Home

Stuart,

…working to tear down the evolutionary stronghold and replace it with good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible…

Are pro-evolutionary Christians scientists such as Francis Collins, Ken (and also Keith) Miller, John Polkinghorne, Denis O. Lamoureux, David Wilcox and a host of others ALL not practising “good science”?

On Ken’s blog, you said that as a Christian, you were fully able to accept evolution, but had no (presumably scientific) reason to do so as of yet. One could take the above quote to be at odds (or at least seem to be) with that statement.

How does evolutionary theory part ways with “good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible”? And what scientific errors have the above scientists made?

We need desperately to stop seeing evolution as something horrible. We’re (needlessly) setting up our youth and children for a (needless) crisis of faith when they learn about evolution. We’re teaching them to not trust science (including the science of the Christians listed above), and binding heavy anti-evolution burdens for them…

Sincerely,
-d-

Dale,

Let me affirm that I think your concerns (expressed in comment #1) are appropriate for this thread. As clarification, the above is not my words but that of the Creation Ministries International Team. I thought they were appropriate material for an apologetics website.

My personal view—still in the process of being formulated—is that evolution be given a fair trial and evaluated on its merits scientifically with the sophistication of understanding that the data is always coloured by the worldview of the interpreter.

My concerns are that evolutionary science is assumed good before the investigation has really begun, that the science that dissents is assumed bad – for whatever reason, that dialogue always stray from civil discussion, and that people live a dichotomised existence; never integrating their theological conclusions with their interpretation of the science. Most importantly, that people never evaluate the worldview and the presuppositions from which any conclusion flowed.

Are pro-evolutionary Christians . . . not practising “good science”?

That’s the debate isn’t it.

How does evolutionary theory part ways with “good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible”?

Could I take this to mean how does evolutionary science part ways with creation science?
I would have preferred they said “replacing bad science with good science, open dialogue and unbiased analysis with regard to the evidence.”

We need desperately to stop seeing evolution as something horrible. We’re (needlessly) setting up our youth and children for a (needless) crisis of faith when they learn about evolution. We’re teaching them to not trust science (including the science of the Christians listed above), and binding heavy anti-evolution burdens for them…

I’m curious – is the motivation for your pro-evolutionary stance based upon the strength of the evidence, or because otherwise we make evolution a monster that when others are confronted with, cause them a crisis of faith.

Maybe people shouldn’t trust what science declares – isn’t scepticism a major door into further scientific investigation and discovery? Is the anti-evolutionary burden so heavy once the worldview is properly considered and critical-thinking skills are developed and sharpened?

I’d much rather train up a child who is skilled enough in biblical interpretation and scientific investigation, and sophisticated enough to able to integrate the two in a way that honours God, than to shackle that child to a particular theological/ scientific view.

Thanks Stuart,

Could I take this to mean how does evolutionary science part ways with creation science? I would have preferred they said “replacing bad science with good science, open dialogue and unbiased analysis with regard to the evidence.”

…sure, but that still assumes that the evolutionary ‘stronghold’ (gee whiz, did they HAVE to use that word!? :) ) must be ‘bad science’…

I’m curious – is the motivation for your pro-evolutionary stance based upon the strength of the evidence, or because otherwise we make evolution a monster that when others are confronted with, cause them a crisis of faith.

First, I think the whole creation versus evolution debate is not only false, but an utter distraction to the main task of kingdom-shaped Christian living. Secondly, whilst I am more motivated by the (needless) ‘crisis of faith’ issue, I do think the genomic evidence of shared ancestry is compelling.

I’d much rather train up a child who is skilled enough in biblical interpretation and scientific investigation, and sophisticated enough to able to integrate the two in a way that honours God, than to shackle that child to a particular theological/ scientific view.

Well said. And I see nothing at all of that heart-beat in pretty much every ‘Creationist’ thing I see. It’s all about dismantling the ‘lie’ of evolution, ‘defending’ youth against evolution (thereby assuming it to be an enemy), etc. Not exactly open investigation…
I like to say it like this: Sure, we shouldn’t let the truth of evolutionary theory be one of the things that under-girds our confidence in our faith – but just the same, confidence in our faith should also not be under-girded by ID/Creationist attacks/criticisms of evolutionary theory.

I just cannot in good conscience give my support to these anti-evolution groups. Two main reasons being: 1) For all I know, evolution is how God brought into being his image-bearing creatures ‘from the dust’, and 2) I think our energies/time that God has given us to use in His Kingdom purposes can be better spent elsewhere.

(thanks for engaging, by the way – are you an Auckland-ite?)

-d-

Dale,

Yes, I’m an Aucklander.

Insofar as evolution is a scientific hypothesis and anti-evolution (sometimes rendered as creationism) is also a scientific arena of study, I say bring on the debate and let people make up their minds by evaluation of the evidence. For the Christian audience let them understand that no essential doctrine hangs of the outcome – unlike the naturalist and atheistic position.

But let there also be a clear distinction between evolution and evolutionism, which is the worldview associated with the science and if allowed to continue will influence everything from the way people think, to anthropology (view of man), to justice, to psychology, to politics, to morality, to education, to every area of life. On that level every Christian need be weary, and it is useful to let the difference between the two be known.

:-)

ummm… did the comments disappear!!??

Yes, I definitely think we need to keep the distinction clear between evolutionary science and a worldview built on it (i.e. 'darwinism' v. 'social darwinism').

For the Christian audience let them understand that no essential doctrine hangs of the outcome – unlike the naturalist and atheistic position.

Indeed – and that is precisely what I do NOT hear from most 'Creationist' ministries.

On that level every Christian need be weary, and it is useful to let the difference between the two be known.

Indeed – THAT is a worldview/philosophy issue, not a biology one :)

((Good to hear you're an Aucklander – if you're ever in the Northcote area, pop in to Northcote Baptist and say hello))

I would have preferred they said “replacing bad science with good science, open dialogue and unbiased analysis with regard to the evidence.”

That’s assuming there is such a thing as unbiased analysis of evidence, which I do not believe to be the case. Worldviews shape all, whether they are religious, naturalistic or anything in between. Trying to dissociate ‘bias’, ie worldviews, from science simply doesn’t work – it just tends to end up with the winning bias presenting itself as neutral and objective, with all other contenders labelled the biased ones.

Yes, I agree the worldview skews everyones interpretation. But I do think efforts can be made to present opposing views fairly.

The evolution debate is one of the reasons I think philosophy should be taught as a compulsory subject at high-school. Critical thinking skills will help students to pick up on when a worldview is influencing the reading of the data.

‘Insofar as evolution is a scientific hypothesis and anti-evolution (sometimes rendered as creationism) is also a scientific arena of study,

Your evidence for that rather naive assertion is…exactly?

Calling creationism a science is a lie…it is not… never has been… never will…!

It might suit fools and charlatans to pretend it is… but it does not fool those of rational thought!

Stuart: Yes, I agree that opposing worldviews can probably be presented fairly (in theory, at any rate!). My worry is that in the average secular setting, alternative worldviews would be given lip service before the scientists (who tend to be notably dim when it comes to the philosophy of science or philosophy in general) would say “Right, we’ve got that out of the way, now let’s get on to Real Science”, ie. science under their worldview; followed by sweeping, say, the Problem of Induction under the carpet and carrying blithely on as before. Making scientists aware that the moment ‘data’ becomes ‘evidence’, if not before, worldviews are drastically shaping perceptions would be a very uphill task indeed.

Teaching philosophy in schools should certainly be done, but whether or not it could succeed in a mass setting with limited time is dubious. Philosophy and logic are best taught one-on-one IME (then again, I think that about most subjects and plan to homeschool, so take that as you will!).

In fact I don’t think creationism a science. The quote you supplied doesn’t construe creationism either – only that anti-evolutionary science is sometimes (and falsly in my view) rendered as creationism.

@11:

While you’re right to say that creationism isn’t a science, that leaves you contradicting both yourself and the “ministry” you are claiming to support.

Your words “evolution is a scientific hypothesis and anti-evolution (sometimes rendered as creationism) is also a scientific arena of study” do assert that “creationism is a scientific arena of study”, but now you say “I don’t think creationism a science”. This is the contradiction strangebrew was pointing out.

“only that anti-evolutionary science is sometimes (and falsly in my view) rendered as creationism” is not what you originally wrote, nor consistent with the tone of what you wrote, where you most certainly made the impression that “creationism is a scientific arena of study” was your view.

Creationism is not any “scientific arena of study”. It’s a religious tale, so if it’s going to be the subject of study, the arena of study will be religious studies, theology, etc., not science.

Furthermore, “I don’t think creationism [is] a science” (your words) and, “good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible,” (from the letter in the original article) don’t sit together well. This has you now saying you don’t agree with what you are asking support for.

Finally, anything solely on the bible will not be science of any kind. At most, it can be religious doctrine. To make it science, you need more than “someone says so”.

Heraclides,

The parenthesis in the quote is not my opinion – the point is others render anti-evolution as creationism, and there is no contradiction there.

I will speak for myself, and not the Creation Ministries International Team. This is how I make sense of the issue.

Creationism is a doctrine. To Christianity the doctrine laid out is the view that God created the universe and the world by an act of primary causation.

Creation science is the area of study that seeks to integrate science (what we can discover about the world through empirical investigation) and a specific interpretation of the scripture. The specific interpretation may vary, but can include a literal reading of the creation account thus necessitating arguments that counter evolution, or it may include a non-literal reading of the creation account thus leaving the scientist uninformed as far as special revelation as to how God created the world. A creation scientist can therefore hold to both creationism and evolutionary science.

Intelligent Design is science. It is the minimal commitment to a designer, and says nothing about the designer accept it was an orchestrating intelligence responsible for at least some of the natural phenomena that appears to be designed. It does not necessitate any biblical doctrine’s inclusion, though an ID scientist’s goal is certainly consistent with any form of creationism and creation science.

Now, as you know, I don’t think evolution is good science (that is correct conclusions drawn from via careful investigation, appropriate method while wary of the worldview). in fact, I think evolution bad science (that is incorrect). I think this on the basis of the philosophically astute moderating influence of scientific critiques, and not on the basis of any special revelation or doctrine. Also, on the basis of these critiques I see an emerging good science agreeing with the special revelation provided in the Bible. This makes the words: “tear down the evolutionary stronghold and replace it with good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible” not thoroughly inconsistent within my personal view, but different enough to warrant me saying the following.

I would have preferred they said “replacing bad science with good science, open dialogue and unbiased analysis with regard to the evidence.

A less dramatic edit that I also would have preferred is the following.

“…tear down the evolutionary stronghold and replace it with good science consistant with the accuracy and authority of the Bible”

Regards
:-)

“The parenthesis in the quote is not my opinion – the point is others render anti-evolution as creationism, and there is no contradiction there.”

In that case you need to write what you actually mean. This is not what your original words said: I am correct about you contradicting yourself (I never said it was intentional, just that you did).

“Creationism is a doctrine.” and therefore isn’t science and can’t be “integrated” into science. Naming attempts to do so “creation science” doesn’t make that science either.

“A creation scientist can therefore hold to both creationism and evolutionary science.” LOL. I’d like to see you show that.

“Intelligent Design is science.” Nope, never has been. It’s a renaming of creationism to walk around legal issues in the USA. The people who started it have pretty much explicitly said that.

“I don’t think evolution is good science” You can think what you like, it won’t make you right until you demonstrate it.

I suggest you read the history of ID (from outside of the movement) and likewise the history of fundamentalist Christianity. You seem to have the wrong notions about what both really are. But then you would, until you can see them from the outside.

“Creationism is a doctrine.” and therefore isn’t science and can’t be “integrated” into science. Naming attempts to do so “creation science” doesn’t make that science either.

By the same token, then, metaphysical naturalism isn’t science and can’t be “integrated” into science. Maybe you should pass this along to your friend Ken.

“By the same token, then, metaphysical naturalism isn’t science and can’t be “integrated” into science.”

To make the two equate, you first have to claim “metaphysical naturalism is a religious doctrine”. It’s the doctrine bit that’s makes creationism not science, not that both have ‘ism’ at the end.

So, do you want to claim metaphysical naturalism is a religious doctrine?

(I’m using doctrine in the religious sense of the word, of course.)

Heraclides,

“Creationism is a doctrine.” and therefore isn’t science and can’t be “integrated” into science.

This reveals a decisive lack of understanding when it comes to worldview. The theological doctrine is not integrated into science, but integrated with science to form a cohesive and coherent worldview.

“A creation scientist can therefore hold to both creationism and evolutionary science.” LOL. I’d like to see you show that.

A theistic evolutionist can be a creation scientist in the way I have defined it. So can a progressive creationist: a person who holds to progressive creationism, a theological view akin to Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, that seeks to integrate science with theology.

“Intelligent Design is science.” Nope, never has been. It’s a renaming of creationism to walk around legal issues in the USA. The people who started it have pretty much explicitly said that.

Whatever its origins, I’ll defend what it now is, and according to the Discovery Institute, and the top intellectual defenders of ID it is not committed to any doctrine. It can therefore not be creationism in disguise as it is so often criticised.

“I don’t think evolution is good science” You can think what you like, it won’t make you right until you demonstrate it.

Granted. But remember, that sword cuts both ways. And according to how I defined good science (correct conclusions arrived at via careful investigation, appropriate methodology and fully taking into account the philosophical presuppositions and worldview that is apt to distort the interpretation of data and evidence) I think evolution is already on the back-foot.

I suggest you read the history of ID (from outside of the movement) and likewise the history of fundamentalist Christianity. You seem to have the wrong notions about what both really are. But then you would, until you can see them from the outside.

That last sentence is interesting. CS Lewis has commented that before you criticise a view you have to do your best to look at it from the inside – to not do so would be to run the risk of arguing against a straw man. That is exactly opposite of what you suggest I do, and good advise to you.

So, do you want to claim metaphysical naturalism is a religious doctrine?

From what I’ve seen of non-Christian commenters here, that’s exactly how I would describe it.

Memo to Bnonn: metaphysical naturalism is not a religious doctrine, nor a doctrine. Just you want it to be, doesn’t make it so.

Memo to Stuart: A theistic evolutionist can be a creation scientist in the way I have defined it. Not in any honest way. They can in dishonest ways, though.

The rest of what you have written is pure words games, trying to wriggle your way out of your errors, as usual for you. It’s not worth replying: others will see that you are in error, which is enough for me.

Memo to Bnonn: metaphysical naturalism is not a religious doctrine, nor a doctrine. Just you want it to be, doesn’t make it so.

That will depend on how you define “religious” doctrine. It’s certainly true that metaphysical naturalism isn’t a doctrine of any recognized religion. But it’s equally true that it is an unverified belief held with a religious faith by many atheists, such as Ken.

The rest of what you have written is pure words games, trying to wriggle your way out of your errors, as usual for you. It’s not worth replying: others will see that you are in error, which is enough for me.

These sorts of statements are why your name is flagged for moderation. Further comments containing this sort of passive-aggressive antagonism will simply be deleted.

The rest of what you have written is pure words games, trying to wriggle your way out of your errors, as usual for you.

I’m happy to let others be the judge. It’s at least plain to me that I was highlighting and correcting your errors.

To make the two equate, you first have to claim “metaphysical naturalism is a religious doctrine”. It’s the doctrine bit that’s makes creationism not science, not that both have ‘ism’ at the end. . . Memo to Bnonn: metaphysical naturalism is not a religious doctrine, nor a doctrine. Just you want it to be, doesn’t make it so.

Metaphysical naturalism is philosophical commitment that requires good arguments for it to be held as rational. Until these arguments are stated and defended then it is a doctrine—which is not a religious term but defined as a belief or set of beliefs held by any person or group—and what you would call a faith commitment. In the absence of reasons to adopt a metaphysical naturalism it is then irrational and should not be adopted.

[...] when they appeal for help money is not at the top of the list (unusual for a charity). Their recent appeal said: “We need to find and equip pastors and churches– so please send us the name of your [...]