Science and the Sacred

Science and the Sacred


One Hundred and Fifty Years…and Counting

posted by Darrel Falk

Thumbnail image for Origin_of_Species.jpg

Every Monday, “Science and the Sacred” features an essay from
one of The BioLogos Foundation’s co-presidents: Karl Giberson and
Darrel Falk. Today’s entry was written by Darrel Falk.

This past Tuesday marked the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, undoubtedly one of the most influential books of all time. It seems there have been dozens of Darwin conferences this year commemorating not just the publication of the book, but also the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth on February 12, 1809. Most biologists, including myself, would likely consider Darwin to be the most thorough and insightful biologist in history. As a biologist, and as a Christian committed to seeking truth, I believe there is much to celebrate during this anniversary year.

On the day before the official anniversary, I was talking with a friend who had attended one of the Darwin conferences. The meeting had included some of America’s most well-known experts, who weighed in on the social ramifications of the 150 year old evolution/creation debate. My friend told me that the experts at this conference had been somewhat stumped when someone in the audience asked how it could be that when faced with the enormous amount of data in support of Darwin’s theory, good honest thinkers could remain young earth creationists–a line of thought so out of touch with scientific reality. I was somewhat incredulous that the experts would have been stumped by this question. Perhaps I’m the one who is naïve, but to me the answer is simple. As I see it, all it takes is a couple of one-on-one dinner conversations with a couple of articulate persons and I think you come to understand their dilemma.

I am going to discuss three people with extremely impressive academic scientific credentials who believe in a young earth. They all have something in common and, even though these three individuals know the science much better than most in our society, I think they epitomize why millions of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians refuse to blink in the face of the mass of scientific data. Since some of what I will write is based on informal conversations over a meal, I have decided not to name them. I hope you will see that I deeply respect each one of them.

I met Person A at a conference in Kansas City eleven years ago. He was the only young earth creationist in attendance and I admired his courage to stand up for what he believed to be right, even though he was the only one who thought that way. “A” obtained his Ph.D. in paleontology at the nation’s most prestigious university with one of its most prestigious scholars. He knows the science very well and he knows how compelling the scientific data is. However, at this Kansas City conference he told us that no matter how strong the scientific data seemed to be, he was confident that it would eventually prove to be false. “Right now, we who hold the young earth perspective are losing,” he said, but he was staking his life and career on the premise that eventually the tide would turn. His faith in the literalness of the Genesis account trumped all else. Why? He told us that all that brought him meaning was grounded in the literalness of Scripture. Change the interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, he believes, and the entire Bible disintegrates, and with that disintegration so also goes all aspects of his purpose in life. So from his perspective when the Bible and science disagree, it is science that will eventually be shown to be incomplete, not the Bible.

Person B, like “A,” has extremely impressive academic credentials. He is well-trained in the field of population genetics and served as a professor in plant genetics at a university which has a long tradition of being the world leader in this discipline. He is also the inventor of a very important biotechnology tool. I had a most enjoyable dinner conversation with “B” as part of a small one day meeting we attended in Pittsburg in July, 2008. “B” told me of his journey from agnosticism/atheism to theistic evolution, to “big tent” intelligent design, until he finally ended up as a young earth creationist. “In essence,” he told me, “I choose young earth creationism because it allows me to engage the Bible in a manner that results in my feeling closer to God.” Like “A,” he acknowledges there is overwhelming supportive data for an old earth and evolution. Like “A,” he believes it will be possible to identify holes in the evolution arguments and he is working optimistically at identifying them. I loved being with “B,” for reasons that had nothing to do with his science, but everything to do with his warm Christian spirit. Except for my feelings about the quality of his science, being with “B” was a wholly positive experience. “B” has ultimately decided that God speaks through scripture in ways that are literal and not figurative. If we try to force the Bible to conform to scientific interpretations, he feels, we gain credibility with the world, but we lose the faith element that holds us close to God. He chooses the latter, and is convinced that the data will eventually catch up to the Bible.

Person C is another young earth creationist with very strong credentials. He has a Ph.D, in the history of science from another of the world’s best universities. “C” was one of about 16 persons at a small one-day meeting I attended in Chicago in July 2007. I didn’t have the good fortune of sitting down for a meal with him like I did with “B, or going for a short one-on-one walk as I did with “A.” However, I did sit across a table from him for several hours and felt that I came to understand his heart, as well as his mind through the words that he spoke. At one point, the tears started to flow as “C” described that his one and only desire was to be thinking in a way and acting in the a manner consistent with what he sensed God wanted of him. Choked with emotion and unable to talk for awhile, he eventually told us he would step away from his position in a “second,” if he became convinced that is what God wanted of him. I have no doubt he would. With theological reasons as his motivation, he genuinely thinks that he can find flaws in the scientific data. Theology and his personal relationship with God trump the science. The science, as he sees it, will eventually come around.

Each of these individuals believe as they do, not because of scientific data–they all realize how strong it is–it is their view of the Bible and the concomitant theology which drives their thinking. Their purpose and meaning in life is deeply embedded in a particular view of Scripture. Their relationship with God is deeply embedded in that view. Their hopes and dreams for their children and grandchildren are steeped in the view provided by this tradition. If you rip that view away from them, you rip away their compass and they would have nowhere else to turn.

So I am a little surprised that leading secular scholars find it difficult to understand why these individuals and their many followers hold fast. Each of us need to get up in the morning with some sense of purpose, and even these three individuals with minds that are as sharp as the secular scholars themselves are convinced that they have had a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ consistent with what is revealed to them through Scripture. They know of no way to hold on to that conviction while at the same time accepting the science that seems to contradict. Given that choice, they choose Scripture over science. They are more certain of their relationship with Christ, as grounded in Scripture, than they are of the findings of science.

So we at The BioLogos Foundation cannot focus purely on the “Science” in Science and the Sacred, nor can we focus purely on the “Bio” in BioLogos. Every bit as important to our discussion is the “Sacred” is the “Logos.” We have to show people in ways that really make sense that the tenets of evangelicalism don’t stand or fall on whether we accept 150 years of data from evolutionary biology and 180 years of data from geology. With that in mind, we are delighted to announce that beginning tomorrow, Harvard-educated evangelical biblical scholar Dr. Peter Enns is officially joining the BioLogos team and will be especially involved in working with us on our Science and the Sacred blog. Clearly there are two important components to our work. One is to communicate the solidity of the scientific data. Together with our many scientific colleagues, Karl and I will continue to work on that. The other, however, is every bit as important. We want to remain faithful to Scripture as the inspired Word of God and to the living Christ through whom all things are created and in whom all things are held together. We need a biblical scholar to help us communicate this message well. Welcome Pete. We believe your availability is not just happenstance, and we are delighted to work alongside of you.

Share
|





Advertisement
Comments read comments(27)
post a comment
Knockgoats

posted November 30, 2009 at 8:20 am


I’d question two points about the above. I don’t consider persons A, B and C (I can easily identify A), are “good, honest thinkers” at all. A “good, honest thinker”, faced with overwhelming evidence against a prior belief, abandons it, at least provisionally. This is not just an intellectual but a moral imperative: the consequences of clinging to beliefs in the face of the evidence are quite clearly immensely destructive in many cases. To take a non-religious example, consider Peter Duesberg’s absurd insistence that HIV does not cause AIDS: this “HIV-denialism” is probably responsible for millions of deaths. What your examples really show are the evil effects of faith. Second, A, B and C are completely unrepresentative of YECs, who typically, and in the case of the leading figures at least dishonestly, refuse to accept that evidence in favour of an old Earth, and evolution, is indeed overwhelming.



report abuse
 

James

posted November 30, 2009 at 8:56 am


You might have tried to disguise them but I think I can guess who they are;
A – Kurt Wise
B – John Sanford
C is less obvious but probably Paul Nelson



report abuse
 

Michael Thompson

posted November 30, 2009 at 9:18 am


Welcome Pete, I am enjoying your posts! Glad to see there will be more! :)



report abuse
 

dopderbeck

posted November 30, 2009 at 10:00 am


This is a great development. And thanks, Darrell, for these warm posts about brothers and sisters in Christ who think differently than some of us do about these questions. I’ve participated in a variety of other forums where the “theistic evolution” folks mock the “YEC” folks and vice versa. It right and good that there be a forum where very real and serious disagreements can be discussed openly but with charity.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted November 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm


In other words, these people don’t understand the Bible, which simply doesn’t agree with itself in any literal sense.
After all, the second prong against creationism is Genesis has two contrary (mostly not contradictory, however) accounts, both of which apparently have links with the mythical and cosmological ideas of the neighboring Semites.
I don’t believe that Christianity was ever intended to be based in Biblical literalism, so on that score no problem for non-literalists. But I’m still with Knockgoats on the issue of simply being honest. Each and every one fails on that score, no matter how honest they may be in a more partial sense. There is nothing at all that supports “design” or YECism, and honesty requires a person to recognize that, at least if they pretend to have enough knowledge to expound upon these matters.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted November 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm


I’m glad to hear about this new addition to the team. I’ve enjoyed reading all posts from Biologos but felt that there wasn’t enough emphasis on scripture, the “logos” half. I look forward to Dr. Enns’ posts.



report abuse
 

Paul Bruggink

posted November 30, 2009 at 2:53 pm


Adding Dr. Peter Enns to the BioLogos team is wonderful news and a giant step in the right direction. I have long observed that for Young Earth Creationists, the Bible trumps science every time. Therefore, arguing from science rarely gets anywhere and degenerates into “my science versus your science.” The only arguments that will ever make any real difference to YECs will have to be biblically based. Dr. Enns is in a good position to make progress in that direction.
p.s. to the webmaster: You STILL don’t have the “Your Name” problem solved. When the verification text has expired and the Comment gets refreshed, the email address also gets refreshed, but the Name goes back to “Your Name,” which isn’t always noticed by the submitter. Can’t the Name be refreshed along with everything else??



report abuse
 

Amy B

posted November 30, 2009 at 4:55 pm


I’m also looking forward to hearing more from Dr. Enns.
I appreciate the post today. It describes my personal experience as well. Until I had a faith crisis, I wasn’t willing to examine the scientific evidence with openness.



report abuse
 

Jonathan

posted November 30, 2009 at 6:49 pm


I agree with Paul, no amount of scientific evidence makes any difference to most YEC’s. The science is simply wrong for now, or ignored altogether. Now amount of molecular evidence, fossil evidence, comparative biology, biogeography or any thing else is of significance. Most YEC’s will quickly see that evolution and their approach to scripture do not mesh. For a YEC it is more important to have a myriad of theological questions answered conclusively before they would even consider evolution. Questions such as – if evolution is true why does Paul regard Adam as real in Romans 5? The challenge for Biologos, as I see it, is that as soon as you enter into theological discussion on these issues it is perceived to become a liberal vs conservative debate and the YEC has made a strong prior commitment to conservatism. I think the way forward with a YEC may be to show that their presupposed commitment to literalism may in fact be the flaw. Why is it that your chosen approach to scripture is the ONLY approach to reveal truth when so much other data points to your hermeneutical approach being flawed.
But, if we admire the faith of a YEC, why seek to alter or destroy it or alter it purely for the sake of scientific literacy? Why not just leave them be?



report abuse
 

beaglelady

posted November 30, 2009 at 7:08 pm


Welcome aboard Dr. Enns! I have enjoyed your past posts, and I’m looking forward to your future contributions.



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted November 30, 2009 at 7:13 pm


But, if we admire the faith of a YEC Jonathan
Because they are trying to get creationist lies into science classes. Anyway, what’s to admire in irrationality and invincible ignorance?



report abuse
 

Paul Burnett

posted November 30, 2009 at 7:54 pm


I am currently recovering from a debate with a Young Earth Creationist who is also an MD (go figure). He produced such laughably ancient creationist chestnuts as “evolutionists have come up with nothing to advance their theory in at least 100 years” and “Darwinian evolution is on its last legs.” How does one deal with such irrational pathological delusions as these?
As others have noted, science and logic have nothing to do with Young Earth Creationism (or intelligent design creationism). As the introduction to the bogus “textbook,” “Biology for Christian Schools,” states: “The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second.”



report abuse
 

R Hampton

posted November 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm


In regards to their Faith, they are immune to logic and evidence. Simply put, you can not reason with a YEC.



report abuse
 

Paul Burnett

posted November 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm


Jonathan naivelely asked: “But, if we admire the faith of a YEC, why seek to alter or destroy it or alter it purely for the sake of scientific literacy? Why not just leave them be?”
(1) Because they vote, and the politicians must pay attention to their numbers, even though their anti-science beliefs are wrong. Do we really want politicians responding to the wishes of a scientifically illiterate electorate? (Not that they don’t already, but do we want the political influence of the scientifically illiterate to increase or decrease? Think about it.)
(2) Because many of them produce children, and in their willful ignorance, attempt to raise the children to be as ignorant and gullible and scientifically illiterate as their parents. How long before that is ruled by the courts to be actionable child abuse? Should Children’s Protective Services be allowed to remove children from abusive homes?



report abuse
 

steve martin

posted November 30, 2009 at 9:22 pm


Congrats Darrel, Karl, and team. Adding Pete is an excellent (and I’d agree necessary) step. Looking forward to more thoughtful and thought provoking articles.
And I’ll second David O.’s appreciation for the charitable nature of your posts.



report abuse
 

beaglelady

posted November 30, 2009 at 9:55 pm


Paul Burnett,
Excellent points! I would also add a third point: they (YECs) could get elected to school boards and potentially imperil the science education of all the kids in the school district. And then you’d have another Kitzmiller. (Or, worse, you wouldn’t.) So yes, it is better to courteously attempt to persuade YECs that they are on the wrong track.



report abuse
 

Scott Jorgenson

posted November 30, 2009 at 10:35 pm


Some quick thoughts:
1. I find myself in agreement with Knockgoats that “A”, “B”, and “C” cannot be lauded for intellectual honesty when so much data is so hard against their position and has been for such a long time despite so much research and opportunity for falsification. To have so much faith, however well-intentioned, in something so demonstrably false is to impeach one’s intellectual integrity, particularly for those with advanced study in the relevant fields like “A”, “B” and “C” (who should therefore have no excuse). This does not mean we cannot empathize with them, acknowledge and respect their depth of commitment to God, and so on.
[Aside: Knockgoats will probably wonder how we can agree with him so strongly on this, but not finish the job by applying the same metric against theism. To my mind, the difference is that one area is quite properly natural - the proximate origins and developmental histories and mechanisms of physical features of the universe such as the earth and life. Therefore it is quite proper to employ scientific reasoning to its logical conclusion in this area. But the other area is metaphysical - while the existence of God may have scientifically-investigable implications (depending on one's theology, though, which makes such postulated implications slippery), because the object of study is extra-natural it is undue to apply only scientific reasoning and to apply it too forcefully. This is the same reason why philosophy and aesthetics and ethics are also fundamentally exempt from the full force of scientific investigation, in my opinion (though they certainly are informed by it). That, at least, is the basic explanation for the seeming inconsistency which I would offer.]
2. I appreciate Peter Enns’ ideas and enjoy his clear and articulate writing, and am very glad to hear he is landed on the BioLogos staff. That said, I feel that young-earth creationism is here to stay with Christian conservatives. There will be exceptions, but theistic evolution generally speaking has no chance with them, for the reasons that Jonathan outlined above. I am quite willing to be wrong about this! But unfortunately, as I see it, Christian conservatives have by-and-large successfully identified literalism with conservatism; they have also identified every non-literal/ahistorical hermeneutic with liberalism, and liberalism with heterodoxy, heresy or apostasy. Furthermore, “scientific creationism” has indulged the creationist flock’s desire for the appearance of scientific legitimacy, with fully-elaborated folk-science from organizations like AIG and ICR — a phenomenon which did not exist the last time conservatives were open to earth history and evolution (eg the turn of the 20th century).
Put this all together and it is a very tough nut to crack. Peter Enns knows – he was forced-out of Westminster Theological Seminary just last year, if I recall correctly, for an approach they deemed too liberal. How could putting him on the staff of BioLogos be expected to make BioLogos attractive then to the likes of Westminster? Not that this would be achievable, of course. Once you are branded as liberal, most conservatives shutdown in my experience. What BioLogos can do is serve as a beacon or lighthouse for those who, for whatever reason (including dis-illusionment with creationism), find themselves already in, or approaching, some form of exile (self-imposed or otherwise) from Christian conservatism.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 30, 2009 at 10:49 pm


What this proves is that the relationship between what these scholars experience through the Christian religious frame, is not subject to scientific examination. The ecstatic states, the sense of presence, can be elicited through many doorways, not merely a Christian one with a set of a priori tenets.
I do not dispute that for these scholars the Christian frame, and the community of which they are members is of primary importance. I take them at their word on that. I also do not dispute that even with that bias, they are able to be good, thorough and perhaps even inspired researchers. I also do not dispute that when Genesis becomes only able to be read allegorically, that it poses a problem for a literal/historic Christian theology. What remains is the community, and the meaning that is able to be derived from the allegory. The ecstatic states, the sense of Presence need not disappear in a puff of logic. The only thing that is set aside is the prison of belief and attachment to a religious beliefset.
Fear of loss of what is valued has been falsed identified with the literal/historical truth of the Bible. Coming to understand that liberates a person from fear that their belief will no longer be able to be sustained. The belief can evaporate and nothing of value need disappear with it.
Does the fact that great literature is fiction take away from its beauty and meaning? HELLO!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 1, 2009 at 3:34 am


Great blog!



report abuse
 

Knockgoats

posted December 1, 2009 at 4:34 am


while the existence of God may have scientifically-investigable implications (depending on one’s theology, though, which makes such postulated implications slippery), because the object of study is extra-natural it is undue to apply only scientific reasoning and to apply it too forcefully. – Scott Jorgenson
I take it you feel the same about the existence of witchcraft, and in particular the common belief in parts of Africa that young children can be witches capable of causing great harm, so those believed to be such must be killed. Seems a pretty “metaphysical” belief to me, so we mustn’t apply scientific reasoning to it too forcefully, now must we?



report abuse
 

Karl A

posted December 1, 2009 at 7:23 am


Welcome, Dr. Enns. I’ve just ordered your 2005 book, and I look forward to reading it, if/when Amazon can get it to SE Asia. Incidentally, my Lutheran pastor here is a fan of yours, and we may start some sort of discussion group.
Darrell’s post and the various comments are a very interesting discussion about (among other things) how and why to engage people who hold to a YEC position. On the ‘how’, I agree that there will be many people who will absolutely refuse to consider the issue, and there’s not much one can do with them. As the saying goes, you can’t steer a parked car. There are also others who may be willing to hear you out, but whose faith is so inextricably tied to a literal interpretation of Genesis that a serious faith crisis will ensue. This calls for great care, if we love our Christian brothers and sisters. I think Paul’s discussions in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 about those with “doubts” or “weak consciences” are applicable here. In that context, some believers think that some foods need to be avoided because they are religiously impure, or that certain holy days need to be observed. In both passages, Paul is very clear that loving is more important than being right. Yet (almost paradoxically), Paul also clearly states his convictions about the disputed matters. Perhaps his approach could be summarized as “speaking the truth in love”. The evidence for evolution and against Biblical literalism is not going to go away by all indications. So whether we bring up the subject or not, it will continue to nettle many of these believers, and I think lovingly and gently helping people work through these issues is preferable to just leaving them alone. But not pushing faster than they’re able to go.
On the other hand, there are others who would make an article of faith of the YEC position – either you are YEC or you are not orthodox. (Just as in some of the more liberal seminaries an evolutionary position might be a litmus test for orthodoxy.) It seems to me that they would be comparable to the Judaizers whom Paul opposed so vehemently. It is the temptation of every age for us to take our pet issues and tack them on to the gospel – believe/do this if you want to be saved! A temptation, but destructive nonetheless. I think we have the right and the imperative to be more forceful with those who would do this with the YEC position.
What is a little trickier is when YEC is enshrined as part of an organization’s doctrinal statement. They’re not saying you have to believe this to be a Christian, just to be part of this organization… What does one do in a situation like that?



report abuse
 

Paul Burnett

posted December 1, 2009 at 7:46 am


“Karl A” asked: “What is a little trickier is when YEC is enshrined as part of an organization’s doctrinal statement. They’re not saying you have to believe this to be a Christian, just to be part of this organization… What does one do in a situation like that?
Don’t join the organization, if scientific illiteracy is that disturbing to you. After all, if the organization is that delusional about science, they may be similarly delusional about other parts of reality. A century or two ago there was an excuse for that kind of ignorance, but that is no longer the case – reality deniers, or as Richard Dawkins puts it, history deniers, have no excuse for their scientific illiteracy unless they’re stupid, wicked or insane.



report abuse
 

Paul Bruggink

posted December 1, 2009 at 7:49 am


Good points well stated, Karl A.
And I hope Amazon is able to get Peter Enns’ “Inspiration & Incarnation” to you quickly. It is very good.



report abuse
 

Mere_Christian

posted December 1, 2009 at 11:24 am


There is nothing at all that supports “design” or YECism, and honesty requires a person to recognize that, at least if they pretend to have enough knowledge to expound upon these matters.
- Glen Davidson
///
ALL of creation proves design. Nothing cannot create anything. (0 x 0 = atheism.) DNA is not random. Isn’t that the story line?
Look for the stubborn belief in idiocy among the “pig” headed atheist crowd. They’re easy to find. Look for the trampled pearls and follow the trail to the self-identified “free” thinker. They’ll all be in the exact same place all doing the exact same thing. Because, you know, they are “free” thinkers.
If the earth is “only” billions of years old, it is a young creation indeed. From timeless space, to mud, to monkeys, to man. Looking at godless behavior, you have to see the reality in that.
But anyway . . .
Give me a YEC, or a Bible-thumping preacher and the Christians that live that life, over a beer swilling dorm dwelling skeptic, or a smug and self-serving Humanist school employee anyday.
Less violence and vice is a good thing.
And BioLogos guys, you need to hire on Peter Kreeft.



report abuse
 

Scott Jorgenson

posted December 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm


Knockgoats – To the extent witchcraft is scientifically testable we can rule on it using science. For example, whether spells have observable effect under controlled circumstances, is something for which science is really all we need. But the broader metaphysical claims of witchcraft – that there is a mystical and magical side to nature, emanating on some “higher plane” for example – are by definition impervious to scientific investigation, since the objects of those claims are posited to not to be wholly part of the observable, physical universe. Even claims about how we can interact with and be affected by magic in observable, physical ways within this universe are relatively impervious, if they are framed in such a way as to not be subjectable to controlled experiment (for example, by positing that spells only work when skeptics aren’t watching for them).
So then the reasons we decide not to believe in witchcraft cannot be entirely scientific. They are metaphysical and philosophical as well. For example, we might consider that witchcraft, if it is indeed so slippery as to not be able to be pinned down, is also superfluous (ala Occam’s Razor) and we might as well deem it not to exist on those grounds. That’s a philosophical decision. Or we might think that the supposition of a world of innumerable competing and arcane magical powers, fundamentally impersonal and amoral, is haphazard and inelegant compared to, say, a classical monotheistic system. That’s a theological judgment. We might look at the consequences of magical belief in adherents’ lives – does it make them happier, does it make them better people than they would be otherwise, etc – and come to some opinion there (yes, I know this is consequentialist). All of these are other criteria that can come into play when finally deciding what we think about witchcraft, and we are fooling ourselves if we think that we are simply following where science leads.
As for killing young children, naturally the thought is repulsive and the act is evil, but why? Science cannot declare it to be evil, repulsive, or wrong; that is our moral intuition speaking (which yes, to some degree may have been formed due to certain selective pressures, but that itself does not offer scientific opinion on whether that moral intuition is right or wrong, good or bad). All science can do is comment on the effects within the physical world of acts within that world. Science could say that the murder of young children is detrimental to social cohesion and thus is likely to be selected against; on the other hand, science could also say that the murder by a male of offspring not his own (as in a troop or harem situation, like with baboons) is selectively advantageous. But it can’t say whether it is evil.
So no I don’t believe in witchcraft, and yes I agree that witchcraft leading to murder is awful, but it can’t be science which entirely leads me there. Honestly, I don’t really understand why New Atheists might have a problem with that. Science is methodologically bound to naturalism and cannot investigate the metaphysical — this is something recognized by most philosophers I think, theistic and non-theistic alike. Its something that non-theists like Michael Ruse, Stephen Gould and Eugenie Scott are able to agree with us theists upon, so I really don’t understand the controversy.
Well, it seems that now I am the one to have derailed a thread from the subject of the original posting. Sorry to all!



report abuse
 

pds

posted December 2, 2009 at 10:05 am


The Design Spectrum
This post is, I think, misleading. Falk suggests that the only reason why people doubt aspects of evolutionary theory is because of their reading of the Bible. It only profiles 3 people, and they all happen to acknowledge the “overwhelming” evidence for “evolution” (not defining what Falk and they mean by this). This ignores the very large number of Christians and agnostics who doubt aspects of evolutionary theory because of the science.
I would like to hear if Persons A B and C agree with his characterizations of them.
Person B sounds very much like John Sanford, professor at Cornell and inventor of the Gene Gun. James noted in a comment above that he thinks so too. If it is, then I think Falk has given a highly selective and very misleading portrayal of Sanford’s views on the relevant science.
I have posted some quotes and a link on what John Sanford really believes about the relevant science:
http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/john-sanford-and-his-pilgrimage/



report abuse
 

Pingback: The Way Forward? (RJS)

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

We're Moving
Science & the Sacred is moving to our new home on The BioLogos Foundation's Web site. Be sure to visit and bookmark our new location to stay up to date with the latest blogs from Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk, Pete Enns, and our various guests in the science-religion dialogue. We're inaugurating ou

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 11, 2009 | read full post »

Shiny Scales, Silvery Skins, and Evolution
  Source: Physorg.comIridescence -- a key component of certain makeup, paints, coatings of mirrors and lenses -- is also an important feature in the natural world. Both fish and spiders make use of periodic photonic systems, which scatter or reflect the light that passes against their scales or

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

A Stellar Advent Calendar
Looking for a unique way to mark the days of the Advent season? The Web site Boston.com offers an Advent calendar composed of images from the Hubble Telescope, both old and new. Each day, from now until the celebration of the Nativity of Christ, the calendar will offer a beautiful image from the hea

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

Belief, Guidance, and Evolution
Recently BioLogos' Karl Giberson was interviewed by Marcio Campos for the Brazilian newspaper Gazeta do Povo's Tubo De Ensaio (i.e. "Test tube") section. What follows is a translated transcript of that interview, which we will be posting in three installments. Here is the first. Campos: Starting o

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 08, 2009 | read full post »

Let's Come at this From a Different Angle
Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by Peter Enns. Enns is an evangelical Christian scholar and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnatio

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 04, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.