Kruse Kronicle

This animated map shows how humans migrated across the globe

Saturday Links

Today is the day our advanced technological culture turns to a cute furry rodent in Pennsylvania for a weather forecast. (The only thing a groundhog foretells in my yard is that I'm probably going to need some new landscaping.) Happy Groundhog Day!

1. Strategic Planning and the "Vision Thing" -- Fire, Not Fluff.

"In the course of our strategic planning work with clients, we've identified the things that make the difference between visions that fall flat and those that turn on. Here's a no-nonsense summary of those elements that you can use as a guide when you develop your strategic plan."

2. Some good thoughts on strategies we should all consider in trying to address controversial issues. Five simple lessons from Shane Windmeyer’s friendship with Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy

3. Anticipating a move? Here's Everything You Should Consider Before Moving To A New City

4. Jordan Ballor has some thoughts on subsidiarity at Political Theology. Subsidiarity ‘From Below’

"In this way a conception of subsidiarity “from below” is focused on the location of sovereignty from the “bottom up” rather than on the delegation of authority from the “top down.” We see these variegated approaches to subsidiarity and sovereignty work out in diverse ways in later centuries. It is with these different lenses of subsidiarity “from above” and “from below” that we can better understand the developments of the Roman Catholic principle of subsidiarity as such and the neo-Calvinist articulation of “sphere sovereignty” in the late nineteenth century and beyond."

5. Business Insider offers 21 Surprising Facts About Illegal Immigration.

6. Sarah Posner has an interesting piece. ‘New Evangelical’-Progressive Alliance? Not So Fast

"Pally’s essay is framed around the thesis that these evangelicals have “left the right.” But left it for what? What she describes is really another vision of conservatism: church-based charity in lieu of a government safety net; exemptions from government regulation for religious groups; federal funding of religious activities; and persistent sexual puritanism. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say they’ve left the radical right and are in the process of creating a new religious right, stripped of harsh rhetoric but still undergirded by conservative ideology. Which is a movement worth chronicling, but not, as Pally intimates, as the new saviors of civility in our religiously-inflected politics."

7. What has the iPad meant to Apple? A picture says a thousand words. A decade of Apple 'computer' sales

8. Extinction of millions of species 'greatly exaggerated'

"In the past scientists have warned that up to five per cent of species are at risk of dying-out as a result of climate change, deforestation and development.

But a new analysis by the University of New Zealand found that this figure was five times greater than reality because the number of animals living in the wild in the first place had been over estimated."

9. Turns out once culprit in species extinction may be curled up in your lap. Cats Are Ruthless Killers. Should They Be Killed?

10. I've written before that fear is not an effective motivator for long term change. This is particularly true for some climate change and environmental activism. You need to make new behaviors fun and engaging. WWF appears to have taken this strategy to heart. (Hard to go wrong with anthropomorphized critters but maybe they should consider the article immediately above.)

11. The evolutionary plot thickens. Who Was the First Human Ancestor?

From the time of Charles Darwin science has painted a picture of our earliest ancestor in the image of a chimpanzee. Scientific American editor Katherine Harmon explains how new fossil evidence is redrawing the lines of human evolution.

Actually, I think we already know who our first ancestor was.

12. For the most part (with a few exceptions), when it comes to movies, if you can't tell your story in less than two hours, then I think you didn't edit the movie well. Hollywood would apparently beg to differ. Why Movies Today Are Longer Than Ever Before

"The average of the highest-grossing films from 20 years ago is 118.4 minutes compared to this year's 141.6 minutes."

13. More interesting findings early civilization in the Americas. Research Confirms Massive Louisiana Mound Was Built By Archaic Native Americans In Less Than 90 Days.

14. Melissa and I love history and we have always loved old cemeteries. This story makes me sad. Black history dies in neglected Southern cemeteries

15. Okay purists, Rule Change Eliminates a Fake Pickoff. Pitchers will no longer be able to fake a throw to third before throwing to another base. Good idea or bad?

Saturday Links

Here are the links. BTW, if you haven't already, you can "like" the Kruse Kronicle Facebook page and see daily links in your Facebook feed.

1. When I was a kid, I used to watch Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom on Saturdays. That was the beginning of my life-long appreciation for big cats. One of the organizations we support is the Turperntine Creek Wildlife Refuge for big cats in Arkansas. Check out this Nat Geo super slo-mo video of a running cheetah. Be sure to go to minute 5:00, and see him from the front. His head barely moves. Just amazing!

Cheetahs on the Edge--Director's Cut from Gregory Wilson on Vimeo.

2. Good news! Charitable giving increased slightly in 2011

3. Counting sheep not putting you to sleep? Eat These Foods For A Better Night's Sleep

4. Tiny Swarming Robots Play Beethoven.

5. Just a reminder. That Ebook you bought? You don't own it. That Barnes & Noble Ebook is Only Yours Until Your Credit Card Expires

6. Speaking of books, how about a Book-Scanning Robot Reads 250 Pages Per Minute?

7. If you are a man, getting along with the in-laws means you have 20% higher chance of not getting divorced. If you are a woman, getting along well the in-laws makes you 20% more likely to get divorced. Getting Along With The In-Laws Makes Women More Likely To Divorce

8. Could the first billion dollar athlete be less than a decade away? Why the World's First Billion-Dollar Athlete Is Just a Few Years Away

9. A business icon died this week. Motivational speaker Zig Ziglar dies at age 86.

10. This was pretty cool. An Inspiring Story Of A Grocery Store Owner Who Gave His Business To Employees

11. One of the challenges of colonizing the moon or Mars is all the supplies you would need to bring along to construct a habitat. 3D-printing may help solve that problem. 3D printer on moon or Mars could make tools from local rocks

12. Give us this day our monthly bread? "American company has developed a technique that it says can make bread stay mould-free for 60 days." Bread that lasts for 60 days could cut food waste

13. The Next Web has an interesting piece on the history of 3d-Printing. The Rise of 3D Printing

14. Supreme Court to Decide if Human Genes Are Patentable

"The Supreme Court announced Friday it would review a case testing whether human genes may be patented, in a dispute weighing patents associated with human genes known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer. A 2009 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union claimed among other things the First Amendment is at stake because the patents are so broad they bar scientists from examining and comparing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes at the center of the dispute. In short, the patents issued more than a decade ago cover any new scientific methods of looking at these human genes that might be developed by others."

I am guessing there are some bioethics questions to consider here as well. ;-)

15. 4.5 billion years of the earth's evolution in as if it happened in 24 hours.

16. The Real Story on the Falling U.S. Birth Rate

"The Pew Research Center announced Nov. 29 that the U.S. birth rate fell to its lowest level since at least 1920, when reliable record-keeping began. That was true—but not news. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that way back on Oct. 3.

What was news was Pew’s analysis of the government data, which showed that the birth rate decline was greatest among immigrant women. “We were the first to point that out,” Gretchen Livingston, the lead author of Pew’s report, said in an interview. ..."

17. Small-business optimism is tanking. Gallup

18. Also from Gallup. As it turns out, maybe Democrats really are socialists.

19. What's Driving Evangelical Enthusiasm?

"Data shows growing Catholic-evangelical "intensity gap"—but it doesn't indicate exactly why. ...

... New research shows that Catholics now report the lowest proportion of "strongly affiliated" followers among major American religious traditions, while the data indicates that evangelicals are increasingly devout and committed to their faith.

According to Philip Schwadel, a sociologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in the 1970s there was only a five-point difference between how strongly Catholics and evangelicals felt about their religion.

By 2010, he said, that "intensity gap" had grown to around 20 points, with some 56 percent of evangelicals describing themselves as "strongly affiliated" with their religion compared with 35 percent of Catholics. Even mainline Protestants reported a higher level of religious intensity than Catholics, at 39 percent. ..."

20. For Amish, fastest-growing faith group in US, life is changing.

"Indeed, for America’s Amish, much is changing. The Amish are, by one measure, the fastest-growing faith community in the US. Yet as their numbers grow, the land available to support the agrarian lifestyle that underpins their faith is shrinking, gobbled up by the encroachment of exurban mansions and their multidoor garages.

The result is, in some ways, a gradual redefinition of what it means to be Amish. Some in the younger generation are looking for new ways to make a living on smaller and smaller slices of land. Others are looking beyond the Amish heartland of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, seeking more space in states such as Texas, Maine, and Montana."

21. Finally, one of the things I found interesting about the presidential election was Team Romney's seeming confidence they were winning. I think every candidate who is losing often tries to spin things positively until the very end but I had the sense that Team Romney wasn't faking it. They believed they were winning. I think post-election analysis is revealing that was true. From The New Repbulic The Internal Polls That Made Mitt Romney Think He'd Win

The State of Evolution (Infographic)

BioLogos Forum: The State of Evolution (Infographic)

One thing I noticed as I looked at the map was how it compares with red vs. blue state breakdowns. Red states are supposed to be anti-science Republicans while blue states are supposed to fully embrace it. Yet red states like Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, and Louisiana get B grades while Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts get Ds. Interesting.

Primal Roots of Relative Deprivation?

Atlantic: Income Inequality Enrages Monkey

Many humans have highly developed senses of fairness and morality. Some monkeys may not be far behind. Watch as one gets cucumbers and the other gets delicious, delicious grapes.

The author says that income inequality tends to makes us unhappy. That needs qualifiaction. The degree of national inequality is not that relevant to personal happiness. People don't evaluate their personal lives in those terms. Inequality figures in when we are talking about people in our immediate socal networks, especially neighbors and family. As some have quipped, inequality is when my brother-in-law makes 10% more than I do.

Once More, With Feeling: Adam, Evolution and Evangelicals (Peter Enns)

Huffington Post: Once More, With Feeling: Adam, Evolution and Evangelicals

... Evangelicals look to the Bible to settle important questions of faith. So, faced with a potentially faith-crushing idea like evolution, evangelicals naturally ask right off the bat, "What does the Bible say about that?" And then informed by "what the Bible says," they are ready to make a "biblical" judgment.

This is fine in principle, but in the evolution debate this mindset is a problem: It assumes that the Adam and Eve story is about "human origins." It isn't. And as long as evangelicals continue to assume that it does, the conflict between the Bible and evolution is guaranteed.

Since the 19th century, through scads of archaeological discoveries from the ancient world of the Bible, biblical scholars have gotten a pretty good handle on what ancient creation stories were designed to do.

Ancient peoples assumed that somewhere in the distant past, near the beginning of time, the gods made the first humans from scratch -- an understandable conclusion to draw. They wrote stories about "the beginning," however, not to lecture their people on the abstract question "Where do humans come from?" They were storytellers, drawing on cultural traditions, writing about the religious -- and often political -- beliefs of the people of their own time.

Their creation stories were more like a warm-up to get to the main event: them. Their stories were all about who they were, where they came from, what their gods thought of them and, therefore, what made them better than other peoples.

Likewise, Israel's story was written to say something about their place in the world and the God they worshiped. To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic. And to read the story of Adam and Eve as if it were set up to so such a thing is simply wrongheaded.

Reading the biblical story against its ancient backdrop is hardly a news flash, and most evangelical biblical scholars easily concede the point. But for some reason this piece of information has not filtered down to where it is needed most: into the mainstream evangelical consciousness. Once it does, evangelicals will see for themselves that dragging the Adam and Eve story into the evolution discussion is as misguided as using the stories of Israel's monarchy to rank the Republican presidential nominees.

Evangelicals tend to focus on how to protect the Bible against the attacks of evolution. The real challenge before them is to reorient their expectation of what the story of Adam and Eve is actually prepared to deliver. ...

I love Enns ... even if he is a diehard Yankee fan. (Just shows that even great minds have been corupted by sin. ;-) )

Technology Advances; Humans Supersize

New York Times: Technology Advances; Humans Supersize

For nearly three decades, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert W. Fogel and a small clutch of colleagues have assiduously researched what the size and shape of the human body say about economic and social changes throughout history, and vice versa. Their research has spawned not only a new branch of historical study but also a provocative theory that technology has sped human evolution in an unprecedented way during the past century.

Next month Cambridge University Press will publish the capstone of this inquiry, “The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World Since 1700,” just a few weeks shy of Mr. Fogel’s 85th birthday. The book, which sums up the work of dozens of researchers on one of the most ambitious projects undertaken in economic history, is sure to renew debates over Mr. Fogel’s groundbreaking theories about what some regard as the most significant development in humanity’s long history.

Mr. Fogel and his co-authors, Roderick Floud, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, maintain that “in most if not quite all parts of the world, the size, shape and longevity of the human body have changed more substantially, and much more rapidly, during the past three centuries than over many previous millennia.” What’s more, they write, this alteration has come about within a time frame that is “minutely short by the standards of Darwinian evolution.”

“The rate of technological and human physiological change in the 20th century has been remarkable,” Mr. Fogel said in an telephone interview from Chicago, where he is the director of the Center for Population Economics at the University of Chicago’s business school. “Beyond that, a synergy between the improved technology and physiology is more than the simple addition of the two.”

This “technophysio evolution,” powered by advances in food production and public health, has so outpaced traditional evolution, the authors argue, that people today stand apart not just from every other species, but from all previous generations of Homo sapiens as well.

 “I don’t know that there is a bigger story in human history than the improvements in health, which include height, weight, disability and longevity,” said Samuel H. Preston, one of the world’s leading demographers and a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Without the 20th century’s improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine, only half of the current American population would be alive today, he said. ...

On a side note, there is an interesting aspect to this evolution. Ask yourself "What height do you have to be to be tall?" For an American male living today, I'm just about average at 5'11." But 150 years I would be tall. Though being taller than than my great-great-grandfathers, do I experience myself as tall? No. Because while I'm taller than my ancestors, so is everyone else taller than their ancestors. I experience myself as average just as most of my ancestors did but my objective quality of tallness most certainly has improved (assuming taller is better, as implicated here.)

The same problem applies to poverty. The poor in America are substantially better off in absolute terms than even many of the well-to-do of three generations ago but they see no improvement in comparison to their contemporaries. And this is one of the oddities about economic development. Observers correctly note the economic growth does not increase the overall happiness of society (once a certain minimal threshold is passed). That is because people do not experience a change in their realtive positions. But these observers incorrectly conclude that economic development is not making life better for members of society. Witness the findings of Fogel, et al, about techno-physio evolution. Despite not making people happier, economic growth does considerably improve people's lives over time.

On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

New York Times: On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

Teaching creationism in public schools has consistently been ruled unconstitutional in federal courts, but according to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, it continues to flourish in the nation’s classrooms.

Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.

That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise.

The survey, published in the Jan. 28 issue of Science, found that some avoid intellectual commitment by explaining that they teach evolution only because state examinations require it, and that students do not need to “believe” in it. Others treat evolution as if it applied only on a molecular level, avoiding any discussion of the evolution of species. And a large number claim that students are free to choose evolution or creationism based on their own beliefs. ...

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

Science Daily: First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

ScienceDaily (May 17, 2010) — More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained beyond the scope of a formal test. Now, a Brandeis biochemist reports in Nature the results of the first large scale, quantitative test of the famous theory that underpins modern evolutionary biology. ...

... Harnessing powerful computational tools and applying Bayesian statistics, Theobald found that the evidence overwhelmingly supports UCA, regardless of horizontal gene transfer or multiple origins of life. Theobald said UCA is millions of times more probable than any theory of multiple independent ancestries.

"There have been major advances in biology over the last decade, with our ability to test Darwin's theory in a way never before possible," said Theobald. "The number of genetic sequences of individual organisms doubles every three years, and our computational power is much stronger now than it was even a few years ago."

While other scientists have previously examined common ancestry more narrowly, for example, among only vertebrates, Theobald is the first to formally test Darwin's theory across all three domains of life. The three domains include diverse life forms such as the Eukarya (organisms, including humans, yeast, and plants, whose cells have a DNA-containing nucleus) as well as Bacteria and Archaea (two distinct groups of unicellular microorganisms whose DNA floats around in the cell instead of in a nucleus). ...

RTS, Bruce Waltke, and Statements (and Non-Statements) of Faith

John Stackhouse: RTS, Bruce Waltke, and Statements (and Non-Statements) of Faith

Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) has dismissed  Dr. Bruce Waltke because he recently stated publicly two radical convictions: (1) that a Bible-believing Christian could believe in evolution; and (2) that the church needs to beware of becoming a cultural laughingstock for retaining anti-evolutionary views that cannot be supported scientifically.

What’s pathetic about this action is that those points weren’t even radical in the nineteenth century, when Darwin himself had a number of orthodox defenders. So RTS apparently is not quite ready to catch up with almost two centuries of theology/science dialogue. ...

People sometimes ask me how I can stay with the PCUSA in light of views I have on certain issues. And there is no question that there is a lot of squirrely stuff going on with my tribe. But if you want reasons for why I don't look to more conservative denominations, here is a one prime example. Unbelievable.

X Woman: Not human, not Neanderthal, what is she?

Christian Science Monitor: X Woman: Not human, not Neanderthal, what is she?

Scientists have found evidence of what might be a 'new creature' that is neither Neanderthal nor human. X Woman could revise theories about human ancestors and when they left Africa.

A mystery female known as X Woman may add a new chapter to the story of human ancestors leaving Africa to inhabit much of the planet.

Genetic material from a pinkie bone discovered two years ago in Siberia is challenging scientists' understanding of when humans and their evolutionary brethren left Africa, and whether a distinct and previously unknown species might have existed.

Researchers estimate the age of the pinkie bone to be between 30,000 and 48,000 years old. At that time, Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans also lived in that region of Siberia, deep in the Altai Mountains.

But to the researchers' surprise, the bone's genetic signature contained many distinct features compared with those of the remains of Neanderthals or modern humans. Indeed, the team's DNA analysis suggested that the bone came from line of so-called hominins that last shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and modern humans about 1 million years ago. The team dubbed this potential common ancestor X Woman.

By contrast, Neanderthals and modern humans last shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago, anthropologists say – making X Woman about twice as distant from humans on the evolutionary tree as from Neanderthals.

"This was absolutely amazing," says team member Svante Paabo, with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. Whoever this was that left "Africa 1 million years ago is some new creature that has not been on our radar screen so far." ...

Staying Faithful to Genesis 1

Richard Mouw: Staying Faithful to Genesis 1

... I don’t mean to be flippant about the issues. How we understand the Bible’s authority in all areas of life, including scientific investigation, is a supremely imporant topic. But on these particular issues, the notion of staying faithful to the orthodoxy of the past simply does not ring true. The fact is that those defending a “literal” Genesis on age-of-the-earth issues are more rigid than those 19th century stalwarts—Hodge, Warfield, Kuyper, Bavinck—whose theological formulations they typically hold up as the benchmarks of Reformed orthodoxy.

While I was reviewing the discussions of the present-day controversies, I came across a report of a survey of preachers about how they treat the first chapter of Genesis. The findings were instructive. It turns out that pastors who take a more literal approach to the creation account  preach on it much less than those who do not hold to a literal interpretation. There is a lesson there. The literalists hold to a “scientifically accurate” Genesis 1 in which, it turns out, they can’t really find much to preach about. ...

The End of Intelligent Design?

First Things: The End of Intelligent Design? 

It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.

Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.

The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID. ...

Great article.

Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin

(I blogged about this several days ago but wanted to give my readers a reminder.)

The Pastor's Monthly Roundtable at Princeton well be hosting a free webinar on Feb 8 called:

Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin

"February's "PMR" lecture is titled "Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin" and will ask the question: If we take human evolution seriously, and can no longer appeal to an historical Fall and the accompanying idea of Original Sin, then what is human sin and where does come from?

Kenneth A. Reynhout is a Ph.D. candidate in Theology and Science at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he is working on a dissertation on Paul Ricoeur’s importance for interdisciplinary theology. Mr. Reynhout is a Co-Director of the Science for Ministry Institute."

Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin

The Pastor's Monthly Roundtable at Princeton well be hosting a free webinar on Feb 8 called:

Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin

"February's "PMR" lecture is titled "Darwin Made Me Do It: Evolution and the Doctrine of Sin" and will ask the question: If we take human evolution seriously, and can no longer appeal to an historical Fall and the accompanying idea of Original Sin, then what is human sin and where does come from?

Kenneth A. Reynhout is a Ph.D. candidate in Theology and Science at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he is working on a dissertation on Paul Ricoeur’s importance for interdisciplinary theology. Mr. Reynhout is a Co-Director of the Science for Ministry Institute."

One Hundred and Fifty Years...and Counting

Science and the Sacred: One Hundred and Fifty Years...and Counting

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. ...

RJS over at Jesus Creed also has a post about this post.

Darwin debate rages on 150 years after "Origin"

Reuters: Darwin debate rages on 150 years after "Origin"

PARIS/LONDON (Reuters) - Even 150 years after it first appeared in print, Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" still fuels clashes between scientists convinced of its truth and critics who reject its view of life without a creator.

This "Darwin Year" -- so named because February 12 was the 200th anniversary of the British naturalist's birth and November 24 the 150th anniversary of his book -- has seen a flood of books, articles and conferences debating his theory of evolution.

While many covered well-trodden ground, some have taken new paths. But no consensus is in sight, probably because Darwinian evolution is both a powerful scientific theory describing how life forms develop through natural selection and a basis for philosophies and social views that often include atheism.

"People are encountering and rejecting evolution not so much as a science but as a philosophy," Nick Spencer, director of studies at the public theology think-tank Theos in London, told Reuters.

"Today's most eloquent Darwinians often associate evolution with atheism ... amorality (and) the idea there is no design or purpose in the universe."

He said many people had embraced anti-evolution views in the United States and Britain in recent decades "not so much because they are rejecting evolution as a science, although that is often how that sentiment is articulated, but because they're rejecting it as a philosophy about life."

"It's quite possible to be an evolutionist and not to hold that philosophy about life, to be an evolutionist and still believe in God and purpose and design," he said. ...

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

Wired: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches. ...

"The Lost World of Genesis One" - Book Review

What to make of Genesis 1? I’ve never considered the chapter to be a straightforward historical account of creation. To the degree that the passage is about historical events, it had to be an accommodation to a pre-scientific culture … as evidenced by passages like verses 6-8. But maybe the passage … taking into the cultural accommodation … still concords with what we know about the scientific record. The general sequence of events is remarkably similar to the order in which scientist understand the world to have developed. This concordist view has been persistently championed by Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. I’ve read several of his books and find much of his analysis intriguing, but several aspects of his theories are just too big of a stretch. Then, of course, it is entirely possible that the passage doesn’t have correspondence with historical events. It is a literary device to communicate some basic theological truths about origins but little more (i.e., Framework Hypothesis). This is probably the most commonly held view by many within my Mainline PCUSA world. This has always seemed a real possibility to me but I haven’t been able to shake the sense that there was something more going on with this passage than the crafting of great literature. In short, I’ve never been able to find a key that satisfactorily makes sense of the Genesis 1 … until now.

I’ve just finished reading John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and an expert in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) culture (a topic I’ve been trying to better acquaint myself with in recent years.) Walton points out that there was no distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” in the ANE. The cosmos was run by the gods and not natural laws. This is significant for ontology … the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being. Walton proposes that post-Enlightenment folks like us are heavily disposed to think in terms of “material ontology” while the ancients thought in terms of “functional ontology.”

Walton asks to consider a chair. We examine its physical properties to ascertain whether or not it is indeed a chair. This is material ontology. But what do we mean when we say a corporation exists?

Does a company exist when it has filed the appropriate papers of incorporation? Does it exist when it has a building or website? In some sense the answer to these would have to be yes. But many would prefer to speak of a company as existing when it is doing business.  (23)

The corporation is understood to “exist” only when at exhibits its function. This is functional ontology.

Walton turns to the phrase tohu wabohu in 1:2 (“fromless and empty” in NRSV). The central point here is not that the earth was barren. The issue is that it served no function. Days one through three describe the establishment of functions and days four through six describe the installment of functionaries. The functions relate to the three basic needs of humanity: Time, weather, and food.

• Day 1: Time Measurement (light and darkness)
• Day2:  Weather (expanse between waters above and below)
• Day3:  Food (formation of land with vegetation)
• Day 4: Celestial bodies function to mark off days, seasons, and years.
• Day 5: Sky and water creatures are told to be fruitful and multiple … their function is to fill the environments for which they’ve been created.
• Day 6: Various creatures are “produced by the land” that (like the plants on day 3) reproduce according their kind … new generations emerge as a function of the previous generations.

Of course the climax of day six is the creation of humanity … God’s supreme functionary with the most important function. Humanity is to exercise dominion over all that God has created. Walton challenges the notion that the repeated phrase “it was good” had to with an assessment of aesthetic beauty. Rather the text is referring the fact that these things served their function, namely to serve humanity, who in turn serves God. But there is more.

Walton notes that in the ANE creation stories the climactic end was when the gods built their temples and “rested.” Rest was not in the sense of becoming idle and taking a siesta. Rather rest meant ceasing extraordinary labor and settling into the natural peaceful ongoing rhythms of life. So here is Walton’s revelation. Creation is God’s temple:

“’Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things so they came into being?’ Declares the Lord.” (Is. 66:1-2a)

On the seventh day God “rests” from his work and resides within his temple … the earth … with his co-regent human functionaries exercising dominion over all that God has made. The Genesis 1 story is not an account of the how various material items came into existence but rather an account of the inauguration of God’s temple. Walton calls his understating the cosmic temple inauguration view.

The interpretive problem for us is that we are deeply immersed in the post-Enlightenment fixation on material origins. It is not that the ancients would be incapable of thinking about material origins but they would undoubtedly have been perplexed with the question. What useful purpose would such knowledge serve? The issue is what function things serve and who established their functions?

In light of this, both young earth creationism and concordists theories are way off the mark because both presume the text is talking about material ontology. The Framework Hypothesis may get a little closer to the mark but even here there is an assumption that the text is poetically dealing with material origins. The richness of understanding is severely restricted. 

Peter Inns sums up our problem well in a recent post at his blog:

If I may continue a rather reductionistic analysis (which is not accurate on the level of historical analysis, but is alive and well, nonetheless—indeed, perpetuated—in some popular circles): liberals looked at our developing knowledge of the ancient world of the Bible and said “A ha, I told you. The Bible is nothing special. Israelite religion is just like any other ancient faith. You conservatives need to get over yourselves.” The fundamentalist response was (fingers firmly planted in ears) “La la la la la la, I do not hear you. There may be a millimeter of insight in some of what you are saying, but if what you are saying is true, our theology—which is the sure truth of Scripture, handed down through the ages—is false, and that is unthinkable.”

Battle lines were drawn rather than theological and hermeneutical principles reassessed. ...

Walton has given us a careful reassessment looking at the text through ancient Near Eastern eyes. I’ve given you a only cursory overview. The book is laid out in a series of eighteen propositions which build his cosmic temple inauguration view.  The book is written for non-specialist and is fairly short. I read it in afternoon. It is without a doubt the most helpful book I’ve read on the topic.

Scot McKnight is starting a discussion of the book in a series of posts beginning this week (I believe) at his Jesus Creed blog. I highly recommend you get a copy and join the conversation.

Evolution, the Image of God, and Speech (RJS)

Jesus Creed: Evolution, the Image of God, and Speech (RJS)

... To ask if God is necessary for the evolution of mankind as we stand today misses the point. As a Christian I believe that there is no "natural mechanism" without God - because there is no creation without God. He made and sustains all. But we won't be able to prove that his "natural" mechanisms are insufficient And if people choose to assume "ontological materialism" - science won't prove them wrong.

God's design in creation is not a scientific question and shouldn't be brought into the science classroom.  Science is the study of God's creation and the "natural" mechanisms of that creation. Neither should it be asserted that science proves that there is no God, no purpose, no plan. This is a statement of faith not science. ...

Bingo!

Intelligent Design on Trial

Last month I linked a review by John Armstrong of a Nova documentary on the Dover School Board case concerning intelligent design called Intelligent Design on Trial, filmed in 2007. I finally had a chance to watch all two hours of the documentary (in 12 segments) and I agree with John, it is really quite good.

My dad was research chemist all his life and I've been around science and scientists all my life. I'm fully aware that any number of scientists have let there methodological naturalism (which is essential to science) spillover into philosophical materialism. I sympathize with Christians who find such scientists arrogant and offensive. They often are. But intelligent design does not fit the strictures of science the attempt to insert errant scientific methods to counteract obnoxious philosophical materialists is of little benefit. Personally, I'm a theistic evolutionist and I think this documentary does a great job of illustrating the reasons I find ID unhelpful. I'm sure some ID enthusiasts would differ with me but I felt, for the most part, it was a respectful treatment of the events in Dover and of ID. If you haven't seen it, I'd really encourage you to give it a whirl.

Belief in Evolution by Country

The Economist: Untouched by the hand of God (HT: Brad Wright)

I suspect the low numbers in Turkey are due to Islamic beliefs. The low numbers in the United States are likely due the persistent residual impact of Scottish Common Sense Realism, which so heavily influenced American Christianity in the 18th and 19th Centuries,  with its insistence of a "fact-to-fact" utterly historical reading of the early chapter of Genesis.

At 200, Darwin Evolves Beyond Evolution

Wired: At 200, Darwin Evolves Beyond Evolution

Two hundred years after Darwin's birth, the theory of evolution is still evolving — and finding relevance in realms far outside the biological.

Evolution is being scaled up to the level of populations, even whole ecosystems. Moreover, scientists say evolution is intertwined with other dynamics in ways science is just starting to understand.

"The process of evolution is fundamental to the universe,” said Carl Woese, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign microbiologist and one of the first proponents of this newly revised evolutionary framework. “Biology is the most obvious manifestation of it.”

Darwin described how changes in an organism are  passed from generation to generation depending on their contribution to survival. Biologists later combined this with genetics, which hadn’t been discovered in Darwin's time.

The fusion — called neo-Darwinian evolution — describes evolution as we know it today: Genetic mutations produce changes that can become part of a species' heritage and, when enough changes accumulate, produce new species.

It’s one of the most powerful descriptions of the world dreamed up by humans, central to understanding the natural world and applicable to engineering, economics and even software design. ...

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

John H. Armstrong: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

No subject stirs up more fear and opposition among a lot of conservative and fundamentalist Christians than science and faith. And nothing stirred up passions, at least in recent years, quite like the famous Dover (PA) court case regarding the school board's mandate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) alongside of evolution. In 2004 the school board ordered teachers of science to read a statement to their high school biology students about an ID alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

For those who do not know the term Intelligent Design (ID) is the argument that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and thus there must be an intelligent agent behind the forces of nature. In Dover a textbook was donated to the school district, a book that taught ID. This prompted the teachers to sue the school board. The town was deeply and bitterly divided and the rage and emotional tempest reached a boiling point that finally impacted people and school boards all across the nation. The court case played itself out in a place where there was no jury. A lone judge, who was appointed by President Bush and was a man with a conservative judicial philosophy, heard the arguments and wrote the ruling.

The celebrated case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District produced arguments advanced by expert lawyers, scientists and witnesses for both sides in the debate. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is the television program that just aired on Public Broadcast (PBS), and is now available on DVD. (The link in the previous sentence will take you to the site where the entire presentation is discussed and argued.) This documentary, in my estimation, is both riveting and well done. ...

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

The Onion: Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!" ...

HT: Lingamish

The Evolution of Darwin

Christianity Today: The Evolution of Darwin

It was in 1859—exactly a century and a half ago—that Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species. It is perhaps the most controversial book of the past millennium, and the work that has since made Darwin the patron saint of modern atheism. According to Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Evolution does seem to turn many Christians into unbelievers. A famous example is the distinguished Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson. Evolution gave him a profound sense of intellectual liberation from his Baptist upbringing in the South. Evolution also makes some people secular evangelists for the Darwinist cause. Michael Shermer was an evangelical Christian studying at Pepperdine University when his study of evolution convinced him to give up his faith. Shermer is now the editor of Skeptic magazine.

So does a belief in evolution automatically lead to disbelief in God? Actually, Darwin didn't think that. Darwin was not an "intellectually fulfilled atheist"; rather, he called himself an agnostic. Atheists say God does not exist, while agnostics say they don't know one way or the other. Moreover, Darwin did not boast about his unbelief; rather, he approached it with marked public caution. Shocking the mores of traditional believers may be Dawkins's thing, but it certainly wasn't Darwin's.

Here we must distinguish between Darwin the scientist and Darwin the unbeliever. Darwin, who was raised Anglican and even considered becoming a clergyman, did eventually relinquish his Christian faith. But he did not do so because of evolution. ...

At Peace With Science? (RJS)

RJS, a scientist at a first rate University, has been doing a series on science and faith at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog. Her installment today is a good one. Here is an excerpt At Peace With Science? (RJS)

... In the opening of his lecture of  24/7/2008 Dr. Falk relates his experience speaking in his defense.  He gave his personal testimony of faith, presented the testimony of former students in his defense, and related the beauty of the evolutionary mechanism of God's creation. All went well, a standing ovation even, until the President of the University opened the floor for questions and the question of human evolution was raised.  When Dr. Falk defended human evolution and common descent the change in mood was immediate and palpable.  This was neither surprising nor unexpected.  Many in evangelical circles are open to the possibility that evolution was God's general method of creation - yet will retain the necessity for the special creation of Human Beings through an original pair, Adam and Eve.

The important question today is just this: Is the Christian story, the Christian faith tied to the special creation of mankind separate from all the animals or is it tied to creation in the image of God? What gives mankind a soul, an identity created in the image of God? ...

Good stuff! Check it out.

Will the real dinosaurs stand up?

BBC: Will the real dinosaurs stand up?

Most of the newly discovered dinosaurs are just that - new to science, an assessment concludes.

With many past fossil finds named on the basis of partial remains, there has been concern that a lot of double counting has been taking place.

Recent studies had even suggested this error rate might be as high as 50% - with some species being catalogued with several aliases.

But the journal Biology Letters reports that modern practice is now very good.

"My research suggests we're getting better at naming things; we're being more critical; we're using better material," said Professor Michael Benton from Bristol University, UK.

The scientist looked at the original descriptions of all 1,047 species of dinosaurs ever named, from 1824 to the present day.

He assessed the quality of the specimens on which the names were founded - the type specimens. Professor Benton said some 500 were genuinely distinct, and the confidence surrounding the latest discoveries - about one new species a fortnight - was now very high.

"The bane of the dinosaurologist's life is species that have been named on the basis of incomplete specimens," Professor Benton explained.

"In Victorian times, palaeontologists were keen to name new species, and in the excitement of the great 'bone wars' for example, from 1870 to 1890, they rushed into print with new names for every odd leg bone, tooth, or skull cap that came their way.

"Later work, on more complete specimens, reduced more than 1,000 named dinosaurs to 500 or so."

Professor Benton said science had now put in place far more rigorous naming protocols, dramatically reducing the "alias problem".

Since 1960, the great majority of new species are founded on more or less complete specimens, sometimes even whole skeletons.

Professor Benton has a critical interest in the topic because he studies the evolution of dinosaurs. He tries to understand how this famous animal group changed and diversified over almost 200 million years.

"There's no point somebody such as myself doing big statistical analyses of numbers of dinosaur species through time - or indeed any other fossil group - if you can't be confident that they really are genuinely different," he told BBC News.

"This is important also for studies of modern biodiversity. People have also been looking at our current knowledge of mammals and insects and other animal groups and asking the simple question: are the species totals and lists we use for important conclusions - including to give political advice about endangered species - are they correct?

"There's been a big debate about vast extinctions among amphibians. We have to know what the species are first, before we can talk about that."

Jesus Rode Dinosaurs?

Fellow Kansas City blogger Kevin Cawley found this one. I presume this thing is for real.

Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God

New York Times: Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God

For a university professor, Francisco J. Ayala spends a lot of time on the road.

An evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, he speaks often at universities, in churches, for social groups and elsewhere, usually in defense of the theory of evolution and against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design.

Usually he preaches to the converted. But not always.

As challenges to the teaching of evolution continue to emerge, legislators debate measures equating the teaching of creationism with academic freedom and a new movie links Darwin to evils ranging from the suppression of free speech to the Holocaust, “I get a lot of people who don’t know what to think,” Dr. Ayala said. “Or they believe in intelligent design but they want to hear.”

Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.” ...

Experts plot humans’ course on evolutionary road

Kansas City Star: Experts plot humans’ course on evolutionary road

RALEIGH, N.C. | Scientists have mapped the evolutionary steps taken by a protein that links modern humans to a creature that swam in the oceans 450 million years ago.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, provides further rebuttal to creationists by filling in the gaps that show how evolution occurred on a molecular level.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and the University of Oregon looked at a precursor to a modern protein called the glucocorticoid receptor. In humans, the protein lives in the adrenal glands and helps regulate the body’s stress response. ...

Discussing Evolution with Care

Mouw's Musings: Discussing Evolution with Care

...Not that I have no thoughts about that subject. When I was a teenager, Bernard Ramm’s A Christian View of Science and the Scripture was quite controversial in my part of the evangelical world. So I read it, and he convinced me that something in the neighborhood of “progressive creationism” and “theistic evolution” was quite acceptable for those of us with a high view of biblical authority, and that is where I have been on the subject ever since. So if anyone asks me, I feel quite free to say that I do not believe in a literal six-day creation, and that an acceptance of the Genesis account is quite compatible with a belief in evolution.

But I worry some about giving too much encouragement to the defenders of evolution, especially because of a controversy that took place a few years ago.  It hasn’t gotten a lot of notice, but it should inject a note of caution into the views of those of us who distance ourselves from the “young earth” types. ...

Fossil fills gap in move from sea to land

Fossil fills gap in move from sea to land is a story in the Christian Science Monitor about scientists finding yet another missing link in the evolution chain.

Reflections on Intelligent Design

The most recent edition of the Presbyterian Outlook has articles focused on Intelligent Design. I found Mark Achtemeier's article Reflections on Intelligent Design interesting.

Even a casual glimpse at current headlines leaves little doubt that the Intelligent Design debate has become yet another battleground in the culture wars, with culturally-aggressive fundamentalists and equally-militant secularists well represented among the contending parties. Beneath the surface-level politics, however, there are substantial scientific and philosophical issues at play that ought to be of interest to any thinking Christian. It is the purpose of this essay to highlight some of these more substantive issues, lest they disappear beneath the waves of partisan politics.

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

Intelligent Design is not Creationism an interesting article explaining why the how the origins of Intelligent Design. Here is his conclusion:

Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.

Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.

Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

I fully agree that ID is not Creationism and that it comes from scientific observations. But that does not make it a scientific theory. What would ID predict? (Prediction is fundamental element of a scientific theory.)  It seems to me that the only thing ID can predict is that we will find more things we can't explain. ID is not an unreasonable conclusion. I am just question whether it is a scientific one.

No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything

Presbyweb had an article linked from the Guardian today called No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything. It focuses on a British program about Richard Dawkins, someone I put decisively in the camp of a secular fundamentalist. The author's closing paragraphs:

Let's be clear: it's absolutely right that religion should be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men. It's also right for religion to concede ground to science to explain natural processes; but at the same time, science has to concede that despite its huge advances it still cannot answer questions about the nature of the universe - such as whether we are freak chances of evolution in an indifferent cosmos (Dawkins does finally acknowledge this point in the programmes).

Dawkins seems to want to magic religion away. It's a silly delusion comparable to one of another great atheist humanist thinker, JS Mill. He wanted to magic away another inescapable part of human experience - sex; using not dissimilar arguments to Dawkins's, he pointed out the violence and suffering caused by sexual desire, and dreamt of a day when all human beings would no longer be infantilised by the need for sexual gratification, and an alternative way would be found to reproduce the human species. As true of Mill as it is of Dawkins: dream on.

If Pat Robertson is a poster child for Christian fundamentalism, then surely Dawkins is one for secular fundamentalism.

Find a Place for Intelligent Design in Public Schools

Find a Place for Intelligent Design in Public Schools is an opinon piece at Real Clear Politics by Mark Davis. I like what he has to say.

This is driving the rest of us nuts. There are millions of Americans of faith who are willing to have evolution taught as what it is – a theory. Conversely, there are staunch believers in evolution who have no quarrel with a school curriculum that finds room for the discussion of whether all of creation is a happy accident or the plan of a supreme being.

The battle is over where that subject comes up.

Religious people have had it up to their eyeballs with the clumsy overreach of school districts that have perverted their responsibility for religious neutrality by exercising genuine religious hostility.

They want the notion of intelligent design taught in science class, right alongside Darwinism, and let Madalyn Murray O'Hair whine all she likes in whatever dark corner of the afterlife she occupies.

But there's a problem: Intelligent design is not science.

....

We will not know the answers to these matters in our time on Earth. So let's work together to find a way to bring the scientific, philosophical and even religious teachings into schools – not to compete in a loser-leaves-town brawl, but to blend onto the plate of a thorough education.

Orthodoxy of a Liberal Sort

I am not inclined to view intelligent design as a scientific theory. Nevertheless, I think the judge in the recent Dover case was breathtakingly prejudiced and an enemy of open debate in education.

Law professor Paul Campos wrote a great opinion piece today called Orthodoxy of a Liberal Sort. His opening was:

A sure sign that a belief system has triumphed over its opponents is that it stops thinking of itself as a belief system at all. Instead it becomes "what every rational person knows to be the case," or "simple common sense," or, more concisely still, "the truth." In other words, the truly orthodox never think of themselves as orthodox. This allows them to crush all dissent to their orthodoxy with a good conscience, since what reasonable objection could there be to sincere attempts to stamp out self-evident falsehoods?

This syndrome applies to so much more than just intelligent design debates in our public discourse.

Idea not Based on Religion

Idea not Based on Religion is an editorial in USA Today. The closing paragraph says,

"Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort to censorship and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are championing dogmatism, not science."

I don't believe ID should be mandated nor do I believe ID to be a scientific theory. (If a theory can't be falsified it isn't science. You can't prove a negative, namely that an intelligent designer didn't do something. All you can says is that when X happens, Y follows. Repeated enough times you can come to reasonable certainty about the relationship between X and Y, and theorize about related variables. From their you begin to build scientific paradigms.) Science requires a kind of methodological atheism. The operative word here is methodological. You have to assume a natural cause otherwise why would you go looking for one? You can't do science without this assumption.

The problem is that many scientists take this methodological tool as ontological reality. That is unscientific! By definition, the scientist, speaking as a scientist, has to remain silent on matters beyond the natural world (i.e., intelligent design, God, etc.)

ID backers are right to be angry about being dismissed as stealth religious fanatics. Based on evidence from science and reason, ID is a reasonable conclusion. It just isn't a testable one in the scientific sense of theories. On the other hand, scientists have a right to be angry about mandates to teach non-scientific ideas as science.

I don't think most people on any side of these issues are really even trying to listen to what others are saying. This is about overreaching ideologies. Such are the days we live in.

For another interesting take on the topic check out What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics at the Christian Science Monitor. We may differ about what the abilit to define science but I think he has good insights into the topic.

Belief in the Balance

Denis Hancock of the Reformed-Angler sent me a link to an article, Belief in the Balance, in the Columbia Missouri Tribune. I thought the article made some helpful distinctions. I especially like this quote:

"It's not that science refutes religion," Miller said. "It's that science looks for natural answers to questions, and if you say, 'Well, we have a tailbone just because our designer put it there,' then you can't make any predictions based on that. You can't explain it. And there's no way to test for that designer."

The ability to test a theory is elemental to science and there is no real way to test for an intelligent designer. But science generated knowledge is limited, precisely because science is limited to empirical observation only. There are other types of knowledge that point to an Intelligent designer but I question whether the science class is the place to teach that knowledge.

Thanks Denis.

Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen

Denis Hancock had this article from the New York Times linked today. Science and Religion Share Fascination in Things Unseen. If you live anywhere near the state of Kansas (.4 miles away in my case) you can't escape this topic right now.

Evolution Controversy Puts Wichita Woman’s Faith Under the Microscope

Evolution Controversy Puts Wichita Woman’s Faith Under the Microscope is a story I found at titusonenine. This is a story about a woman on the Kansas State Board of Education who is Epsicopal and opposes Intelligent Design being taught in science classes. Here is one quote:

“One idea is science and the other is not,” she said. “Certainly teach the controversy. But teach it in philosophy class, teach it in history class, teach it in a comparative religion class. But you shouldn’t be teaching non-science in a science class. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong; it’s just not science.”

I live .4 miles too far to the east to be in this controversy but I suspect it may be coming to a board of education near me soon. Anyway, very interesting story with some interesting comments added to the post.

Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science

Agreeing Only to Disagree on God's Place in Science (Requires login.)

Denis Hancock at the Reformed-Angler found this article published in the NYT this week. One thing I thought was interesting was the claim that only 7% of scientists who belong to the National Academy Sciences believe in God. I know many scientist who are Christians and many of them have told me that they suspect that ahigher percentage of all scientists, when compared to the nation, have a strong belief in God.

Time, Tumult and the Science of Survival

Time, tumult and the science of survival (Requires Login)

This article appeared yesterday in the Chicago Tribune by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. It doesn't say a whole lot new but I thought it was a good illustration. I was particularly interested in this quote:

But creationism, currently repackaged as intelligent design, is not an argument of the same character. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world.

But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy does in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class, astrology in a psychology class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In a class on 20th Century European history, nobody would want to grant denial of the Holocaust the status of one half of a "let's teach both sides of the controversy" treatment.

The none to thinly veiled implication being that people who believe in creation are not just wrong but stupid dults. These guys are the quintessential Ontological Materialists trivializing anyone who does not share there philosophical commitments and lumping them with young earth Scientific Creationists. They are the mirror image of the Scientific Creationists who see all others as the enemy of God and scripture. (See Science and Chrisitanity (Part 14) )

Presbyterian Church (USA) on Evolution

To my knowledge, the last statement to truly address evolution by the PCUSA was in 1969 from the PCUS. The conclusion from the study is presented below. You can also find it at the PCUSA website under Evolution Statement.

EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE
Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS

Conclusion from the Study

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. Scripture states that "out of the ground" the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and "of the dust of the ground" the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth." After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: "Let us make man." This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation. Our Confession of Faith says:

"It pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls . . ." (Chapter IV).

The Larger Catechism answers the question "How did God create man?" as follows: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."(Q. 17)

It may be that the Westminster Divines understood the "six days" as well as such phrases as "of the dust of the ground" and "the rib of man" in a literal sense; but, as they were merely using the words of Scripture with no intention to argue the theory of evolution (of which they had never heard), we are free to interpret their words in a different sense, just as we now do the words of Scripture. Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science. As John Calvin said, commenting on Genesis: "To my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Genesis Commentary — on Chap. 1, verse 6).

If the Confession of Faith, or the Catechisms, appear in some manner to support the position of the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 this is not because of Scripture itself but rather because Scripture was interpreted with 17th Century perspectives and presuppositions.

Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists. The Darwin Centennial celebration, composed of fifty outstanding experts on the various phases of evolutionary theory, expressed the meaning of evolution as follows: "Evolution is definable in general terms as a one-way irreversible process in time, which during its course generates novelty, diversity, and higher levels of organization. It operates in all sectors of the phenomenal universe, but has been most fully described and analyzed in the biological sector." (Evolution After Darwin, edited by Sol Tax, University of Chicago Press, containing the University of Chicago Centennial papers and discussion, 1959)

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

We re-affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature whom God has made in His own image.

The Problem with Intelligent Design

The Problem with Intelligent Design

I found this article at Beliefnet and it is a wonderful summary of some of the issues I have been rasing with my science and Chrisitanity posts. I am not familiar with the author be we are clearly on the same page.

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Here is one scientist's view on evolution published at the Discovery Institue.

(Don't shoot me Carol. More to come.)

In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash

Well, I started this thread on Science and Christianity and the New York Times has to try to get in on the action. *grin* Denis sent me an NYT article and now at Presbyweb I see there is another article.

In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash