Church Times - Fight to recall the wonder

Church Times - Fight to recall the wonder

Simon Conway Morris is Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology, at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of the Royal Society.

From this perspective, it is easy to appreciate the intellectual attraction of the quasi-scientific/quasi-theological movement known as Intelligent Design (ID). You might think: get me out of here! Intelligent Design: what, another recruit?

Please, revive yourselves. In my opinion, ID is a false and misleading attraction. There would be little point in reiterating the many objections raised against ID, especially those made by the scientific colleagues, but opponents, of Michael Behe and Bill Demski, its two principal proponents.

Rather, ID has a more interesting failing, a theological failing. Consider a possible analogy, that of Gnosticism. Who knows where this claptrap come from, but it could have been an attempt to reconcile orphic and mithraic mysteries with a new, and, to many in the Ancient World, a very dangerous Christianity.

So, too, in our culture, those given over to being worshippers of the machine and the computer model, those admirers of organised efficiency — they would not expect the Creator (that is, the one identified as the engineer of the bacterial flagellar motor, or whatever your favourite case study of ID might be) to be encumbered with the customary cliché of bearing a large white beard, but to be the very model of scientific efficiency, and so don a very large white coat. ID is surely the deist’s option, and one that turns its back not only on the richness and beauty of creation, but, as importantly, on its limitless possibilities. It is a theology for control freaks.

Read more!

CNS STORY: Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

CNS STORY: Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

- Catholic educators need better teaching programs about evolution "to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up" from the general society, according to a U.S. bishops' official involved in dialogue with scientists for 20 years.

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, "Catholicism may begin to seem less and less 'realistic' to more and more thoughtful people," said David Byers, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003.

"That dynamic is a far greater obstacle to religious assent than evolution," he said in a bylined article in the Feb. 7 issue of America, a weekly magazine published in New York by the Jesuits. The article discussed the value of the dialogues with scientists organized by the bishops' committee.

"Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time," he said without mentioning specific controversies in the United States.

In recent years, conflicts have arisen in several parts of the country questioning whether evolution should be taught in public schools as scientific fact. In January, the public school board in Cobb County, Ga., voted to appeal a federal judge's order to remove stickers on science textbooks which said that "evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Read more!

More "intelligent" Intelligent Design Needed

More "intelligent" Intelligent Design Needed

It is arguable that in the attempt to salvage some sort relationship between religion and science, "Intelligent" Design supporters are ultimately sacrificing both and doing both a grave disservice. If a person's faith is supported by ID, and ID is supported by the existence of things that scientists can't explain, what happens when scientists can explain those things. Should people abandon their faith? That wouldn't bother me, but I doubt that ID supporters would be happy with such a situation.

Thus, ID supporters need to develop a more intelligent form of "Intelligent" Design, one that doesn't sacrifice long-term goals for short-term gains.

Read more!

Stev en Ball: A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth

Steven Ball looks at the evidence for a young creation from a scientific and religious perspective.

Amid the wreckage of this battlefield people are left to try to sort out what really makes sense. Although this book is addressed to Christians and non-Christians alike, here I offer some advice for my fellow Christians. Much of this fighting has been viewed very negatively by the non-Christian community. Forcing the public schools to teach Creation Science would not win non-Christians over to Christ. Certainly not when the premise itself is that science is wrong when it seems to disagree with the Bible. While the scientific community can be faulted for harboring contempt for those who don’t accept the commonly held theories, I would hold my fellow Christians to a higher standard. It does no good to belittle the scientific community. In fact Christians everywhere would benefit from a more healthy respect for science in general. I believe we would find science to be one of the greatest allies of the faith.

Many scientists who accept an older Earth have clear Christian faith commitments. Fortunately, most individual Christian brothers and sisters recognize that this does not compromise their faith or their love for God. The admonition given by Paul to Titus, to “shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless” [Titus 3:9], is heeded by mature Christians. But the position of many churches is that these scientists are misguided Christians or worse, as out-and-out enemies of the faith, like the “tares” planted by the enemy of our souls. Meanwhile, proponents of Creation Science work to prevent
a reappraisal of this issue by the Christian community as a whole. By claiming that an acceptance of an older Earth is just the first step towards a slide down a “slippery slope” of rejecting Biblical truth in general, much fear and emotion has been generated. God Himself called upon His people to “Come now, and let us reason together” [Isaiah 1:18], which should temper our responses to those whose opinions differ. Sometimes labels are cast out in an attempt to discredit a position, in place of sound reason. Those who accept an older Earth are portrayed by a segment of the Christian community as “liberal”. But rather than labeling people for their view on this issue, shouldn’t we be willing to carefully and humbly consider the evidence? Is it really clear that one’s position on this issue implies acceptance or rejection of Biblical truth? The final chapter discusses reasons why this is not so. You are not
being asked to acquiesce to the claims of science just to avoid offending the scientists or to accept the Bible with blind faith. Rather, you are asked to consider the evidence and the Scriptures to see that they are not in conflict, but form a remarkable consistency. Jesus said “if you continue in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”. The wonderful truth that I have realized is that there is no need to be afraid of science, since it truly does uphold the Word of God. Such a realization sets one free from fear and misplaced emotion, and allows one to see the beauty of science.

Read more!

Francis Collins: Born-again christian and scientist

In Newsweek

Well, so does the pope, but the Vatican has said it finds no conflict between Christian faith and evolution. Neither does Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health and an outspoken evangelical. He wrote recently of his view that God, "who created the universe, chose the remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and animals of all sorts." It may require some metaphysical juggling, but if more people could take that view,
there would be fewer conflicts like the one in Dover.

Background of Collins is quite fascinating

Collins, a physician, geneticist and born-again Christian, is a small-town Virginia farm boy who went on to become leader of a University of Toronto team that successively identified the genes for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis and, in collaboration with others, Huntington disease. Convinced that progress against human illness depends on greater understanding of the genes, he welcomed the opportunity to lead the government's multibillion-dollar Human Genome Project when, in 1993, he was named to succeed James Watson as director of the National Center for Humane Genome Research.

From link

In a very insightful article Collins explains his faith as a scientist
Can an evangelical believe in evolution.

Collins reminds us of St. Augustine who wrote

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.[2]

[2] St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, chap. 18, in Ancient Christian Writers 41, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J.
Read more!

The dangers of ID: An example

On Pharyngula PZ Myers discusses an op-ed written by two ID proponents

Wanna see James and Cheri Bogart humiliate themselves?

I don’t want to, myself, and I read this op-ed by James and Cheri Bogart and just cringed. That it is terribly bad and grossly wrong is just to be expected of a pro-Intelligent Design creationism article, but these two just set themselves up for a terrible and embarrassing fall. Their first paragraph pompously announces,

We, as two trained, field experienced scientists, wish to clarify these issues.

They then proceed to demonstrate their incompetence with a serious of trivially false claims. They want to claim that there is a simple, strict hierarchy of legitimacy for scientific ideas, from hypothesis to theory to law, and they just mangle every concept on the way.

If public humiliation and absurd pratfalls make you squirm, don’t read the link above, and stop right now

If ID wants to gain some relevance it needs to address and correct such misunderstandings of both evolutionary theory as well as intelligent design. Teach the controversy seems to be mostly about people not being too familiar with evolutionary theory. ID should rectify the damage it has caused already with its claims before the cost for science AND religion becomes too large.

What is fascinating to me is that these two scientists can claim that there is a theory of Intelligent Design when so far no such theory beyond an appeal from ignorance has been presented.

That should be a concern to any scientist... And that is the real controversy imho.
Read more!

The dangers of ID: My personal observations and thoughts

From: YAHOO's Design Or Chance group

Notice how Bill O'Reilly discusses the topic... Scary

Link

And remember Buckingham? The school board member from Dover who tried to introduce Intelligent Design into the curriculum?

When asked about ID this is his answer

When asked what intelligent design means, Buckingham answered, "Back through time, something -- molecules, amoeba, whatever -- evolved into the complexities of life we have now."

ABC News Pa. Neighbors Feud Over Darwin, 'Design' Wounds Open Over School Board Decision to Propose 'Intelligent Design' as Alternate Theory to Evolution Jan. 19, 2005


The risks of ID for both science education as well as for religious faith seem immense as evidenced by these two examples.

Not only are opponents of Christianity provided with a powerful weapon to argue against God now that ID has made God a scientific theory and thus falsifiable but given the historical success of 'god of the gaps' arguments like ID's, it is likely that ID will be falsified. The flagellum, once touted as evidence of ID now seems to have become far less a compelling example.
But additionally ID presents another risk namely that by making religious people believe that there is a scientific foundation, these people may end up feeling misled and deceived. The risk of 'fellow Christians telling falsehoods' as Richard Colling describe ID's claims that the theory of evolution is in crisis is very real. Among several of my Christian friends I have found an increasing discomfort with the
claims of ID which they consider to be misleading and dishonest. And finally, since ID is all about God (yes i know some deny this but come on people...This is self evident, even Phillip Johnson is clear

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get
the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

(American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast.)

So why not be upfront about it and stand behind our faith and see where the chips may fall?

Richard Colling's book describes how Christians need not be afraid of science...

Read more!