In May 2000 I began a post-doctoral position in the Mathematics Department at Kansas State University. Shortly after I arrived I learned of a conference for homeschoolers to be held in Wichita, the state's largest city. Since that was a short drive from my home, and since anything related to public education in Kansas had relevance to my new job, I decided, on a whim, to attend.
You might recall that Kansas was then embroiled in a battle over state science standards. A politically conservative school board had made a number of changes to existing standards, including the virtual elimination of evolution and the Big Bang. This was very much on the mind of my fellow conference attendees, most of whom were homeschooling for specifically religious reasons. The conference keynoters all hailed form Answers in Genesis, an advocacy group that endorses creationism.
As a politically liberal mathematician who accepted the scientific consensus on evolution, this was all new to me. Curious to learn more, I struck up conversations with other audience members and participated in Q&A sessions whenever I could. The Wichita conference became the first of many that I attended over the next decade. This immersion in the creationist subculture taught me a few things about America's hostility to evolution.
Some of what I learned was predictable. Though my conversation partners typically spoke with great confidence on a variety of scientific topics, it was rare that they really understood much about the theory they so despised. For me this problem was especially acute when they discussed mathematics. I lost track of how many times folks would tell me that probability theory refuted evolution, and then defend their view with absurd calculations bearing no resemblance to reality. If you are possessed of even a rudimentary understanding of basic science, then you quickly realize the extent to which they have neglected their homework.
Also unsurprising was the insularity I found. For many of the people I met, evangelical Christianity represented a tiny island of righteousness adrift in a sea of secular evil. At virtually every conference one or more speakers would warn of the seductions of "the world's" wisdom, which is to say the world outside of their own tiny enclave. As they saw it, evolution was just one tool among many in the arsenal of God's enemies.
But I also learned some things that surprised me. On many occasions I asked people the blunt question, "What do you find so objectionable about evolution?" Never once did anyone reply, "It is contrary to the Bible." Conflicts with Scripture were certainly an issue, and these concerns arose almost inevitably if the conversation persisted long enough. They were never the paramount concern, however. It is not as though they thought evolution was an intriguing idea, but felt honor bound to reject it because the Bible forced them to. Instead, they flatly despised evolution, usually for reasons having nothing to do with the Bible.
They were horrified, for example, by the savagery and waste entailed by the evolutionary process. You can imagine how it looks to them to suggest that a God of love and justice, who declares his creation to be "very good," would employ a method of creation which rewards any behavior, no matter how cruel or sadistic, so long as it inserts your genes into the next generation.
And what are we to make of humanity's significance in Darwin's world? Tradition teaches we are the pinnacle of creation, unique among the animals for being created in God's image. Science tells a different story, one in which we are just an incidental, unintended byproduct of a lengthy evolutionary process. It is logically possible these stories are just two facets of the same reality, but there appears to be serious tension here nonetheless. Nor should we ignore the pernicious effect of evolution on the traditional argument from design. To accept evolution is to accept that if we are the result of a divine plan, it is one that was set in motion billions of years ago. For many, such a God is simply too far away.
Many Christians have resolved these issues to their own satisfaction. The literature defending "theistic evolution" is large and erudite. I can understand, though, why so many people are not impressed with such efforts. Too often the arguments therein just seem hollow, ad hoc or even desperate. They seem like so much armchair philosophy, as though the writer thinks the task of reconciliation is accomplished when a logically possible scenario containing both God and evolution, no matter how implausible, is produced. More than anything else, my time with the creationists has shown me that the task of reconciling science with faith is far more difficult than is sometimes pretended.
If, indeed, it can be accomplished at all.
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Have Scientific Questions? There Are No 'Answers in Genesis'
Itis possible, if you think outside the box that we call "organised" religion, and look at what it means to be human in this thing we call reality.
http://guydewhitney.com
"In the Year of Jubilee the field must be returned to the person from whom he purchased it, the one who inherited it as family property."
New Living Translation (©2007)
http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-24.htm
Now, many of these Creationists probably would think this rule would not be too much of a personal problem for them, even if they did volunteer to follow it, because it Jubilee occurs every 50th year:
http://www.growthingod.org.uk/jubilee.htm
Because most of the land in the US was originally owned by native Americans at least 100 years ago, most of that would need to be returned to their heirs.
Oh, wait! I forgot. Most of that land was stolen from them as a result of the various Indian Wars. And a lot of those families just didn't survive the ethnic cleansing that occurred during that portion of American history. So the Jubilee rule probably doesn't apply to those circumstances. At least not going back to those folks.
That being said, the folks who own the Creation Museum in Kentucky...
http://creationmuseum.org/
...should probably concern themselves with who were the previous owners of the land that theme park is on if they really want to follow the tenets laid out in the Bible. And not just the ones they like.
TTG
"Instead, they flatly despised evolution, usually for reasons having nothing to do with the Bible."
...you then proceed to list *nothing but* reasons that have to do with the bible. God wouldn't have made things so wasteful, God wouldn't have made things so cut-throat, God made humans special, what's all this about God creating billions of years ago I don't see that in my bible anywhere......
Creationists objections to evolution are 100% religion-based.
"The literature defending "theistic evolution" is large and erudite. ... Too often the arguments therein just seem hollow, ad hoc or even desperate."
They seem that way because they are. Any attempt to take all the testing and knowledge generated by science and somehow sneak in a cheap "and it was all because of God" conclusion on the end is going to turn out that way.
I'm speaking specifically of the various multi-verse theories, and how to my mind, at least, they seem in large part posited specifically to defeat the strong anthropic principle.
In short, there are some two-dozen physical/cosmological constants, e.g., strength of the strong nuclear force, etc., that, were any one of them slightly different, would lead to a universe incapable of life.
One might argue God's providence, or one might just say - it's a happy coincidence.
But, instead, to make sense of it , physicists and cosmologists (and mathematicians?) needed to invoke the law of large numbers somehow to explain the anthropic principle away. So the multiverse. If they exist, then we would have to.
And the theorizing appears to proceed from there. Was the multiverse concept a natural consequence of any other field of study, like String Theory? Or was it because given a choice between considering the possibility of a deity's influence on the cosmos, or the acceptance of an astronomically unlikely coincidence, they needed to come up with their own scientific answer that bears many of the trappings of faith?
Also, if anyone knows how the multi-verse theory is testable, I'd be really interested in knowing.
NOT to believe in a deity and see
The question is not whether it is proven or not, but why did they go there in the first place?
There is nothing that says we will remain . The planet was here long before we were, and, it is possible it will go on a long time without us.
As a side note, I don't see why an "armchair philosophers" solution isn't suitable. After all, we're talking about a process that depends on the improbable and a religious concept that has no support in science. A solution, no matter how improbable, seems like it would fit right in.
After all, if you aren't willing to consider that everything is the result of a very improbable situation then you shouldn't be putting much stock in evolution and the big bang theory to begin with.
Thanks for a very finely written article.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=43
http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/great_sci.html
It is up to you to do the research. I wouldn't trust all scientist for opinion. I acutally worked for one in college, the professor recieved grant money for any research they would do. Professors in top universities don't dispute creationism. I hope you really seek out the truth, and make a decison. The bottom line is either you are for Christ or against Christ.
We humans are incredibly average and far from being the pinnacle of creation.
Still, one wonders what dolphins could do if they had hands like ours.
I deny that god exists (followed by talk of spaghetti monsters or elves or whatnot, as somehow comparative).
The educated believer or theist or openminded person replies, "God is in a different category philosophically than 'spaghetti monsters' -- God is a metaphysical concept, not a possible (or fictive) physical one."
The atheist says, "You must define God in precise, scientific terms to suit me, then... etc."
But, in point of fact, the atheist who claims to deny God must have a concept of what it is he's denying. When talk of "spaghetti monsters" and the like come up, it's obvious that their concept has no correspondence with anything that theologians or philosophers are talking about.
So, it's the atheist's job first to explain what he's denying, not the theist's job to inform the atheist what he actually should be denying. After the atheist gives his definition, then we can see if he's getting it right. Otherwise, he shouldn't deny what he obviously can't define.
Addison, it is a positive claim that must always provide evidence and sound reasoning. This is a simple concept with a lot of explanation written (online etc.). A negative statement simply cannot and is not required for the same purpose.
"I believe God has a personal relationship with me." (Positive statement)
"I doubt the validity of that statement with no proof." (Negative statement)
"Well, I feel God when im alone in prayer." (Not proof)
You are confusing the need to prove a negative because you already accept that you can believe something without reason. It makes no sense for you to say that the nonbeliever is responsible for defining the God that you believe in.... none.
What I dislike is the atheist who says, "I deny the existence of God", and then wants me to define what he denies, if I reply I'm open to the idea of a God. I want to know first what he claims to deny before I put any convictions or vague idea of my own out there for him to play with. It's only fair.
It is correct for a non believer to ask you to define your terms. A person like Einstein thought of the deity as the majesty of the universe, not some intelligent supernatural entity.
So, it is up to you to provide the definition and the verified evidence of the existence of what you claim does exist.
So, I'm sorry, but if someone is going to deny something, and do so stridently, I want to know what in fact they mean to deny. I don't want them to ask me for a precise definition of anything I supposedly affirm until they can tell me first what it is they're so vehemently denying (and I've met too many whose vehemence borders on the manic).
of his blood the sea,
of his bones the hills,
of his hair trees and plants,
of his skull the heaven;
and of his brows the gentle powers
formed Midgard for the sons of men;
but of his brain
the heavy clouds are all created.
It's all perfectly clear.
The only way I would consider the Big Bang would be the coming together of the ashes of the Phoenix or the earth burned root and branch to form the egg out of which existence returned to the different manifestations we see.
From that perspective, I believe science and faith [the process of finding evidence and substance to support the unseen, per Hebrews 11:1] will be reconciled but only by those whose evolution is to the point they go through the metamorphosis or Christianity's "new birth" for moving on to the next plane.
Wonder if they are also troubled by the fact that approximately 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, making God the biggest abortionist in the universe.