The Creation of an Evolutionist

Spine-Tingling Music

2008-06-21T23:09:00.000-07:00

Some may have noticed that I haven't blogged (or responded to others' posts) for a few weeks now. Here's the reason: Almost two weeks ago, my L5/S-1 disc ruptured, causing intense, debilitating pain and would likely, according to my neuro-surgeon, have eventually caused permanent paralysis (in either or both legs) if I didn't undergo surgery immediately. I wasn't one to argue. This past Tuesday, after about a week on painkillers, I underwent spinal surgery to remove the portion of my disc that had lodged itself against the sciatic nerve of my right leg. It suffices to say, I am in much less pain now and am now dealing with the incision pain and resting up in order to resume my language studies at some point down the road. Sadly, my surgery forced me to cancel my trip to Lansing, Michigan, to attend my 20-year high school reunion. It's my hope that everyone else attending will have a grand time and not miss me one bit. ;-)

On a high note, The 77's latest CD, Holy Ghost Building, which I executive-produced, was just released yesterday! I shouldn't have to tell anyone familiar with the legendary band to buy this album. If you'd like listen to three tracks from the album, visit the band's MySpace page and enjoy the tasty guitar licks, gritty vocals, pounding bass and drums, and smooth BGVs.

Wanted: Digital Artist with Evolutionary Creativity

2008-06-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

I need to spruce up this blog. I'm a pretty austere kinda guy—if it weren't for being married, I'd still have no pictures on the walls and enjoy eating on milk crates—but it's time I added some sophistication to my blog title. Sadly, I lack completely any digital art skills, except for occasional Paintbrush doodles and taking the red-eye out of photos. Is there anyone out there who would like to create something snazzy for my blog? Pro bono, of course. (For anyone Latin-ally challenged, that means you don't get a dime. Just an art credit. Consider it a love-gift to me or something.)

If you're interested, I'd like the artwork to harmoniously combine the themes of theology and science. (That means no Darwin hanging on the cross, no gigantic black monoliths surrounded by monkeys, no half-buried Statue of Liberty, or anything like that.) I'd love to see what you come up with ...

Top 10 Reasons the Young-Earth Creationist Did Not Cross the Road to the “Other Side”

2008-05-31T13:17:00.000-07:00

Inspired by Parchment and Pen's recent spate of Top 10 lists, I decided to create my own Top 10 reasons the young-earth creationist did not cross the road to the "other side." Feel free to add your own to the list!

10. Bishop Ussher’s The Annals of the World never makes mention of God creating the other side before Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC.

9. The creation of an “other side” is just an inferior ancient Near Eastern myth.

8. A literal interpretation of Genesis does not support crossing to the other side.

7. He did not want to disturb what looked like human tracks crossing dinosaur tracks in the asphalt until representatives from ICR arrived to confirm the find.

6. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were on the other side.

5. Ben Stein’s money was on his side.

4. He did not want to be a monkey’s uncle.

3. He transferred from Calvin College before he could take one of Stephen Matheson's biology courses.

2. The street only has the appearance of an “other side.”

And (drum roll, please) ...

1. Because an intelligent agency appeared to have designed the road, the other side did not warrant further scientific investigation.

Blog Update

2008-05-28T21:54:00.000-07:00

Today, 28 May 2008, marks the 6-monthiversary of The Creation of an Evolutionist! It's been an extreme pleasure blogging about my journey, and it's been an even greater pleasure interacting with my readers! Despite my intense language study program, I have your pokes, prods, and good-natured ribbing to thank for keeping my chin up and my keyboard warm.

On 17 January 2008, I started using Google Analytics to track just about everything under the sun related to my blog. Here are some stats I found interesting:

# of visits: 3,480
# unique visitors: 1,601
# of page views: 6,812
# pages/visit: 1.96

I've had visitors from 48 countries. The Top 10 are:

United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Germany
Singapore
New Zealand
South Africa
Brazil
Ireland

However, the Top 10 countries that surfed my blog the longest were:

Norway (average 30:13)
Guatemala (10:56)
Thailand (9:02)
Turkey (7:40)
Brazil (7:21)
Ireland (5:26)
Poland (5:00)
Australia (4:58)
United States (4:33)
Singapore (3:53)

62.7% of the visits to my blog came from referring blogs. I'd like to thank the Top 10:

Gordon J. Glover (Beyond the Firmament)
Stephen Matheson (Quintessence of Dust)
Steve Douglas (Undeception)
Timothy P. Martin and Dr. Jeff Vaughn (Beyond Creation Science)
James F. McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix)
Steve Martin (An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution)
Jim Lippard (The Lippard Blog)
Mike Gene (Telic Thoughts)
Cliff Martin (OutsideTheBox)
John Farrell (Farrell Media)

The Top 10 keywords or phrases Googled to reach my blog were:

"thank god for evolution"
"creation of an evolutionist"
"john walton genesis"
"beyond creation science"
"le bon dieu est dans le detail"
"tim martin evolution"
"creation evolutionist"
"evolutionist beliefs"
"continuous creation"
"evolutionary creationism theistic evolution"

The Top 10 pages were:

John Walton's Greatest Hits — Part 1
In the Beginning ...,
Dr. John Walton & Genesis 1 (featuring a link to his online presentation)
John Walton's Greatest Hits — Part 2
Retreating to My YEComfort Zone
"Beyond Creation Science" Is Here!
ProgRossing Toward an Old Universe
My Evolving Views on Creationism
"Flunked Out!" — A Review of Ben Stein's "Expelled"
"Be-de, be-de, be-de, that's all folk science!"

Thanks again to all who have helped make this blog a success (in my eyes, at least). It may not get a bazillion hits a day like some blogs I frequent, but it will have been worth it if I helped just one person overcome their fear of evolution and find continued solace in their faith.

God bless.

The Problem of Evil

2008-05-28T21:49:00.000-07:00

The problem of evil assumes the existence of a world-purpose. What, we are really asking, is the purpose of suffering? It seems purposeless. Our question of the why of evil assumes the view that the world has a purpose, and what we want to know is how suffering fits into and advances this purpose. The modern view is that suffering has no purpose because nothing that happens has any purpose: the world is run by causes, not by purposes.

— W. T. Stace (b. 1886), Religion and the Modern Mind [1953]

The Evolution of Creationism

2008-05-24T14:00:00.000-07:00

HT to Panda's Thumb for alerting me to a recent video produced by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) which summarizes their findings regarding the high school biology textbook Of Pandas and People. NCSE's research uncovers proof that this particular textbook was edited heavily (and just a little sloppily) in order to bypass the 1987 Supreme Court decision (Edwards v. Aguillard) that declared the unconstitutionality of teaching of creationism in public schools. If you think it's inconceivable that "intelligent design" equals "creationism," I don't think that word means what you think it means.

View the evidence for yourself:

Indiana Jones, Star Wars, ET, and the Origin of Sin

2008-05-23T22:46:00.000-07:00

If you've visitied this blog at any time over the past several months, you know I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan. When I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull last night, I was "as giddy as a school boy." It suffices to say, I was extremely impressed with all aspects of the movie, from the technical art of movie-making to the intriguing storyline to unforgettable performances. This blog post won't contain any major spoilers, but you can't help but take note of the movie's extra-terrestrial overtones, as it's central in both the title of the movie as well as the official movie poster.

So what does the latest Indiana Jones flick have to do with the creation/evolution debate? Plenty.

As reported by Catholic News Agency last week, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican's Observatory, told the Vatican daily newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that Catholic doctrine allowed for the belief in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. Fr. Funes, who tentatively believes in the Big Bang theory for lack of a "more complete and precise explanation of the origin of the universe," posits that the hypothesis that extraterrestrial life exists should not and cannot be discounted, especially when one considers the size of our universe. I agree with Fr. Funes.

Even when I was a young-earth creationist, I never fell for the common YEC argument that extraterrestrial life didn't exist soley because God's redemptive focus was on our blue and green ball alone. (Be sure to read Answers in Genesis' full response to the ET question, in which they claim that "the thrust of the biblical testimony [and] the purpose of creation is uniquely centred on this earth.") Maybe it was because I had been immersed in science fiction ("Star Trek," Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, "Battlestar Galactica," etc.) from an early age that I could theorize beyond my YEC shackles. Regardless of the intellectual contradiction, the question always simmered on my mind's backburner. After reading C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I began to think more seriously about the possibilities, both scientific and theological. Fr. Funes certainly has:

"I think there isn't [a contradiction]. Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there could be other beings, even intelligent [beings], created by God. This is not in contradiction with our faith, because we cannot establish limits to God's creative freedom. To say it with St. Francis, if we can consider some earthly creatures as 'brothers' or 'sisters', why could we not speak of a 'brother alien'? He would also belong to the creation."

What if? What if intelligent, self-aware beings existed on some distant star? Would God have made provisions for their salvation? Would the Logos have also humbled Himself by taking on alien flesh, ready to guide their civilization toward spiritual wholeness? Why not?

And what would alien scriptures look like? I'm sure they would read completely differently. God would have accomodated Himself to their history, their myths, their traditions, and demonstrate His love for them in a way that may be completely lost on us. This, of course, begs a completely different but intimately related question: Was there a Fall of Spock? Is an alien "fall" inevitable?

And this is where I disagree with Fr. Funes' assertion that "[the alien race] could have remained in full friendship with the Creator." Granted, we don't know how long it took for mankind to go from an guiltless covenantal state to one of estrangement from the Creator, but I'm not so sure that any finite being, however intelligent, could stay in God's good graces long. Last September, I pondered the origin of sin while finishing up a 19-novel Star Wars series titled "The New Jedi Order," which takes place 25-30 years after 1977's Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope. What is most unique about this series (and this novel in particular) is its emphasis on the nature of the Force, the philosophy of its use, and the origin of the dark side. The following extract from the hardcover version of Star Wars: The New Jedi Order—The Unifying Force (p. 268) features Jedi Master Luke Skywalker speaking with his nephew Jedi Knight Jacen Solo, son of Han Solo and Princess Leia:

"... the dark side is real, because evil actions are real. Sentience gave rise to the dark side. Does [the dark side] exist in nature? No. Left to itself, nature maintains the balance. But we've changed that. We [sentient beings] are a new order of consciousness that has an impact on all life. The Force now contains light and dark because of what thinking beings have brought to it. That's why balance has become something that must be maintained—because our actions have the power to tip the scales." [emphasis in original]

What do you think about the possibility of ETs, God's provision for their salvation (assuming intelligent ETs exist), and the true origin of sin?

(I was hoping to save questions like these for a special series on the theological ramifications of evolutionary creationism, but the timing of Fr. Funes interview and the release of the latest Indiana Jones flick was too tempting. I apologize for jumping the gun!)

R. C. Sproul: Young-Earth Creationist?

2008-05-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

R. C. Sproul, Sr., who was extremely influential in my break from futurist eschatology, appears to have finally taken a stance on creationism. Ironically, in interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, he abandons the historico-grammatical method that he utilized so well in examining portions of Scripture that deal with the Second Coming of Christ (see Sproul's The Last Days according to Jesus, as well as James Stuart Russell's The Parousia).

Read about it at Parchment and Pen and participate in the discussion!

Making (r)Evolutionary Waves in Creationist Ponds

2008-05-21T21:01:00.001-07:00

Steve Martin (Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution) has begun a multi-essay series written by some heavy hitters in the theistic evolution/evolutionary creationist movement. First up is "Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science" by Kansas State University geology professor Keith B. Miller, editor of Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Equally outstanding is the discussion that follows, which sparked Steve Douglas' thoughtful blog post at Undeception.

Gordon J. Glover, author of Beyond the Firmament, has been blogging on science and education, several posts of which contain outstanding historical anecdotes detailing the conflict between mankind's expanding knowledge base and faulty scriptural interpretive methods (i.e., hermeneutics). Check out the first one here and keep on reading!

Nonoverlapping Magisteria: Gould's NOMA Principle

2008-05-18T14:40:00.000-07:00

About the same time that I was introduced to the work of Howard J. Van Till, I was also introduced to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). I must confess that, until I read Gould's outstanding essay "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," I had never (and still have not) read a shred of Gould's other works. I plan to remedy that down the road.

Gould was not, by any means, a theist. However, Gould respected the role of religion—a role that had the potential of giving mankind a sense of purpose and providing human beings with a method by which we could make contextual sense of the world around us. These were facets of our existence to which science could not speak. Like Van Till, Gould believed that the scientific method and the various religio-philosophical pursuits provided appropriate answers to different questions regarding identical phenomena, both of which were equally valid ways of understanding the universe which need not conflict—as long as each discipline respected the other's domain.

Here are some highlights from Gould's essay that I find extremely profound:

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. [bold emphasis mine]

Thus, it stands to reason that any conflict between science and religion which arises does so from an overlap between their respective domains of expertise. Moreover, any existing overlap can have its origin in either domain. Gould continues:

No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria"). . . . The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry . . . . This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer. . . . NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance. NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. This mutual humility has important practical consequences in a world of such diverse passions. [bold emphasis mine]

It never occurred to me until reading Van Till and Gould that both science and religion had their limitations in regard to the questions that they were able to answer. While science could tell us how the cosmos evolved over the aeons since the Big Bang, only religion could posit a possible solution to the ultimate cause of the Big Bang. Science could seek to tell us what natural laws govern our universe, but only religion could posit Who created and sustains those laws, as well as provide mankind with possible answers regarding the "why" question that is begged by the cosmos' very existence. I felt at peace knowing that my faith and scientific observation needn't conflict with each other. I was now free to examine the scientific evidence for myself without being distracted by a misguided (albeit well-intentioned) "witch hunt" for contradictions between the two magisteria.

Since I began this blog, many have applauded me for finally reconciling my faith with the findings of science. In response, I tell them that I don't need the applause. The perception that a reconciliation was required is really a false one, for there was no real conflict to begin with. The only conflict that existed was a product of my own misunderstanding of both science and religion.

Having taken the "red pill," I was ready to see how far evolution's rabbit hole really went . . .

"Flunked Out" — A Review of Ben Stein's "Expelled"

2008-04-27T15:14:00.001-07:00

If I really wanted to let my sarcastic side loose, I wouldn't have added any words to my review of Ben Stein's propaganda tour-de-force Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed beyond those present in this post's title. But I'm not feeling so sarcastic today. In fact, I'm feeling quite angry.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I won two tickets to see Expelled. Being new to the area, I really didn't know who to take. By chance, I met JP, whose wife attends my wife's local bible study. Being the intelligent fellow JP seemed to be, I figured seeing Expelled would be right up his alley. Thankfully, I was right, and we had an excellent conversation on the merits and boundaries of both science and religion during yesterday's drive home from Salinas, where we viewed the movie. (Thank God it wasn't an IMAX. The director of photography loves closeups. Remember the "Seinfeld" episode about the mole?)

We both admitted that the movie was an extremely powerful piece of propaganda, regardless of the truthfulness or falsity of its claims. The liberal use of pre-color television, news, and motion picture clips were ingeniously interspersed throughout the movie in order to reinforce the charges that Expelled made, namely: (1) people from various industries have lost their jobs and sufferered humiliating ruination all because they "mentioned" Intelligent Design in the workplace, and (2) Darwinism is the beginning of a slippery slope into atheism and a philosophy of life that not only allows but encourages abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and other moral monstrosities, much like those (if not identical to) crimes against humanity conducted by mid-20th century Nazism and communism.

In regard to the first charge, I was naturally skeptical. One of my favorite rock bands of the 90s was Extreme, founded by former Van Halen lead singer Gary Cherone. As the band progressed through their four studio albums, Cherone's Christian faith made its presence known increasingly. Their third album was titled III Sides to Every Story (1992), which was was divided into three parts: "Yours," "Mine," and "The Truth," the last of which contained some of the most gorgeous statements of Davidic pleading and faith I've heard in modern music. But I digress. My point is that Ben Stein, et al, were not telling the whole story regarding the alleged dismissals of those Stein interviewed, and it appears that the interviewees took great pains to paint pictures of a vast atheistic conspiracy to target Christian scientists or teachers who believe in God by leaving out (conveniently, I might add) details that would change the story from "Mine" to "The Truth." ExpelledExposed.com provides more illuminating details on each of the six "victims."

Ironically, Expelled interviews two Christian theologians, Oxford's Alister McGrath and Cambridge's John Polkinghorne, both of whom haven't been "expelled" from their respective institutions for being strong believers in the Judeo-Christian God. Thus, it stands to reason that the truth behind the dismissals of Expelled's six case studies may very well be for reasons other than the mere belief in an Intelligent Designer. On the other hand, if they were in fact dismissed for pursuing scientific proof of Intelligent Design in their work (and/or not producing enough grants, published literature, etc.), I can understand why they should lose their jobs: Intelligent Design is not science, and no self-respecting scientific or academic institution should have to allow psuedo-science into the classroom and/or laboratory. In the words of the American Astronomical Society,

In recent years, advocates of “Intelligent Design” have proposed teaching “Intelligent Design” as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Has the Intelligent Design movement produced anything of scientific note? Anyone? Anyone?

The movie also makes the claim that scientists' attempts to discover a natural explanation for the origin of life on earth have come to a complete standstill since the failed experiments of the 1950s in which scientists applied electricity to a primordial soup in hopes that life would spontaneously arise. This can't be further from the truth, as scientists have recently made great leaps toward understanding what environmental conditions may have served as a cataylst for the origin of life. (No Lightning Allowed. Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Also disturbing was Stein's "guilt by association" sleight-of-hand, which linked Darwinism's allegedly logical ends and the horrific Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler's Nazi regime. Stein even quotes Darwin at length while touring the remnants of Germany's concentration camps, creating a powerful indictment of a brilliant man who harbored no such ill will toward any of his fellow man. But Stein's Darwin quote is selective, leaving out entire sentences in order to make Darwin sound like a card-carrying member of the Aryan race. To the contrary, if one were to read the passage in context and in full, it turns out that Darwin extolls the nobleness of the human race (having risen above its animal instincts) and depicts the elimination of the weak and helpless (like those conducted by Hitler's goon squads) as a supremely selfish act and an "overwhelming present evil." Shame on you, Ben Stein. Back of the line! No primordial soup for you!

And poor Richard Dawkins. If he only knew for what his interview was really intended. As much as I disagree with Dawkins' philosophy, I feel sorry for him and others (like PZ Meyers) who were hoodwinked into thinking their interviews were being filmed for an objective documentary. Does anyone know if Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne, both theistic evolutionists, knew that their interviews would be featured in Expelled? From the quotes used, I doubt anyone in the audience would have suspected that they are theistic evolutionists who, as far as I know, don't accept the precepts of the Intelligent Design movement.

You'd think that Expelled's deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, both in terms of movie production and presentation of the scientific evidence, would make me angry. Not so much. I wouldn't expect anything more from a fringe establishment trying to masquerade their faith as science. With such an entrenched paradigm, their actions don't surprise me. So what is making me angry? Honestly, it's the fact that one year ago I would have fallen for Stein's presentation—hook, line, and sinker. I'm also angry at how easily Christians fall for half-truths and outright lies. I'm angry at how often we Christians check our brains at the door and are perfectly willing to serve as messenger boys for the most outrageous urban legends, folk sciences, doctrines, and just plain idiotic belief systems. I'm angry at Christianity's penchant for dismissing the claims of biological and astronomical science despite the voluminous amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

Have you seen Expelled? What are your thoughts?

"Be-de, be-de, be-de, that's all folk science!"

2008-04-11T07:54:00.000-07:00

Faced with the scientific evidence of an old earth, as well as the literary evidence that Genesis 1 was intended as a combination creation "myth"/temple text, I found it much easier to understand how some Christians could reconcile the theory of evolution with their faith. I immediately recalled the name of Howard J. Van Till, whose theistic evolutionist contribution to Zondervan's Three Views on Creation and Evolution I never read because I dismissed it as an outrageously inconsistent position that was incompatible with the doctrine that the Bible, as God's inerrant word, is historically and scientifically accurate in regard to all topics upon which it touched. But I knew that I'd come across Van Till's name long before. I checked my personal library's creation/evolution section (still bursting at the seams with YEC literature and a smattering of OEC stuff from Hugh Ross), but couldn't find his name. Then I remembered: it was packed away in a box of books in the garage.

Over 20 years ago, my dad gave me Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism, written by Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young, and Clarence Menninga. (In retrospect, I'm pretty sure my dad wouldn't have agreed with the authors; I think he just wanted to give me a book that fit my interests.) Sadly, I didn't crack it open for two decades. But after having adopted Walton's ANE perspective, something urged me to unpack that box, dig out the book, and "pick up and read." Within a few short chapters, I was convinced of the book's core message: both creationists (of the young- and old-earth sort) and evolutionists (of the rabid atheistic sort—hence, the "-ism" in evolutionism) had presented us with a false dichotomy. As such, both atheistic evolutionism and special creationism victimized the public by demanding we choose one of two options: either (1) science can settle infallibly (or legitimately discard) questions of a philosophico-religious nature, or (2) religion can infallibly answer questions of a scientific nature.

Because both groups colluded (albeit unintentionally) to form this false dichotomy, Van Till, et al, considered both groups to be "folk science." In "FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT: The Road Less Traveled", Van Till writes:

. . . a 'folk-science' is a set of beliefs about the natural world—beliefs that need not be derived from, or even consistent with, the natural sciences—beliefs whose primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that the rest of one’s worldview is OK.

Thus, both atheistic materialism and special creationism derived their distinctive beliefs based not on established methods of scientific inquiry, but rather on their worldview.

Now I was getting somewhere! Nevertheless, I wasn't yet convinced that naturalistic evolution was the answer. So, for an extremely short season, I clung to the idea that science could prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer, whose nature is unarguably, well, "super," for lack of a better descriptor. Jumping on the Intelligent Design (ID) bandwagon would allow me to accept common descent to some degree while refusing to admit evolution to be the sole mechanism by which God created, especially when it came to the creation of the human race and the infusion of the soul. There was a part of me, like Dr. John Walton, that wanted to retain one or more historical anchors in the Genesis 2-3 narrative.

But Van Till continued to haunt me. Although Science Held Hostage was written well before the advent of the ID movement, I soon came to the conclusion that ID was committing the same "sins" as the YEC movement and that ID methodology didn't serve the advancement of scientific knowledge. In fact, ID's presuppositions appeared to serve the advancement of scientific agnosticism in principle, if not in practice. It appeared that the ID movement was willing to throw its hands up, lock the laboratory doors, and no longer explore possibilities or test theories beyond what they declared to be "irreducibly complex." Heck, if past generations had settled for that kind of answer, we'd still be a geocentric society with a fear of traveling beyond the sight of land.

The illusion of "irreducible complexity" isn't as unassailable as ID proponents would want the public to believe. As much as I sympathized with the ID movement in its quest to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer via the scientific method, thus explaining "knowledge gaps" as evidence of divine creative activity and supernatural tampering, the core of my being didn't want any part of that. Did I really want to be caught holding the ID bag when scientists declared that something previously thought "irreducibly complex" by ID proponents was, in fact, "reducibly complex"? Of course not.

Van Till's aforementioned essay "FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT" essentially updates the core of Science Held Hostage's message to take ID into account:

Similarly, the concept of Intelligent Design functions today as the folk-science of a large portion of the broader Evangelical Protestant population in North America. A fundamental tenet of ID’s folk-science is that the system of natural causes fails to include the formational capabilities needed for assembling certain complex biotic structures, such as the bacterial flagellum. If natural causes are inadequate, then the form-imposing intervention of some non-natural Intelligent Designer must have been essential (wink, wink, we don’t say who the Designer is, but you know who we mean). And if supernatural (power over nature) intervention was necessary for the formation of rotary motors on E. coli bacteria, then there is nothing standing in the way of Evangelicals maintaining their conviction that God could have performed all of the other supernatural acts portrayed in the Bible.

And so it was that, once confronted with the scientific, literary, and philosophical evidence, I abandoned my support of the YEC/OEC/ID movements and moved (quite happily, I might add) toward my current evolutionary creationist position.

But, how then, could I continue to be a theist? If the scientific method was inadequate for proving that God created the universe, what leg did I have to stand on? Enter an unlikely bedfellow: Stephen Jay Gould.

Genesis Destroyed by Exegesis So-Called?

2008-04-11T07:46:00.000-07:00

Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible's own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history.

— Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), Death in the City [1969]

From Creationist to Evolutionist - Chris Tilling's Story

2008-04-07T20:55:00.000-07:00

I know Van Till was supposed to be the subject of my next post, but this link was too good to pass up! Chris Tilling, at his Chrisendom blog, tells his own creationist-to-evolutionist story, albeit in a much more succinct way than I have.

[HT: Exploring Our Matrix's James F. McGrath]

D'Souza: "The Failure of "Intelligent Design"

2008-04-07T07:12:00.000-07:00

Dinesh D'Souza, whose conservative political commentary I'm more familiar, has written an excellent article on the reasons behind the failure of Intelligent Design to become an accepted scientific alternative to Darwinism. As a Christian, D'Souza is sympathetic to the ID cause; at the same time, however, he also recognizes that its methodology is unsound and its target really should be the atheistic agenda of some atheistic Darwinists (e.g., Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris), not the fact of evolution and/or the theories of its mechanisms.

Although D'Souza doesn't use the term "folk science" to describe "atheism masquerading as science," Howard J. Van Till does. And Van Till's early work is the focus of my next post. For now, I'd like responses to this post to focus purely on D'Souza's article.

UPDATE: HT to Steve Martin via Undeception's Steve Douglas for finding atheist PZ Meyers' critique of D'Souza's claim that evolution is being taught in an atheistic manner. I applaud D'Souza's on-the-money critique of ID, but I certainly don't appreciate his over-exaggeration of the facts (if, in fact, he is exaggerating) in order to make his point. False claims in service of the truth certainly don't help people act objectively.

Questions for Answers in Genesis #2

2008-04-06T19:57:00.000-07:00

I haven't posed questions to Answers in Genesis for a while now, so I suppose the second installment of "Questions for Answers in Genesis" is long overdue. Let the inquest begin!

From AiG's "Answers Weekly" (26 Jan 08):

One of the most frequently asked questions posed by Christians and skeptics alike concerns how Noah could fit all the animals on the Ark. Secular evolutionists mock those of us who take the account of the Ark and a global Flood as literal history. They claim Noah couldn’t have fit the supposed millions of animals needed on board.But a little research shows clearly that Noah didn’t need millions of animals. Only representatives of each kind of land-dwelling and air-breathing animal were needed. Creationists have shown that there can be many different species within each kind—for example, dingoes, wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs all of these belong to the same kind.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, AiG is positing that speciation since the Flood (ca. 2500 BC) occured a rate faster than even naturalistic evolutionary theory would suggest! Just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding AiG, I did a quick Google search and found this on AiG's website:

... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

Wow. So why do creationists have such a hang-up over the agonizingly slow rate of evolution (as theorized by mainstream scientists) over the past 3.7 billion years? AiG goes on to say, "But this speciation is within the 'kind,' and involves no new genetic information." No new genetic information? Can this be proven?

From 16 Feb 08:

Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.

Amen and amen! I'm surprised Ken Ham isn't an evolutionist! (Of the theistic type, of course.) But then AiG had to say this:

Evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived.

How is accepting a "biblical" principle while simultaneously denying the Bible's divine origin inconsistent? (By the way, I'm curious to know where in the Bible it states this scientific principle of "uniformity." Bueller? Bueller?) Even as a YEC, I knew better than to use this kind of strawman argument.

Until next time ...

I'm Going to Get Expelled!

2008-04-05T18:51:00.001-07:00

This afternoon, I won two tickets to see Ben Stein's propaganda tour-de-force Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the much-touted response to atheistic naturalism by the Intelligent Design community. (Of course, the ID community refuses—out of fear, I might add—to acknowledge that Darwinism and/or naturalistic evolution isn't inherently atheistic, but I digress ...) So it is that, the weekend of 18 April, I'll be traveling up to a theater in Salinas (about 25 minutes from Monterey) to attend the show, after which I'll jot down my thoughts on the movie and post them here.

If you've just won two tickets to the movie and you believe that evolution is scientific fact (and not just a theory), would you merely walk in the door, watch the show, and walk out again? Or would you attempt to present your viewpoint to any in the audience willing to listen? If so, how?

Arguments I Think Creationists from Answers in Genesis (AiG) SHOULD Use

2008-04-04T17:04:00.000-07:00

As every Internet surfer does on occasion, you start out researching one thing and end up in a completely unexpected location. This time, I ended up at Answers in Genesis' (Aig) webpage titled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use." (Don't ask how I got from searching birth records of my relatives to searching for the birth record of our planet.)

Under the heading "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable, to use?" is the argument that reads: "There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible." Oddly enough, I completely agree with their advisement! Here's AiG's response to this argument (the most important part of which I've bolded in red):

We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages if the original readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about the gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might—that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster, which is what it looks like, while God created Orion as a well spread-out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal, but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.

Excuse me while I clean up the milk that just poured out my nose ...

Why Do You Believe in [fill in the blank]?

2008-04-03T21:21:00.000-07:00

I came across this quote today (attributed to Chicago Sun-Times journalist Sydney J. Harris) while reading Howard J. Van Till's "FROM CALVINISM TO FREETHOUGHT: The Road Less Traveled":

“It is impossible to reason a man out of something he has not been reasoned into. When people have acquired their beliefs on an emotional level, they cannot be persuaded out of them on a rational level, no matter how strong the proof or logic behind it. People will hold onto their emotional beliefs and twist the facts to meet their version of reality.”
Why do you believe in evolutionism, special creationism, atheism, or [fill in the blank]? Did you come to believe it through a reasoning process, or do you admit that you have (or may have) an emotional attachment to it that's stronger than your intellect? Heck, is that even a fair question?

From the Ministry of Science Propaganda

2008-04-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

I don't know who produced it and why, but I think this video has the potential of being "claimed" by numerous players in the origins debate. What do you think?

Dr. John D. Morris Rejects Young-Earth Creationism

2008-04-01T16:00:00.000-07:00

Having gone through several radical paradigm shifts myself in recent years, when I hear of others converting from one lifelong-held position to a fundamentally different position 180º out from where they began, it doesn't really surprise me anymore. What surprises me is when certain personalities abandon a position that served as their "bread and butter" for decades. What surprises me is when certain personalities risk everything for what they believe to be the truth. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

So imagine my surprise when I came across yesterday's news of John D. Morris' public rejection of young-earth creationism. Knowing John to be the son of the late Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, I just about blew a gasket. If true, a (scientifico-)theological event of this magnitude would be akin to Tim LaHaye rejecting his pre-tribulational rapturism for full preterism! Although I applaud John Morris' bravery (he'll certainly get an earfull from his peers at ICR), I certainly don't agree with the position that he's decided to embrace: progressive creationism.

In his statement, Morris revealed that "about four years ago, I began to have fundamental doubts about the validity of the scientific methods ICR was using to achieve their data and support the presupposed conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth no more than 10,000 years ago." At the same time, Morris began to dialogue privately with Reasons to Believe founder Hugh Ross, all the while keeping his father and ICR in the dark. "It was out of respect for my father and his legacy that I chose not to reveal my doubts at that time. But now, two years after his passing [in February 2006], enough time has elapsed that I feel comfortable announcing my resignation [as ICR President]." Meanwhile, John Morris has tentatively accepted a position at Reasons to Believe in a yet-to-be-announced role. Given ICR's dedication to a literal hermeneutic (as opposed to utilizing the more scholarly historico-grammatical method), it's not surprising that Morris felt comfortable with RTB's concordist approach to Genesis 1. That being said, it would take one of Miracle Max's chocolate-coated horse pills to turn Morris into a theistic evolutionist.

Not unexpectedly, Henry M. Morris III (older brother to John) will serve as acting President of ICR in addition to his current duties as CEO until such time as the organization's board elects a new president. John Morris' "defection" will, of course, have a major impact on the organization's morale as ICR completes its move from San Diego to its new headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

You can read the entirety of John Morris' RTB-hosted statement here.

Help Me, Obi-Wan Kenobi! #3

2008-03-23T22:50:00.000-07:00

The move from San Diego to Monterey is going as well as can be expected. (Thoughts of how to downsize my library to avoid excess weight charges during next year's move to Tampa still preoccupy my mind.) God has blessed us with a new, 4-bedroom home (which means I get to have dedicated office space), but the current tenants have not yet moved out, and won't do so until the first week of April. In the meantime, our family of 5 (plus a dog) are stuck in the local Navy Lodge, which doesn't even compare with your typical hotel. The wireless Internet access is lousy (and you have to pay for it), the furniture is substandard, the "fully equipped" kitchenette isn't, and the cable TV doesn't even feature ABC programming! (I really wanted to see that deaf actress dance!) I just have to keep reminding myself that God's blessed us with a home, which just happened to be the only one available prior to the start of my Persian Farsi classes in mid-April. But I digress ... yet another call for help is the real reason for this particular post.

This evening, I installed AOL Desktop (version 10.0) because of functionality issues relating to AOL 9.1, SpyBot, and McAfee. In the process, AOL (which my wife enjoys using) imported all of my IE favorites into AOL. Not really wanting them there, I began to delete them from the AOL Favorites list. First category to go was "Bible Resources," a fairly large list of favorites that I had compiled over a 3-year period since I purchased my laptop. Then the "Blogs" folder. Then, a pit began to form in my stomach as I wondered if I was also deleting the same links in my IE favorites folder. Sadly, a quick check of my IE browser revealed that Murphy's Law went into full effect while I was deleting the favorites from AOL. Alas, now I must reconstitute my "Bible Resources" favorites, which is a near-impossibility. (BTW, System Restore doesn't restore deleted files, and you can't find them in your Recycle Bin.) Oh, well. Worse things have happened. At least now I can be more discerning in procuring new favorites.

Any great theological and/or scientific links out there that you find indispensable?