BreakPoint | You Can't Have It Both Ways
In August, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture published an article in a peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article argued that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested intelligent design as an alternative.
This article had to go through the same peer-review process as any other scientific paper. But that wasn't enough for many Darwinists. Members of the Biological Society of Washington, as well as the National Center for Science Education, wrote to the journal protesting that the article was "substandard" -before they'd even read it. Even the Biological Society's governing council distanced themselves from the article, saying that had they known about it beforehand, they "would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."
One of the most defensive faiths is the belief in hardcore Darwinism. They don't allow anything that doesn't fit into their strident beliefs to even be considered. That's not science, that's fundamentalism.
Posted by Tim at November 23, 2004 08:29 AMYou misrepresent science. Science advances by hypothesis and experiment. It has nothing to do with faith. That's why seemingly simple ideas like the earth revolving around the sun are still a "theories." Faith tells you springtime will come, but science can only give you all sorts of dull projections and probabilities that flowers will grow come April.
In science you need to have a theory and an experiment to prove your theory. The Intelligent Design (ID) people don't have an experiment. They criticize portions of evolutionary theory, but have no provable/disprovable God experiment.
Meyer essentially cheated to get his paper published in this journal. The journal's board caught the cheat, and disavowed the paper. Colson's article you cite is some sort of lame joke.
Tim, ID "proofs" are a little like this: Suppose all I do is criticize President Bush's approach to Iraq, the economy, healthcare, education reform, etc. And after all my criticism of Bush, I say to you: "Therefore since I see President Bush's policies as problematic, you must accept the proof I've just given you that Ralph Nader's policies are right."
You'd laugh me out of these pages (which sometimes you might do anyway!!!) You'd rightly say, "No no no...you can't simply criticize Bush and therefore say Nader is right. What kind of argument is that? You've given me no proof of Nader's policy. And besides most people disagree with your criticism of Bush's policies!! What a bunch of specious thinking!!!"
Well, welcome to ID fantasyland. Faith was good enough for Abraham. Why is it lacking for so many Evangelical Christians when it comes to God so much that they're looking to scientists, test tubes, and lab rats? (BTW the world's largest Christian church---the Catholic Church---has zero problem with evolution. Apparently they still think Abraham was onto something big.)
Posted by: Tom at November 25, 2004 03:46 AMThe Catholic church believes in a creator. The total lock, stock and barrel Darwinist does not believe in a creator. Tom, you seem to think that our faith is more of a fantasy type thing. Our faith is based on what we believe to be are facts, specifically the birth, death and resurrection of Christ.
We also believe that taking a scientific approach to aspects of creation are worthwhile. The Darwinists won't even let us at the table. ID scientists have some very logical explanations but some extreme hostilities to the thought of a creator try to keep those ideas out of the realm of science.
If there is a creator then what are the consequences? I'm not sure many Darwinists are ready to deal with that issue.
Posted by: Tim at November 25, 2004 07:56 AMI certainly don't want to say Christian faith is a fantasy-type thing. It's not. A Christian believes as truth that Christ lived, died for our sins, and was resurrected. All I can tell you is that I have profound respect for Christian faith, even if I'm an agnostic.
This is a totally clumsy analogy, but I have nothing but profound respect for conservative Republicans David Brooks and John McCain, even if I'm a Dem. I don't think Brooks and McCain believe in fantasies, while I believe the truth.
But I think your response gets at the heart of the issue.
Why in the world would you believe---by definition---someone who believes in Darwinian evolution doesn't believe in God? I'm very sincere about this question. It puzzles me no end. And of course you're not the only one.
I don't know all the facts and figures admittedly, but I bet the average grad student in evolutionary biology (your well-put "lock, stock, and barrel Darwinist") is no more or less likely to be a good, practicing Christian than the next guy.
If I can leave you with one idea, please let it be that I in no way believe that Christian faith is a fantasy-type thing. Faith isn't fantasy. Faith is one of the most wondrous, sublime, and beautiful of human qualities or abilities. Christians have used that faith to do so much good in the world.
But faith isn't measurable by science.
Posted by: Tom at November 25, 2004 10:34 AMJust another thought...
I think a big problem is that some high profile evolutionary scientists are big mouth atheists. Richard Dawkins comes to mind.
So bad logic goes: Dawkins is a big mouth atheist. Dawkins is a Darwinist. Therefore Darwinists are big mouth atheists. And therefore evolution proves there's no God, because Dawkins believes in evolution and denies God's existence.
No. Bad logic. Bad, bad, bad logic.
The core of Intelligent Design is that all of us should look at the evidence to explain the origin and development of life. We are all interested in facts, theories and conclusions. Truth is important.
It is increasingly clear that Darwinism, random chance, and natural selection cannot explain the Genesis of Life nor the Development of Complexity.
We need a new theory. Perhaps one theory that we can examine is that the design underpinning the complexity of life might lead us to a designer (or Designer).
To refuse to look at a theory just because you have a religious belief (atheism) that won't allow it is to refuse to use the Scientific Method.
We seem to have come full circle from the Scopes Trial. As the scientific facts prove that Darwin is wrong, Christians embrace the facts. The atheists refuse to see the clear facts of science because of their blind religious dogma.
Your "bad logic" analogy is a straw man. You can do better.
check out www.ideacenter.org
Casey Luskin is very willing to engage academics. It is a dynamite website.
What if we find that there is real meaning? What is so bad about that? What if God loves you? What if you aren't God? I know I'm not. You probably aren't either.
Posted by: JoeS at November 25, 2004 07:46 PMTom,
Darwin did not believe in an ultimate creator. The concept of a creator doesn't exclude monkey to man evolution, necessarily (though I don't hold to it as I don't believe in macro evolution). In my definition, a true evolutionist doesn't believe in a creator by definition. They believe in something from nothing. I know I'm not 'splaining myself well but I hope you understand my position.
Thanks,
Tim
There's too much self-organization of information happening in too short a period of time to have it explained by the scientific process described in "Origin of Species". The skepticism of actual scientsts in the their journals towards classical Darwinism is never reflected in elementary and high school texts.
Ultimately there may be be materialist theory that explains the evidence that cells are far, far more complex than predicted by Darwin, but that theory isn't here yet, so Darwinism's power over K-12 texts is more metaphysical than physical in 2004.
Don't hold your breath, most of the science is focused on "change' and not on "origin".
A few thoughts, gang:
"It is increasingly clear that Darwinism, random chance, and natural selection cannot explain the Genesis of Life nor the Development of Complexity." (Joe)
Per who? No mainstream biologist questions the basic Darwin mechanism. And from their labs at the local colleges they go to church on Sunday and are practicing Christians. There's no conflict.
"To refuse to look at a theory just because you have a religious belief (atheism) that won't allow it is to refuse to use the Scientific Method." (Joe)
Joe, atheism has nothing to do with it. You're stuck on that canard. Why does the largest Christian church in the world---Catholic Church---accept evolution? What? Are the Catholics a bunch of atheists? And you're telling me all the bio grad students these days are atheists? I don't think so!!
"What if we find that there is real meaning? What is so bad about that? What if God loves you?" (Joe)
What does evolution have to do with "real meaning?" Why would God hate me if He uses evolution to get me here?
You're sounding a little like Job. Angry at God because He isn't doing things just the way you want. Sorry, Joe. God spins the globe to give us night and day. He tilts the earth's axis and orbits us around the sun for the seasons. And bummer for you---it appears God uses evolution to diversify and populate the earth with His creatures.
Year after year, experiment after experiment, finding after finding, all the sciences come together to support evolution of life. Science done by Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, and probably a couple Scientologists (hmmmm...)
Got a problem with His method?
"Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence? Now get ready to fight, for I am going to demand some answers from you, and you must reply. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much." (Job 38, of course)
God's question to Job is a good question I think for anybody who wants to put blinders on and deny evolution: Just who the heck are you to question the way He does things?
Posted by: Tom at November 26, 2004 04:38 PMWow, some great points on both sides here.
Let's not forget that humans and chimps DNA are very similar (upwards of 95%). Everything that we know (scientifically) supports evolution. There is no question amongst reputable scientists. There may be arguments as to the specifics, but the general idea remains solid.
Why are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive? Why couldn't God have used evolution as a means to create man. Perhaps "six days" really isn't six days. Some christians accept this.
Personally, I am agnostic. I don't know what the answer is. But I do believe in evolution. Faith is faith. When you try to prove creationism "scientifically" you run into problems. In the end it is a matter of faith for christians. It's a mistake to claim it can be "proven".
Here is a story that kind of makes my point. My older sister was not religious (but I was at the time). She received her B.S. in Biology. She had no problem with evolution. A couple of years ago she started going to a Southern Baptist church. Now she is adamant that evolution is wrong. Her faith has overridden her science.
Posted by: Ben at December 4, 2004 10:25 PM
