theologicans through the scientific method demonstrate that God exists. Until then the until answer will go undiscovered, and both sectors are proceeding on faith. But be assured, the futile arguments will continue. After all, we are academics and believers.

    Jerry Miller

  • And what about physics?
  • Posted by Barbara Piper on October 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • I am always a little puzzled by the fact that the Creationist debate is almost inevitably conducted about biology and evolution, when Creationism and Biblical literalism also contradict the foundations of modern physics.

    I assume that there is more at stake for Creationists and ID folks in the evolution issue, since evolution contradicts their assumptions about the divine origins of humanity's reign over creation, but scientists might have a more effective response if they shifted the debate to the damage such beliefs do to physics and, by extension, chemistry.

  • Response to Wayne
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 20, 2009 at 2:00am EDT
  • While I think CC Prof’s response to Wayne is superb, I would like to add a couple of points.

    Every scientific discipline or sub-discipline (and including the various branches of mathematics) progresses in fits and spurts … sometimes the development (increase in knowledge) is directional and continuous … sometimes it goes off in two different directions until one of the paths leads to a dead end and that part of the discipline (which always makes constructive contributions to understanding science, even on its way to the dead end) makes a quick detour to the more fruitful path … often there are gaps in the path and “everyone” continues related research with the expectation that the gap will be filled in later. As recently as 100 years ago, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, etc. had very significant gaps … and religion loves a gap. When there are holes in our ability to explain cause and effect, religion jumps in to provide it’s one and only answer, “God did it” (see my description of Hawaiian gods in an earlier post).

    The only trouble is, during the past century scientists have done a spectacular job of filling many of those gaps, and every time that happens, religion must step aside with a bit of egg on its face (pun intended). Wayne initially told us evolution has no answer to the eye (it’s way to complex for evolution and, get this, we need an “Intelligent” Designer, aka God, to explain it). “Ahhhhh, now I understand!

    Skipping over Wayne’s obfuscation of evolution, natural selection, speciation, and abiogenesis (and by the way, Wayne, evolutionists study evolution; abiogenists study the beginning of life) allow me to describe an interesting scenario for you. You’re just wrapping up your undergraduate career … phi beta kappa, magna cum laude, double major in physics and biology, Putman fellow, Rhodes Scholar, publishable senior thesis, 4.0 GPA at Yale. Your advisor invites you to lunch at Stillman College to discuss your future. You own up to the fact that your first choice is attending Oxford University and studying abiogenesis.

    Your advisor gets a shocked expression on his face and exclaims. “Oh my Caroline, you can’t do that. That will not be a fruitful line of research … that is an academic and intellectual dead end. Don’t you know that Yahweh/Allah, the god of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, created life … you would be well advised to attend Oxford and study sociology.”

    Okay, how about Scenario 2: The young Galileo Galilei visits his academic (and spiritual) advisor, Cardinal Barberini …

    Barberini: “Well, young man, your ambition to study mathematics, physics, and astronomy is admirable, but I advise you to drop this … what do you call it? … heliocentric theory. Don’t forget there are many references in the Bible to the Earth being stationary – e.g. Job 38:4-6, First Samuel 2:8, Psalms 93:1, and Isaiah 24:18 – and there is not a single suggestion in our holy scripture about the Sun being at the center. Not one.”

    Galileo: “Oh my, that’s a good point. What do you suggest?”

    Barberini: “I’m certain you know Genesis 1:16 states, ‘God made two great lights … the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.’ I suggest you train your wonderful new telescope on the Moon and tell us what wonderful combustible powers God made for us there.”

    Anyway, let’s face it … using religion to try to explain what is known or can be known by scientific exploration is absurd. And, doing as I am so unfairly doing, denigrating religion by demonstrating its failure to stand up to knowledge, logic, and reason is equally absurd (most religious dogmas depends only on faith). Nevertheless, Wayne, the irrationality of those who give God credit for every gap in the inexorable march of science until such time as science inevitably snatches it away, only makes religion look foolish.

    A couple of years ago, right here at InsideHigherEd (“The Huckster’s Artful Dodging on Evolution, January 2008), I wrote …

    “Perhaps organized religions in the United States are so disparate it is out of the question to expect them to do anything cooperatively, but it strikes me as being way past time for a collection of influential church leaders to sit down with scientists representing a consortium of respected scientific organizations for the purpose of reaching general agreement on various matters of scientific fact. Apparently a great many young people in the U.S. believe mastery of physics, chemistry, biology, the earth sciences, and mathematics, the queen of the sciences, is remarkably difficult ... and that perception stands in the way of our being a scientifically literate nation. Religious dogma, however, much of which could not possibly be literally true, is widely preached and accepted by millions of Americans and also constitutes a barrier to our being scientifically literate …

    If organized religion hopes to be a meaningful force in the lives of these young people [the Gen Nexters], it is way past time for it to clean up both its scientific and social relevance acts, especially by revising all church dogma that is inconsistent with matters of fact. It is not my intention to be an apologist for “cafeteria believers,” but the more church dogma is revealed to be inconsistent with scientific truths, the more reasonable it is for organized religion to emphasize the metaphorical – not literal — nature of its literature. It is definitely time for the church to give Rev. [Mike] Huckabee a system of beliefs that is consistent with scientific truths, thus precluding his seeming to be so foolish in future presidential debates.”

    "That fool [Nicolaus Copernicus] tries to distort the entire art of astronomy! But as the
    Holy Scripture shows, Joshua commended the Sun to stand still, and not
    the Earth!" … Martin Luther

  • Goddamnit, Frizbane,
  • Posted by DFS on October 22, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Why do you intentionally perpetuate my waivering from agnosticism?

    By speaking "truth to wisdom" in replying to Wayne, you still cannot rule out the governance of God.

    And I suspect that this is not only because of the definition of "God."

    Rather, it's because of our definition of "us," and therefore by default of what we all perceive.

    Yes, I know it's late in the day. (Just recall the Moody Blues's Nights in White Satin, or Tuesday Afternoon, for the relevant mood, there, damnit.)

    And, if you're still in doubt, try Frank Zappa's Apostrophe.

  • In Response To Nine Comments ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 22, 2009 at 10:45pm EDT
  • The ever-enlightening Martha wrote, “People took issues with the theology he [Colling] wove into the book, which was significantly off the mark. One way his book could (and was) interpreted by many was that God started the ball rolling on the creation process, but then completely stepped aside to see what happened, never to intervene again.”

    Response: Let’s see ... hmmm, some others who believed precisely that were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen (oops, no, he was an atheist), James Madison, James Monroe ... and many other intellectuals and Free Thinkers ... and, quite frankly Martha, I’ll take that crew over your completely undocumented “People” every day.

    Anonymous said, “Sadly, the real question is being lost here in a discussion of faith and evolution. How well are the graduates of Olivet Nazarene University qualified to lay claims to a higher education degree?”

    Response: The real question is the difference between faith and reason, not between faith and evolution ... and, Anonymous, not many of us will be impressed with results from your non-random sample of size two. Heavens, I’ll bet it would be easy to find a couple of intellectually challenged graduates from even Yale.

    Belinda asked, “As a student, what value does accreditation have if this is occurring?”

    Answer: Accreditation borders on being absurd and meaningless whether this is or is not occurring..

    chris stated, “This [young Christians avoiding the study of science] is a shame - if we want to ensure that true science stays separate from the atheistic worldview, we need strong Christian scientists. It's as simple as that.”

    Answer: “true science” ... I like that. The idea that the study of science is dominated by atheists is simply bizarre. Let those young Christian scholars of yours find another excuse for not studying the sciences.

    Richard Colling said, “... my teaching, my book "Random Designer," and my theological positions - ALL of which were in accord with the University statements AND the Church Christian demoninational statements.”

    Response: How sad.

    And for angie, jr, Wayne, and especially Joseph ...

    In my first reading of Joseph’s response to Jim, I missed the fact that he, in addition to providing a link to the text of Genisis 11, 1-11, also had a couple of links to The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. The Kolbe Center [which, by the way, is a non-profit corporation] is …

    “… a Roman Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to glorifying the Most Holy Trinity by proclaiming the truth about the origins of man and the universe.”

    With the help of experts in the fields of theology, philosophy, and natural science, the Kolbe Center also seeks to show the superiority of special creation over all forms of molecules-to-man evolution as an explanation of the origins of man and the universe. According to the molecules-to-man, or macro-evolutionary, theory of origins, all living things are descended from non-living matter. During billions of years, this non-living matter changed into all of the different kinds of living organisms. According to the special creation model of origins on the other hand, God created the various kinds of living things, including man, by divine fiat and later, after the Fall, engineered a global flood that produced most of the ‘fossil record.’

    The Kolbe Center is committed in a special way to defending the Catholic teaching that ‘the literal and obvious sense of Scripture’ as intended by the sacred authors must be believed unless reason or necessity force us to reject that teaching in favor of an exclusively figurative interpretation.”

    I was very impressed by what I read at the Kolbe Center site, but when I went to their store, I did not find Robert Crumb’s wonderful new book, "The Book of Genesis Illustrated," for sale there.

    Just today on NPR, Frank Browning described Crumb’s new book and included this excerpt from an hour-and-a-half long interview of Crumb in Denmark …

    “Do I believe in God? Well, I tell people I’m a Gnostic. I’m not an AG-Gnostic … I’m a Gnostic … someone who seeks knowledge of God. I believe that obviously there’s some force bigger than us that rules our destiny. That’s obvious. But what it is is a mystery … that’s the problem. It’s a mystery we cannot possibly understand … we’re limited, we’re animals. … The idea that millions of people for a couple of thousand years have taken this [the Genesis story] so seriously is insane … it’s crazy. It doesn’t need to be satirized. It’s already so crazy. I decided it didn’t need to be made fun of at all.”

    Open …

    http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=113842476&m=113922994

    and be sure to click “Listen.”

    Finally, the holiday break is just around the corner. As a present to yourself, purchase "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body" by Neil Shubin. It’s not exactly light reading, but it’s not that technical either. It’s about evolution, not biogenesis.

    I figure I have another 20 years on Mother Earth before my molecules happily mix with the molecular kaleidoscope of the Universe. I admit I’m fairly confident that by then scientists will have a very convincing description of the beginning of life ... and without any help at all from Yahweh.

    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” ... Benjamin Franklin

  • Evolution taught at Olivet Nazarene University
  • Posted by Greg Long , Professor, Department of Biological Sciences at Olivet Nazarene University on November 4, 2009 at 6:15pm EST
  • I am coming to this discussion very late, but I just recently became aware of this article. I want to make it clear to any concerned, that evolution is central to the biology curriculum at Olivet Nazarene University. Dr. Rick Colling was not the only faculty member teaching evolution. It is taught and used in many of our biology classes, whenever it pertinent to the content of a biology course. A complete, comprehensive understanding of the theory of evolution is critical for proper understanding of biology. I could not properly teach invertebrate zoology without exploring the genetic comparisons of different organism groups. I could not teach molecular and cellular biology without exploring the genetic and evolutionary aspects that point to common ancestry of all life.