Science and Religion: Letters to the SMH

On Friday I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, anticipating narky responses if the letter was published (like those I received when I wrote that people in the medieval period believed the earth was round). The letter wasn't published, so I'll post it here, in case anyone is interested:

Why is it so hard to accept that someone can “believe” in science as well as in a creator God? The foundations of modern science were laid by people, such as Johannes Kepler and Robert Boyle, who not only believed in God but saw their scientific work as an act of worship and priesthood. Whereas church priests explained the book of God’s word (the Bible) to their parishioners, scientists interpreted the book of God’s works (nature). The existence of God, by definition, is beyond the scope of natural science, but science is not the only form of knowledge. It is quite easy for a religious person to believe that God created the universe, but to look to science to find out how he did so.

Here's the original letter that started this thread of correspondence:

Gerard Henderson's article, "Jews know acceptance still has its exceptions" accuses me personally, and the left in general, of waging a sectarian war on Tony Abbott.
Mr Abbott's obstructionist approach and dog whistle politics are ample material to criticise his contribution to public policy debate without stooping to involve his religious beliefs - which as a Catholic myself, I happen to share.
Our current television campaign, ''Great Deniers'', uses humour to point out the absurdity of those remaining few who still deny the scientific consensus on climate change.
By using examples from the past of ridiculous denial (notably the idea the world is round, not flat), the campaign aims to point out that climate change sceptics will be judged as fools by history.
The point here is climate change, not religion. Denial, not belief. It highlights the absurdity of Mr Abbott's position on this topic and on no other aspect of him.
As a Catholic, I'm fed up with the conservative right claiming a monopoly on Christian beliefs and carrying them heavily on their sleeve.
The carbon price is an incredibly important issue. At stake is the future of our great nation.
Mr Abbott and Mr Henderson should have the courage to engage in this debate rather than trying to detract from the issue with irrelevant shadows.
-Tony Maher National president, CFMEU

And the particular letter to which I was responding:

If you believe in science you can't cherry pick to suit your own convenience. Tony Maher (Letters, July 14) professes to be a believing Catholic while at the same time embracing the scientific consensus on climate change.
At the core of Catholicism - and almost all other religions - is the hypothesis of a creator god. Why, Tony, do you not also accept the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence against creationism? Are those early years of indoctrination too hard to shake off?
- Mike Phillips Wollstonecraft

Here's the letter that was published instead of mine (it is a better letter):

Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) suggests that Tony Maher has engaged in cherry picking of his beliefs and that there is an inconsistency between accepting climate change science on the one hand and belief in a creator god on the other.
As many theistic scientists will attest, it's a false dichotomy to pit God against science. Scientific inquiry looks at the world and how it works, while theology looks behind the curtain and wonders why it all exists to begin with.
One might look at how the world began, the other at why and by whom the world began. The two disciplines ask and answer completely different questions about life.
Cherry picking? I don't think so. But Mike Phillips might be comparing apples with oranges.
- Andrew Miers Bardwell Valley

And finally one more that was published today:

Your correspondent Mike Phillips (Letters, July 15) would do well to check his facts before rushing into print. Some Catholics do not believe in ''creationism'' - presumably the belief in a literal six days of creation, given this is the usual meaning of the term.
In the first decade of the 20th century the then authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia concluded that Catholics should have no difficulty with Darwin's theory of the evolution of species. More recently Pope John Paul II declared evolution ''more than a hypothesis''.
On the cosmological front the theory of the Big Bang, that the universe originated in a massive ''explosion'' some 15 billion years ago, was first proposed by the Jesuit physicist Georges Lemaitre. Many of his colleagues rejected the idea, despite the evidence, because it seemed too irreligious (sic?) a notion for them. So Catholics have no concern at all about the ''overwhelming weight of scientific evidence against creationism'' and would in fact agree with the science on this matter.
And on global warming, both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have warned of impending environmental catastrophe and the Vatican state is committed to being carbon neutral.
- Professor Neil Ormerod Faculty of theology and philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield

I'm wondering if "irreligious" in the third paragraph is a typo - I was under the impression that Lemaitre's physicist colleagues initially rejected the idea of the Big Bang because it seemed too religious, rather than too irreligious. Demonstrating that the universe had a definite beginning, after all, may leave open the question of what/who caused that beginning.

Methodological Naturalism

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations -  it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.
- Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (quote found here)

I'm more inclined to think that the reason scientific theories don't acknowledge God's existence is that God is not part of the natural world.  Science studies the creation; theology studies the Creator.  I'm discovering that I lean more and more towards an instrumentalist (not sure if I'm quite a social constructivist) view of science.  The purpose of science is to understand and explain the world in particular kinds of terms - "natural" ones - so that we can do our best to control nature, or at least to improve our experience in this world.  I do still believe in truth - ultimately, there is one true understanding/explanation of nature - I just doubt humanity's ability to find it, and to know that we've found it.

Science and Religion, Epistemology and Discrimination

An interesting (but long - I only skimmed it) rehash of a debate between Alvin Plantinga (probably the most well-known Christian philosopher in the world) and Daniel Dennett (philosopher of mind and one of the "new atheists"). The commentator decided to remain anonymous, and wrote this about his decision:

I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.

Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly.

Interestingly, in the comments on the post, several people dismissed this as paranoia, while one person gave an example of something like this happening. One commenter wrote this:

I am a Christian, and I wrote my master's thesis at a secular university on Plantinga's epistemology. Half of my committee members were theists, half were not. Not once during my time as a graduate student did I ever feel that my career as a philosopher was threatened due to my theism or my sympathy with Plantinga. I have no idea why anyone would make this statement.

Fantastic argument, that. "It hasn't happened to me, therefore it doesn't happen to anyone." Reminds me of this comment from Emily Maguire's recent book on feminism, Princesses and Pornstars:

I’m sick of hearing people say that women aren’t oppressed because their husband does lots of housework or because their company pays women the same as men or because they’ve never personally been raped/groped/called a slut/been denied a basic human right.

Anyway, it is an issue I think about from time to time. Am I too open about my Christian beliefs? Will I be stereotyped as a believer, with the result that no one will take what I say seriously, because obviously I'm biased? This thought occurred to me a couple of years back when I was at a conference held in honour of John Hedley Brooke, one of the world's leading scholars on science and religion. He's notorious for never giving a straight answer about just what he believes, although rumour is that he's a Christian. He's written a lot about the relations between science and Christianity, in particular against the idea of conflict. His work is well respected, but if he was more open about what he believed, would he have been dismissed as an apologist or propagandist for Christianity? Not sure about this. Still thinking. Well, actually, thinking is on hold until after the thesis, but anyway...

HURRAH!

It's here at last:

The relationship between science and religion (SR) has often been portrayed as bellicose. Yet some scholars view the disciplines as allies that complement and buttress one another. Others consider them to be entirely discrete entities. Without a doubt, the interface of the two disciplines is complex and nuanced, and they have much to learn from one another. Heidi Campbell and Heather Looy assembled A Science and Religion Primer to guide a respectful, intelligent conversation. This landmark work is simultaneously an encyclopedia, an annotated bibliography, and a survey. What's more, the stalwart advisory board for this singular project is made up of

• Celia Deane-Drummond
• Nancey Murphy
• George F. R. Ellis
• Peter Harrison
• Holmes Rolston III
• Craig A. Boyd

Four substantive introductory essays--from Harrison (History and People in Science and Religion), Murphy (The Role of Philosophy in Religion-Science Dialogue), Deane-Drummond (Theology's Intersection with Science and Religion), and Rolston (Science and Technology in Light of Religion)--set the book's background. The second, and primary, section of the book provides an A-Z listing of entries dealing with a variety of philosophical, historical, scientific, and theological concepts, individuals, or events related to the SR dialogue. Each one is divided into three parts: a brief summary/definition of the concept, a key points and challenges section that identifies significant issues, and a "discussion partners" section that lists key related readings. A Science and Religion Primer is an indispensable source in its own right and a springboard for more in-depth research.

(Also, keep your eye out for a small entry on "Natural Theology".)

Another grr about Christians and evolution

From Tim Challies' blog - a quote from someone called Greg Koukl:

Some people suggest that God used evolution to design the world. They are motivated, I think, by two impulses. The first is a desire to affirm the Bible. The second is a suspicion Darwinism may have merit. Thus, they declare both true.

These two notions, however, seem incompatible to me. It may sound reasonable for God to “use” evolution, but if you look closer I think you will see the problem.

Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and “design” the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. It would not make any sense, though, to “design” the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There’s no way to ensure the results. (I guess if I were really clever I could make it look like I was shuffling the deck when in reality I was stacking it, but that would be a deceitful kind of design called “cheating.”).

In the same way, either God designs the details of the biological world, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation has a purpose, a goal. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie.

The idea that something is designed by chance is contradictory. Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, this just doesn’t fit.

Fundamental problem here. As I understand it (need to do more reading), theistic evolutionists don't claim that God used evolution to design the world. Rather, they might claim that God used evolution in his work of creation, or that God established evolution as a process by which things change and develop in the world he created. Once again, can one really mount a serious argument without properly understanding the position one is arguing against?

Desperate Darwinists?

This is the kind of Christian comment on evolution that bugs me.

Let's have compassion for Darwinists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of an infinite number of universes. Many cloak themselves as objectively scientific, but that can't dodge even what secularists like novelist Kurt Vonnegut acknowledge: "My body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."
- Marvin Olasky, "Dialogue with Darwinists: Key themes to remember on the birthday of 'On the Origin of Species'"

It seems to me that while Olasky discourages ridicule of Darwinism, he himself is ridiculing Darwinists.

It's important to understand the position you're arguing against, and to offer actual arguments rather than ridicule. But calling "Darwinists" (who does that refer to anyway?) "desperate" - isn't that ridicule? Sure, the whole multiverse concept seems a bit wacky, but a lot of science is wacky (what does Olasky think about quantum physics?) and not all Darwinists would buy into that anyway. I know this is only a short article, but Olasky's attacks are on the people, not the ideas - "muttering" Darwinists are "desperate" and "cloaking themselves in scientific objectivity" - i.e. they're not really scientists. I guess Intelligent Design proponents are articulate, calm and actually objective.

And to say that scientists are pretending to have the answers? I don't know of any scientists (apologists for atheistic science such as Dawkins and Dennett are a different matter) who would even claim to have absolute answers - science is more a search for answers, which are always acknowledged to be provisional (even Dawkins admits that we may end up chucking out Darwinism if we find a better theory). We look at the world, and think "wow, that's so amazing, how could things have ended up this way?" To say that God created and sustains the universe is one possible answer, but it's not a scientific explanation. It could be true (and I believe it is) but it doesn't tell us anything scientifically. And, in a sense, it doesn't affect the way science is done. Whether or not a scientist believes in creation, she will still be seeking physical explanations of natural processes. Can science prove or disprove the existence of a divine designer? I don't think so. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways. One person sees evolution as the means by which God created, while another sees blind physical process.

And on the issue of "complexity" - where one person sees "irreducible complexity", another sees a question to be answered. Sure, we might not know right now how particular mechanisms within a cell developed, but that doesn't mean that we won't know some years down the track. Throughout the history of science, human knowledge of nature has constantly been expanding - constantly discovering new things, and finding out that things are more complex than we thought. Complexity is not a new thing - just a deepening thing. Why stop now, throw our hands up and say, we can't figure it out? People could have done that with the atom, once they realised it wasn't just like a billiard ball.

Anyway, this is a rambling, ill-thought out post. Brain not working - blame the PhD. Just felt like a little rant. I know there are people who may read this blog who will disagree with me, and that's fine. Just don't expect me to get into a deep discussion about it - maybe after the thesis is done, but I really don't have the time or mental energy right now. And please, if you do want to criticise what I say, have the decency to leave your name. Thanks!

There is nothing new under the sun - 3

The Foundation of our Religion, as it is purely Christian, is this, that the Sins of Men are not otherwise to be forgiven, nor their Souls saved, than by the Mediation of Jesus Christ, and by that Expiation which he has made with God for our Reconciliation.

The Doctrine the Enemies of Christianity run down, as unreasonable, and foolish, and altogether unworthy of God. They assert, that God is not to be worshiped by a Mediator, nor Pardon of Sins and Reconciliation to be expected by a Sacrifice of Expiation and Atonement; that these Things are disagreeable to the Mercy of God, and to the Freedom of his Grace, both which are essential to him as well as Justice and Vengeance. Or at most they tell us, that Repentance is of itself a sufficient Expiation, and to pretend that we cannot be saved but by the Redemption and Mediation of Jesus Christ, is, say they, as derogatory to the Love and Compassion and Clemency of the divine Nature, as the Worship of him by an Image is to his Spirituality.

But in answer to such Notions I will shew, that the Doctrine of Man's Redemption, and Remission of Sins, by the expiatory Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ, is neither unnecessary nor unreasonable, but are agreeable to the Perfections of God, and manifest his Wisdom and Goodness in our Redemption.

John Turner, The Wisdom of God in the Redemption of Man, 1708.

There is nothing new under the sun - 2

The Infidels of our Times despairing of being able to reason Religion out of the World, seem now to place all their Hopes of Success in sneering and laughing it out of Countenance.

To arm Men therefore against these rude Assaults, wherein their chief Strength lies, I will shew, That whosoever is a true Christian, both in Faith and Practice, can have no Reason to be ashamed of his being so.

Lilly Butler, Religion no Matter of Shame or Reproach, 1709.

There is nothing new under the sun

The Folly of Atheism, from the Pleasures of a Religious Life

Religion tells us we are the Workmanship of a superlatively wise, powerful, and good Being; that we are placed here to view and applaud these glorious Scenes of Heaven and Earth; and that God has created a sufficient Store of all Things, either necessary or convenient for us; and particularly to such as obey him, has promised a Supply of all our Wants, and a Protection from all Dangers; That he has sent his Son into the World to bring Life and Immortality to Light, and to render to Mankind, if they would obey his Commandments, the Promise of eternal Salvation.

Atheism on the contrary would persuade us, that this is all a Dream; that there is no such excellent Being as supposed, that created and preserves us; that all about us is dark senseless Matter, driven on by the wild impulses of Fatality; that Men rose out of the Slime of the Earth, and that what is called the Sou, perishes by Death.

And what Stupidity is this, to let go the Hopes of everlasting Life with Willingness, and entertain the Thoughts of Perdition with Exultation?

This inconsiderate Behaviour of the Atheists is so extremely absurd, that it would be deemed incredible, if it did not occur to our daily Observation. It proclaims aloud, that they are not led astray by their Reasoning, but led captive by their Lusts to the Denial of a God.

Did Religion bestow Heaven to both good and bad Men, there would be no Infidels among us: But it is the Way of attaining it, that makes prophane Men let go the Expectation of it. They will not practise its Rules, and therefore they cannot believe its Promises.

But, however, let us suppose that they have acted like reasonable Men, and upon diligent inquiry have found they were under a necessity of rejecting Religion, upon account of their being obliged to give their assent to such Things as are repugnant to common sense. And here I confess, that did the Offers of eternal Happiness depend upon our giving a full assent to such Things, the Kingdom of Heaven would become the Inheritance of Idiots and Fools. And if the Atheist can shew me any such Absurdities in the Christian Religion, I will either evince them to be Interpolations and Corruptions of the Faith, or yield myself a Proselyte to Infidelity.

Richard Bentley, The Confutation of Atheism, 1692.

Very cool!

From the newsletter of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion - Denis Alexander is the director:

Denis Alexander took part in a public debate on Intelligent Design (ID) in Fort Worth, Texas, attended by around 1000 people, discussing the topic (as a theist critical of ID) with an anti-ID atheist, a pro-ID atheist, and a pro-ID agnostic. A further 350 people came to a follow-up discussion with the four panel members the next day.

Visualising the Bible

This image received an honourable mention in the National Geographic's Best Science Images of 2008 competition.

A colorful rainbow brings to light the interconnected nature of one of the world's most familiar books.

The Bible's 1,189 chapters are plotted along the horizontal axis at the bottom of the image, with each bar's length determined by the number of verses.

The arcs above the graph show the 63,779 cross-references between each chapter.

"It almost looks like one monolithic volume," said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.

—Image courtesy Chris Harrison, Carnegie Mellon University; Christoph Romhild, North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church/Science (and National Geographic).

And from here:

This diagram arose from a collaboration between a Carnegie-Mellon Ph.D student and a Lutheran pastor to create a grand map of Biblical cross-references: "We wanted something that honored and revealed the complexity of the data at every level –- as one leans in, smaller details should become visible. This ultimately led us to the multi-colored arc diagram... The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc - the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect."

I think it's pretty, and original, and I would have wondered if it might have won, if not for the religious theme, until I saw the one that did receive first place in the illustrations category:

"Zoom Into the Human Bloodstream"

Deft manipulation of perspective gives viewers a detailed look inside the human circulatory system.

The relationship between a tiny oxygen atom and the giant organ of the heart was accomplished with a common painting technique that fits many scales into a single picture, according to Jennifer Frazier of San Francisco's Exploratorium.

The unusual view won artist Linda Nye first place in the illustration category of the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.

—Image courtesy Linda Nye and the Exploratorium Visualization Laboratory; The Exploratorium/Science (and National Geographic).

That's awesome!

Still, I think the first one is a nice mix of science and religion!

Faraday Institute now on YouTube

Click here.

In other news:

Those in the Birmingham UK area might be interested to know that on Saturday, 27th September, at 4.0 p.m. in the George Hotel, Lichfield, the Institute Director (Professor Denis Alexander) will be in debate with Prof. Steve Fuller (Prof. of Sociology at Warwick University) at the Lichfield Literary Festival on the subject of Intelligent Design. This is a somewhat counterintuitive debate in that Prof. Fuller, an agnostic, is an ID supporter whereas the Director, a theist, is a critic of ID. Hopefully the exchange of views will clarify rather than further obfuscate a topic perennially surrounded by a thick fog of confusion.

I wish I lived in England!

Opinions and arguments

Update: My letter was published! Here's what my supervisor had to say about one of the correspondents:

I think that [he] may have been (maybe still is) an ultra green goon who used to be tied up with the STS (Science and Technology Studies) criminals and leftwing ratbags at Wollongong.

Hmm...

---

John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician and philosopher of science, is currently in Sydney making several appearances for the Centre for Public Christianity, EU and National Science Week. I've met him once at a conference, where he was supporting Intelligent Design in the midst of an unfriendly audience (in a fairly theoretical, speculative, "let's just think about this" kind of way), and he seems a nice and very interesting guy. I don't agree with everything he says (I'm not terribly sympathetic to Intelligent Design) but I thought his opinion piece in yesterday's SMH was spot on.

I was not so keen on the responses today from Vic Stenger and Paul Gittings, so I wrote a couple of letters to the editor. They probably won't get published, so I'll post them here instead, in the tradition of Andrew's Daily Vowel Movements.

The first is a response to Vic Stenger's opinion piece, "Science demands that seeing is believing."

Vic Stenger (“Science demands that seeing is believing”, August 19) claims that science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist, and yet also states that science cannot be used to answer purely metaphysical questions. He argues that if God exists, evidence of his intervention in creation should be seen in our study of the natural world. However, a scientist and philosopher such as Stenger should be aware of the principle of underdetermination. For any evidence we collect about nature, we can develop multiple theories to explain it. Scientific data cannot necessarily decide between theories – these decisions are based on other criteria, such as simplicity, elegance and coherence. As John Lennox (“Why not every scientist worships at Darwin’s feet”, August 18) pointed out, scientific evidence alone cannot adjudicate between naturalism and theism. For a theist, science involves understanding the world and the processes by which God created. But the belief in God comes from outside science, and so does an assumption that there is no God.

The second is in response to Paul Gitting's letter about John Lennox.

Paul Gittings (Letters, August 19) writes that theism says “I don’t know, I don’t want to understand, I just want to be happy in my irrational beliefs.” Can he really believe this of an Oxford professor of mathematics and philosophy of science?

It really seemed to me that both Stenger and Gittings just weren't getting what Lennox was saying. Nowhere in the opinion piece did Lennox come out in support of Intelligent Design, nor did he promote any kind of "god of the gaps" theory. He wasn't arguing that positing God as creator solves any problems currently unresolved by science. Rather, he pointed out that, as an underlying assumption about the world, theism (assuming an intelligent creator) is no more faith-based than naturalism (assuming that everything in the universe came about by purely natural means).

Update: I received an email to say that my letter had been shortlisted for publication in tomorrow's Herald. Just don't know which one...

Overloaded

I think I have taken on way too much teaching this session. One of my subjects is an online Science and Religion course. I've tutored it a number of times now, and once again I seem to have been stuck with the hyperactive students who post more than all the other groups put together!

OK, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but last session both my groups posted twice as many times as the next most prolific group. And they weren't just short, nonsense posts either - they had some really good things to say! So I guess I can't complain too much...

One really amazing thing: for the first time someone has suggested rules/guidelines for making sure the discussion doesn't get out of hand. A brilliant idea - it's a controversial topic, people are passionate about their own views, and being online, people seem to feel that they have more freedom to be rude than they would be in person, and comments are open to much more misinterpretation. I've seen some nasty exchanges in the past - I hope this session is different.

Absolutely nothing new!

Reading a little further along in Ray's Wisdom of God, I found this classic:

If the Works of Nature are better, more exact and perfect than the Works of Art, and Art effects nothing without Reason; neither can the Works of Nature be thought to be effected without Reason... A wonder then it must needs be, that there should be any man found so stupid and forsaken of reason as to persuade himself, that this most beautiful and adorned World was or could be produced by the fortuitous concourse of Atomes. He that can prevail with himself to believe this, I do not see why he may not as well admit, that if there were made innumerable Figures of the 21 Letters in Gold, suppose, or any other Metal, and these well shaken and mixt together, and thrown down from some high place to the ground, they when they lighted upon the Earth would be so disposed and ranked, that a man might see and read in them Ennius's Annals; whereas it were a great chance if he should find one Verse thereof among them all.

Sound familiar to anyone? Of course, today the illustration is told in terms of monkeys with typewriters producing the complete works of Shakespeare...

There is nothing new under the sun

Intelligent Design is nothing new, and not because it is merely a tricksy rewording of Creationism (I would dispute that). Here's a quote from John Ray, one of the foremost natural historians (today he would be a biologist/zoologist/botanist) of the seventeenth century:

There is no greater, at least no more palatable and convincing Argument of the Existence of a Deity than the admirable Art and Wisdom that discovers itself in the make and constitution, the order and disposition, the ends and uses of all the parts and members of this stately fabrick of Heaven and Earth. For if in the works of Art, as for example; a curious Edifice or Machine, counsel, design, and direction to an end appearing in the whole frame and in all the several pieces of it, do necessarily infer the being and operation of some intelligent Architect or Engineer, why shall not also in the Works of Nature, that Grandeur and Magnificence, that excellent contrivance for Beauty, Order, Use, &c. which is observable in them, wherein they do as much transcend the Effect of human Art as infinite Power and Wisdom exceeds finite, infer the existence and efficiency of an Omnipotent and All-wise Creator?
- The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation, 1691.

Darwin's ideas about evolution were nothing new either. The idea that apparent design could come about by chance had been around since the ancient Greek philosophers (seventeenth-century natural philosophers such as Ray were particularly concerned with Epicureanism). And even closer to Darwin's own lifetime (overlapping with it, no less) were ideas about evolution such as Lamarck's. The difference was that Darwin proposed a mechanism (borrowed from social science and economics) - natural selection. This, combined with Mendel's genetics, gave us modern Darwinian evolution - a powerful way of explaining how complexity and the appearance of design could arise "naturally."

The "problem" between science and religion, between evolution and creationism, between Intelligent Design and theistic evolution, comes in the interpretation of the word "naturally." I'm not going to go into a lot of detail right now (I've got a thesis to write!), but if we understand that God is sovereign over all, but chooses to act through certain laws that he created and upholds, then "natural" does not exclude God at all, and the fact that evolutionary theory can explain the development of species through so-called "natural" means does not mean that God was not involved.

A creationist in heaven

H/t Nick.

Hmm...

These are the kinds of arguments from Christians against Darwinism which I do not like at all.

Michael Craven, president of the Center for Christ and Culture, is writing in response to responses to his recent article on James Watson. Apparently evolutionists are outraged at Craven's suggestions that James Watson's apparent racism (I can't comment - haven't read the previous article) stems from his Darwinism. I'm not going to go through the whole thing, just mention one comment I found particularly amusing. Craven writes

Darwin’s theory of evolution does indeed have a “goal”—providing an alternative to the biblical explanation of origins. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin was a noted intellectual, physician and writer who, long before Charles, theorized an evolutionary alternative to biblical origins. The senior Darwin strongly opposed Christianity going so far as to include “Credulity, Superstitious Hope, and the Fear of Hell in his catalogue of diseases.”

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? Erasmus Darwin wants to replace the biblical account and that makes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution a deliberate alternative to the biblical account? Hello! Wrong Darwin!

And then he suggests Answers in Genesis as an appropriate place for seeking further information. Not good at all. I'd check out the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion instead. Real Christians who are real scientists doing good work on this issue.

And that's all I have to say about that. For now.

(As an aside, I'm amused by the slogan for the Creation Museum advertised on the Answers in Genesis site - "Prepare to Believe.")

Perhaps this is why teaching Science and Religion is like banging my head against a brick wall...

For some Men, that have but superficial, though conspicuous, Wits, are not fitted to penetrate such Truths, as require a lasting and attentive Speculation; and diverse, hat want not Abilities, are so taken up by their Secular Affairs, and their Sensual Pleasure, that they neither have Disposition, nor will have Leisure, to discover those Truths, that require both an Attentive and Penetrating Mind. And more than of either of these sorts of Men there are, whom their Prejudices do so forestall, or their Interest bias, or their Appetites blind, or their Passions discompose, too much, to allow them a clear Discernment, and right Judgment, of Divine Things.

- Robert Boyle, The Christian Virtuoso, 1690

Can a Scientist Believe the Resurrection?

Tom Wright gives a lecture at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion - click here.

And lots of other cool stuff on the Institute's website.