A Religion Based in the World in Which We Live

Rob states, “What our world needs is a 'Reason' based religion that defines universal moral laws and grounds us firmly in the world in which we live.” I assume by “Reason-based,” Rob means a religion in keeping with his naturalistic assumptions and worldview. But if Darwinism is correct, then why does the world need religion? Usually by “religion” we mean a belief in God or a supernatural power to be worshipped. Darwinism, by definition, excludes any appeal to the supernatural and leads to atheism. In fact, according to most Darwinists, religion is the greatest of all evils. I suspect, however, that by “religion” Rob simply means a belief system that carries with it a code of ethics and conduct. Yet the world already has this in Darwinism. Its one universal moral law is “survival of the fittest,” its prophet (or god) is Charles Darwin, and its priesthood or evangelists consist of men like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould. And this religion is in fact completely grounded in the world in which we live, for it claims that the world is all there is.

Two world-wars begun essentially on the principle of “survival of the fittest,” in addition to the Soviet Union and Communist China, testify that Darwinism and naturalism are in fact grounded in the world in which we live—a world where the strong outcompete or cull out the weak for their own gains. This is Darwin’s first and only universal “moral” principle. But don’t take my word for it, let’s let Darwin speak for himself:

"Each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio . . . each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction . . . The vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1859).

“From the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly flow. (The Descent of Man”)

The following was quoted by Ben Stein in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.168-169).

Some have tried to claim that in the paragraph that followed the one above, Darwin appealed to our human feeling of sympathy that keeps us from putting this principle into practice and actually doing away with all the inferior weak members of society. Let’s see:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” (The Descent of Man (1871) p.168-169)

So, our evolved human instinct prevents us from doing what the instinct in all other animals causes them to do, in spite of the “bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” But where did this “instinct” come from? And why do only we humans have it? And how did that instinctive sympathy evolve, considering how contrary it is to the universal principle of natural selection seen in all other animals? Nonetheless, at least Darwin can be grateful that the “weaker and inferior members of society” usually do not marry and propagate further bad effects on society. But not to worry, for evolved man will eventually succeed in eliminating the inferior races:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.201).

Darwin recognized the implications of his own theory far better than most of his disciples. The Darwinist religion (faith, philosophy, belief, theory– call it what you will, just don’t call it science) is clearly “grounded in the world in which we live,” assuming, as Darwinism does, that the world is all there is. In a Darwinist world, there can be no other moral laws besides survival of the fittest. There can be no morality, no right or wrong, nor even any reason for “instinctive sympathy.” Perhaps that’s why Darwin originally entitled his famous work: “The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” That is one “reason based religion” the world could do far better without.

When it come to Evolution, Majority Rules

Today I’ll address two points that Rob makes. He says:

“I would suggest that the scientific method has been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations. Approximately 95% of the members of the Academy of Scientists believe in evolution and not in 'creation from the dust' by God. I am suspect of the other 5%. The scientific method has led directly to virtually all of our technological advancements as well as those theories we hold as truths.”

I couldn’t agree more with Rob’s first point. The scientific method has indeed been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations, and that this has led to all our scientific advances. But what Robert fails to acknowledge is that this scientific method was worked out by Christians who would be more in line with today’s creationists than with evolutionists. In fact, I would suggest that if not for the Christian worldview held almost universally in the West during most of the last five centuries, the scientific method could never have arisen at all. It is no mere coincidence that science had its greatest advancement in the West, where the Christian worldview ruled. Christians viewed the world as orderly and designed, ruled by inviolable laws and principles created by a personal Designer God. The Bible testified to an orderly, law-governed creation, and these laws and principles could therefore be studied and examined and worked out. This gave rise to the scientific method.

That the vast majority of the greatest scientific thinkers have been creationists is indisputable. Many publications and websites have provided long (though not exhaustive) lists of these “greatest thinkers” who have held a Christian worldview and belief in the Bible. For a few examples, visit:

http://www.rae.org/influsci.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/FamousChristianScientists.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

Galileo, Copernicus, and Isaac Newton are probably the three men most responsible for the scientific method, and all three were creationists (their beef was with the Roman Catholic Church, not the Bible). Copernicus viewed the universe as "built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all.” Galileo insisted that the Bible cannot err. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Sounds a lot like ID today. We could add Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, Werner von Braun and many others.

But, what about today’s scientists? Are creationists or those who believe in Intelligent Design so few and suspect as Evolutionists like to claim? While clearly in the minority, there are thousands of highly credentialed and accomplished scientists who reject Darwinism, and the number is increasing yearly.

A little research on the web will confirm this, not to mention the increasing number of books being published by highly respected scientists. Secular researcher Richard Milton, says, "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism , Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997, p. 277.)

In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.” (In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation, edited by John F. Ashton. (1999) Page 284

Several years ago, U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner, a creationist, earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA.

More recently, perhaps the most eminent scientist of our time is Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Project that cracked the DNA code, something which is considered by many to be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. Collins began his career as an atheist, but is now a creationist. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." See interview by CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

There’s also the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) – An organization of about 1000 members who have signed on to publicly declare: “As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”

I have a number of books on my shelf written by extremely accomplished and credentialed scientists from every major field who reject evolution. I could list dozens, if not hundreds, more if I had the time and inclination. Despite their overwhelming credentials, however, evolutionists will deny all these as being real scientists simply because these men believe in creation. As Robert suggests, that fact alone makes them “suspect” as scientists. This is typical circular reasoning that is so common among Darwinists. They say, “You can’t name any real scientists who are not evolutionists,” and then when you do, they say, “Oh, those are not real scientists because they reject evolution.” Of course, by their own criteria we would have to write off such men as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur, Collins, Baumgardner, etc. as not being real scientists.

Evolutionists cannot argue their case based on the facts, so they appeal to majority rule. So if we wish to play their game, let them acknowledge that only 10% of the American public believes in evolution, so if we want to put it to a vote as Rob suggests, then evolution loses. But since most of those rejecting evolution do not have “science degrees” they are automatically discounted as incapable of thinking critically about the evidence or drawing conclusions. This is nothing more than intellectual arrogance and elitism. This arrogance, coupled with the authoritarianism that forbids any questioning of the majority position, stifles open criticism. Most scientists who reject Darwinism are simply afraid to speak up. Hmm, seems vaguely reminiscent of the Medieval persecution of men who dared to question the majority view of their day, men like Copernicus and Galileo.

Moral Implications of Darwinism

For the past two weeks we’ve discussed the relationship between faith and science. Let me progress today to that aspect of the discussion that deals with morality. Are there any moral implications or consequences to Darwinism? What actually gave rise to this discussion with my friend Robert was my suggestion that the mass murders perpetuated under Marxist regimes are a natural consequence of a Darwinist worldview. This charge greatly raised my friend’s hackles, understandably so. It suggests that Darwinism logically and necessarily leads to untold evils. Robert denies this charge. Before we consider my friend’s arguments, however, let me first refer you to an excellent article on this subject entitled “Why Darwinism Matters,” by Nancy R. Pearcey. You can view this at http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_dcpolicy0500.htm . It will put to rest any doubts regarding the moral, intellectual, educational, political, philosophical, social, and religious implications of Darwinism. Except for the teachings of Jesus, no philosophy or worldview has had as profound an effect on the world as Darwinism. I maintain that that effect has been wholly negative.

One does not have to be a genius to realize that Darwinism destroys any basis for morality, for purpose in life, for the value of human life, and even for the very existence of truth. If we are but animals, the result of chance mutations in a wholly material world, then human life has no real meaning, nor does it have any value beyond that of a worm or a slug. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that an individual organism’s only purpose is to pass on its genes for the survival of the species. Darwinists contend, by the way, that this even provides a biological justification for rape. They are correct, for if evolution is true there can be no such thing as right or wrong, only beneficial adaptation (see Pearcey’s article). One cannot declare the Holocaust either wrong or imprudent, but only an evolutionary adaptation. It is this very worldview that has given rise to the field of eugenics, as well as the impetus for abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.

Darwinists attempt to argue, however, that we have developed moral principles in order to benefit ourselves as a species (e.g., it is beneficial to raise “good” kids), but the argument is faulty in several ways. First, Darwinism teaches the survival of the most fit (the strongest), not the most congenial or most “good.” Those groups of humans who can obtain the most power would do better to do away with individuals or races that are weaker or more dependent (i.e., the competition). Second, even if one could argue that it is beneficial to be “good” to others, how could you define “good”? Is “good” based on some idea of morality, or simply on pragmatics (who wins out)? And even if one could define “good,” he wouldn’t be able to define “right” and “wrong.” Simply put, Hitler’s policies, from a Darwinist point of view, would have been “good” if only the Christian world would have let him carry them out. Stalin’s cleansing policies were likewise “good.” In the animal world, it is always good to cull the weaker individuals and out-compete the competition. But in the animal world there is no “right” or “wrong,” no “morality.” Since we are but animals, Hitler would have been right if he had succeeded. In Darwinism, “success” is the only measure of what is “right” or “good.”

Robert claims, however, that any 6^th grader knows that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other purpose. He says, “Anyone with even 6^th grade history background will understand that Christians and Muslims have been responsible for more torture, oppression, and genocide than any other groups in the last 2000 years. Have you heard of the Crusades or the Inquisition? In Hitler's Germany and in other European countries during World War II, the collection and murder of the Jews was made possible by many hundreds of years of Christian programming (sic) within the populace ('Hitlers Willing Executioners' by D.J. Goldhagen) against the Jews who murdered Christ.” Of course, if Darwinism is true, there is nothing wrong with that, for all that murder in the name of religion would only be another natural result of the evolutionary process, an adaptation of the human species. The reality is, however, that there is just no comparison between the “evil” (murder, killing, genocide, oppression) committed in the name of “Christ” versus that done in the name of Atheistic Darwinism. (I’ll not argue about what has been done in the name of “religion” in general, since I am not defending “religion,” only Christianity in its true, original form as taught in the Bible).Let’s compare the statistics of the murder/mayhem performed by Christians vs. that performed in the name of atheism.

The only significant amount of killing performed under the guise of Christianity occurred during the middle ages, with the Roman Catholic Crusades and Inquisitions, and carried on somewhat by the Reformationists (I’ll deal with Hitler’s motives shortly). Historians shows that the number of dead at the hands of “Christians” throughout history totals to about 264,000 (http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf). And even at that, it is plainly obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament that these events were perversions of the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies and pray for them, to bless those who persecute them, to go the extra mile and turn the other cheek, to do good unto all men. And this is what his followers have always done, the exceptional perversion notwithstanding. Further, the so-called Christian wars and killings occurred over a relatively short period of time, long after the time of Christ. For the vast majority of the 2000 years of Christianity, Christians have been characterized as peaceable people who go out and perform loving acts in emulation of their Master.

What about atheism and Darwinism? This worldview (in this form at least) has existed for only a little over 150 years, and less than that as a dominant worldview. What has been the result? To find the answer, we need only look to those political/economic/social systems that have been founded upon atheistic Darwinism: Marxism/Lennism and the former Soviet Union (more than 43,000 million murdered), communist China (38 million murdered), Cuba, smaller communist regimes, and Hitler’s “Third Reich” (6-10 million murdered). I must add here that Robert categorizes Hitler’s murders as being done in the name of religion, even Christianity, but Hitler’s eugenics was based on Darwin’s principles of Survival of the Most Fit, and at best Hitler greatly discouraged religion. Even if Hitler based his policies on “religion,” any 6^th grader who has read the Bible knows it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ (regardless of what the public schools teach). On the other hand, no one can argue that the aforementioned atheistic social systems were in any way a perversion of Darwinism. They were only doing what Darwin himself recognized was the natural result of his teaching (again, see Pearcey’s article). So what is the score of atheism vs. Christianity?

A perverted, so-called Christianity: 264,000 killed over a period of 2000 years.
Consistent atheistic Darwinism: 141 million killed in less than 100 years (almost 50% of all people killed in all of recorded history!) (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

Darwin wins 534:1! And Darwinism has barely gotten started! Nor have we even mentioned the roughly 50 million aborted babies in American alone since Roe vs. Wade, nor the one billion in atheist China, all a result of a naturalistic, Darwinistic worldview (the Bible opposes abortion, Darwinism supports it).

On the other side of the coin, how much good has been done in the name of atheism as opposed to that done in the name of religion (specifically “Christianity”)? How many hospitals, medical missionary programs, food distribution programs, poverty relief programs, addiction recovery programs, outreach missions for the homeless, orphan homes, etc. have been established by atheist organizations? You find these in every town and city in the world, and almost always established by Christians. Jesus taught his followers to go out and do good, visit those in prison, help those who are sick, lift up those who are weak, defend the orphan and widow and helpless. Billions of dollars are donated every year by average (often poor) Christians to help others they do not even know. Are there any atheist organizations doing these things? Perhaps helping the fur seals and laboratory rats (think of PITA), but not humans.

Further, how many lives have been transformed for good by Darwinism? How many drug addicts and alcoholics have recovered by turning to Darwin? How many selfish or violent or prideful individuals have been turned into selfless, peaceable, gentle, humble, loving individuals by Darwin? Does Darwinism teach its followers to “love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5.22f)? Does Darwinism teach its adherents to “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Eph 4.32)? Millions upon millions of people have dramatically changed their lives after turning to Christ. Can the same be said of people who have turned away from Christ to Darwin? (I must qualify here that I know there are professing Christians that are intolerable, selfish, prideful, hateful bigots, but I am talking about those who have truly turned to Christ and the Bible, not to “Christianity” – there’s a difference.)

Now, all this is not to suggest that all Darwinists are evil, murderous, oppressors of the weak. There are many in this country who are fine human beings, my good friend Robert being one of them. To Robert’s credit, he donates thousands of dollars and his own time to charitable works. But I suggest that Robert is not living according to the principles of Darwin, but rather living on the shirt-tails of the Christian worldview that has dominated the society in which he was raised. Since America is historically a nation founded by Christians and for most of our history our culture has been based on a Biblical worldview, even atheists in this country will have morals similar to those of Christians. That is simply because most people adopt the morals of the society in which they live. My friend Robert , without realizing it, may simply be a “Christian” in his morals, even if he is a Darwinist in his faith. But for how many generations will that continue? The further any society progresses into atheism, the more immoral it becomes (see comment posted by Gardner Hall, March 27th). And as America has become increasingly secular, postmodern, and Darwinist, the daily news testifies to the results.

On a sidenote, Ben Stein (lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author, social commentator, and general all-around smart guy who happens to have a home in Sandpoint) is releasing a movie entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which blows the whistle on the suppression of views critical of Darwinism. You can see a trailer at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ . It will be opening in CDA at the Riverstone on April 18th.

Science, Faith, and Objectivity

I appreciate very much those who have written comments for this blog discussion. Your insights have helped in forming some of my own thoughts. My good friend, Dr. Pierce, has raised many questions. Today I will focus on the philosophical concepts of “science” vs. “faith” and the alleged objectivity of scientists vs. subjectivity of people of faith.

In comparing the field of science to “faith-based” religion, Rob draws an image of scientists as universally objective, honest, and ever-ready to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it means dramatically changing their worldview should the evidence demand it. In contrast, people of faith are wholly subjective if not also dishonest, forming opinions first then stubbornly holding to them against mounds of evidence to the contrary. In Rob’s own words, “This is actually the ultimate difference between science and faith. In science, we are always open to changing what we think of as truths. In faith-based religions we hold all the truths already and any intrusions upon them must be met with dogged defensiveness and attack.” (Of course, we all know that evolutionists never “doggedly defend and attack”).

Robert’s description of both scientists and people of faith reveals that he greatly misunderstands the nature of both groups of people (rather, of “people” in general). Let me deal with the faith issue first. Contrary to the common caricature, Biblical faith is not blind, “leap in the dark,” superstition. In fact, Rob himself is a person of great faith, not only as seen in his faith in Darwinism, but as expressed in every day life. By faith, Rob starts his truck each morning, fully expecting it to take him to work. By faith he then drives it to work, trusting that the oncoming drivers will stay in their own lane. He has faith that his electricity at work will be functioning, and his employees will be present and ready to work. You get the point: Faith is simply trusting in something that you cannot see, yet you have enough evidence upon which to confidently act, even upon which to base your life. If we get on an airplane, we have faith that the pilot is qualified, the mechanics were diligent, and the ATC technicians are awake. Biblical faith is no different (for that matter, neither is Darwinian faith). Faith is believing in something we cannot see, based on the evidence that we can see (cf. Heb 11.1).

By Rob’s definition of faith, however, people come to believe in Jesus and the Bible without any prior critical thought or examination of evidence. They simply believe first and ask questions later (or not at all). Yet the apostles (the Biblical authors) themselves were nothing like what Rob characterizes. On the contrary, not one of them was a believer until the evidence forced them to dramatically change their minds. Every one of the apostles, for example, rejected the very idea of Jesus’ death and resurrection before it happened, in spite of Jesus’ own predictions of it (Mt 16.21-22; Lk 9.44-45; 18.31-35). They refused to believe he would ever die, as this went against their prior-formed ideas of the Jewish Messiah. When he died, they thought it was all over. And when they heard he was raised, they again refused to believe it (Jn 20.24-25), writing it off as nonsense (Lk 24.10-11). But after seeing Jesus alive, after eating with him, touching him and handling him for forty days (1 Jn 1.1-3), these men who had fled at Jesus’ arrest, who had denied him at his trial, and who had hid behind locked doors after his death, changed. They became believers. What changed them? The evidence that that they could not deny even though it went against everything they knew and believed about the nature of the promised Messiah. It wasn’t until they were convinced by “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1.1-2) that they became “dogged defenders” of what they came to believe. True, they then all went to their deaths doggedly defending their faith, but only after having been convinced against their will (so-to-speak) to begin with. Again, we have to ask, What caused these men to change their whole belief system and become such faithful defenders of their new faith, enduring incredible persecution? Think of the apostle Paul who was one of the most powerful and respected men in Judaism, and the leading persecutor of Christianity, and who gave it all up to become a defender of the faith he once so cruelly and fervently persecuted. This would be like the great Evolutionist/Anti-creationist Stephen Jay Gould suddenly becoming a Billy Graham. If that were to happen, we would not accuse Gould of forming his conclusions first, then doggedly defending a blind faith against all evidence. If we were honest, we would have to admit that there must have been some powerful evidence to change him. Rob is clearly mistaken in his idea of faith and his image of faith-based religion. But he is right about human tendencies to do as he describes, however. But who are the ones Rob describes? I’ll come back to that shortly.

Rob is equally mistaken about the unflinching objectiveness of men of science. If Scientists are as universally honest and dispassionately objective as Rob suggests, then what about the scientists who did Hitler’s research? Or, Stalin’s? What about all those tobacco-industry scientists who conveniently found tobacco and nicotine harmless? Or those who may skew the research results for the particular drug or chemical company that signs their paycheck? (I'm not impugning all scientists who work for private companies). Rob might say these are the exceptions, but Rob’s naïve “faith” in science and scientists fails to recognize that scientists are human beings, with the same human tendency to subjectivity as anyone else. They are neither gods nor supermen. The fact is that scientists are as prone as any other group of human beings to ignoring evidence that goes against their worldview. Whether competing for limited but lucrative grant money, or the hope of getting on the cover of National Geographic (e.g., by discovering a new “Lucy”), or fear of losing one’s credibility in a system that discourages questioning the accepted “theory,” or simply having an intellectual rationalization for rejecting a personal God to whom we must answer, the fact is that scientists face great motivation for being less than objective, especially in a field with such spiritual and moral implications as the study of origins.

Rob has great faith that should any scientist suddenly discover evidence that calls into question the theory of evolution, he will jump at the opportunity to herald his new find, and the whole science field will consider him a hero. In reality, pity the poor man who tries! Any scientists who dare publish a piece critical of the accepted theory (if he could even get it published) will be blackballed, his career destroyed, and possibly fired from his chair. This is no false charge, but has happened on a number of occasions. For example, Dr. Stephen Meyer, a Ph.D. from Cambridge, was fortunate enough to get just such a critique published in a prestigious journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Natural History). The journal’s editor, Rick Sternberg, a researcher at the museum, and holding two Ph.D.s in biology, forwarded Myer’s paper to a panel of three peer reviewers, all of whom recommenced publication with revisions. Meyer made the revisions and Sternberg published it, only to be immediately denounced by major academic publications, blackballed and shunned by his colleagues, and barred from his office and research. His career was nearly destroyed—and he didn’t even write the paper or even agree with it! So much for “objectivity.”

Now let me come back to the question of who it is that Rob describes as forming prior conclusions and then doggedly defending them against all evidence to the contrary. While I will grant that many people of faith were raised from childhood with that faith and never gave it a critical examination, a similar thing has occurred in the field of evolutionary science. The vast majority of proponents of evolution did not come to their belief after a thorough, objective, and critical examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Rather, most evolutionists entered college never having considered the evidence either way (probably believing in God and the Bible), but as young undergraduates were awed by seemingly all-knowing Professors who simply told them evolution was true while providing some shallow arguments to support it. These young undergrads then accepted it, some of them going on later to “doggedly defend” their new faith. I am speaking from experience, as I was one of those awed freshman myself, until someone pointed out that there is another side to the story. But don’t take my word for it. Famous evolutionists Ehrlich and Girch said themselves:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it...(Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training" (Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Girch, Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Nature, Vol. 214, 1967, p.352; emphasis mine -- RSH)

Let me close with one final quote regarding the faith element in evolutionary science:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, Introduction to The Origin of Species, C. Darwin, reprinted by J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p.xi)

Dialogue with an Evolutionist Friend

(I apologize for the varying fonts in this post. I cannot get it to paste correctly).

Let me begin this dialogue with my friend Dr. Robert Pierce by saying that I hope you have read Robert’s comment in its entirety (see comment under "Evolution Weekend," Feb 14). Rob has some thought-provoking points that are worth considering, and if nothing else, it will give you a perspective from the side of a Darwinist who has put much thought into both sides of the creation/evolution debate. My plan is to respond to his various points in short segments over the following weeks, so stay tuned.

I have known Robert for about ten years now, and I believe him to be as honest as any man. I count it an honor to be his friend, and I am glad that our sons are friends as well. Interestingly enough, Rob and I have travelled similar paths through life, though we have ended up on opposite sides of a debate that has everything to do with origin, paths, and destination. Both of us grew up with a love for the game of hockey, and a love for wildlife. We both grew up east of the Mississippi and ended up in Idaho. We both majored in Wildlife Biology, receiving our Master’s degrees about the same year from sister universities a stone’s throw from one another—he at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, I at Washington State University eight miles away in Pullman, Washington. We both changed directions after receiving our Master’s, he only slightly to Veterinary School, I dramatically to preaching the gospel. We then both ended up in Sandpoint, Idaho, when our love for hockey brought us together for the first time ten years ago. Our sons have known each other from a very young age, and Robert and his wonderful wife Dawn have raised a fine young man whom we love to have in our home. As Robert says, it is ironic that our sons share so many common values, considering the different worldviews with which they were raised. If the evolution/creation debate has such moral implications (as I suggested in my Monday Morning Musings article that initiated this dialogue), to what do we attribute this ironic state of affairs? I will deal specifically with this question in a future blog. For now, let me briefly address the issue of worldview.

With such similar backgrounds, what accounts for the vastly different way that Rob and I view the world? Why do creationists see the theory of evolution as a ridiculous and absurd (and unscientific) explanation for the world around us and for our origins, while evolutionists see creationism as ignorant and unscientific superstition? In spite of claims made by anti-creationists, it cannot be that creationists are ignorant throwbacks to an alleged “flat-earth” mindset. There are thousands—and the number continues to grow—of highly educated scientists and engineers who believe the world was created by a supernatural Designer. Some of the greatest minds of our time, not to mention some of the greatest scientists in history, have been creationists (see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html for a short list). In fact, it can be easily shown that it was the Christian worldview (which includes the belief that the universe was created according to orderly laws) that gave rise to the true scientific method we so take for granted today. And as for scientists today, in 1979, Science Digest wrote:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science" (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.; quoted in (http://www.christiananswers, ibid).

For example, Allen Rex Sandage, perhaps the “greatest observational cosmologist in the world” (Strobel), one-time protégé of legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble, and dubbed by New York Times “the Grand Old Man of Cosmology,” converted to theism and Christianity due to his studies in cosmology: “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence” (Sharon Begley, “Science Finds God”, Newseek, July 20, 1998).

I could multiply such examples. So the debate really isn’t about who is the most intelligent or educated. Nor do I think that the different worldviews have anything to do with one’s honesty. It really comes down to a pre-conceived notion about the world. Both sides see the world from a different standpoint simply because of the presuppositions with which they begin. One looks at the order and complexity of the world and sees a Designer, while the other sees a random accident. How can that be? The evolutionist begins with the presupposition that all explanations must be made solely from a materialistic/naturalistic standpoint. The super-natural (pre-defined by the evolutionist as anything beyond observable phenomena) is forbidden from the formula at the outset. Thus, a priori, a Designer-God cannot enter into the picture. That being the case, there is only one possible explanation remaining: naturalism. And since there is only one possible explanation—though that explanation may take a variety of forms (gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc.)—that single “theory” is by default raised to the level of fact. Consider for example the two following quotations from leading evolutionists:

Dr. D.M.S. Watson of Univ. of London: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logically coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" ("Adaptation", in Nature, 1929, p.233)

Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionist: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Quoted in: Evolution or Creation , H. Ecoch. Evangelical Press, Grand Rapids, Mi, 1967, p.71)

But is it scientific to discount possible conclusions from the outset? Doesn’t that force the inquirer into a particular interpretation of the evidence, even if there is a better alternative? Granted, creationists likewise begin with certain presuppositions. The real issue, however, is whose presuppositions are most reasonable and scientific: A worldview that discounts the consideration of a Designer at the outset, or a worldview that will let the evidence lead where it may? You be the judge.

Evolution Weekend

This week for my Monday Morning Musings I wrote a little piece about Evolution Weekend (Feb 8-10) that celebrates Charles Darwin (I mean that the weekend, not my article, celebrates Darwin--just wanted to be clear on that). For that article, see First Church of Darwin in the Monday Musings page at www.sandpointchurchofchrist.com. Let me add some further comment and clarification to that article. By the way, next year is the 200th birthday of the birth of Darwin, and organizers are already planning celebrations and commemorations all over over the world. So expect the creation/ID/evolution debate to really heat up.

I made the statement in my article that the theory of evolution belongs more in the realm of religion than in the realm of science. In its fullest and purest form, the theory of evolution is an entirely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life and of humankind, and the origin of all the major groups of life. If one honestly and critically looks into the problems and presuppositions for the the evolutionary theory of origins, however, it is difficult to argue that there is not a level of faith involved. Granted, one can make "scientific" observations of the present and extrapolate those observations to the distant, unobservable past, but at what point does one cross from the realm of science (knowledge) into the realm of faith when making such extrapolations? For example, we can observe minor genetic changes in the plant and animal world, but extrapolating those to the major, even unimaginable, changes required to go from a reptile to a mammal requires a great deal of untestable faith. Or we can theorize how life might have arisen out of a primordial soup, but since such an event has never been observed even in laboratories, one can only accept it on faith. The same is true with the origin of the universe. No matter how many observations we make to fit theoretical scenarios, by its very nature any theory of origins can only be accepted on faith. By definition, "origins" only happened once, and that in the prehistoric, pre-human past. We can take present circumstantial evidence and formulate theories of how it might have occurred, but these are only theories. They can never be tested.

But perhaps more significantly, such theories are heavily dependent on one's presuppositions. The most religiously held (and faith-based) presupposition is that science demands that all explanations of origins be purely naturalistic. Any supernatural cause (i.e., God) is excluded at the outset as being "outside the realm of science." But doesn't this force you to a naturalistic conclusion even before you can consider an alternative? How is that scientific? Science is supposed to lead you wherever the evidence leads. But by excluding one possibility beforehand, you cannot follow the evidence to where it leads. This is not science. In fact, it is not even true faith, for faith is supposed to be based on evidence as well (cf. Heb 11.1). Rather, I would put it in the category of dogma. And as proof of that, just look at what happens to anyone in the academic world who tries to question the standing dogma. They will be branded as heretics, and if not burned at the stake, at least excommunicated. That's neither science, nor faith. But it might rightly be called "religion."

The comment below says posted by Randy Hohf, but actually was written by friend Dr. Robert Pierce. He emailed it to me and I posted it. Watch for a response soon.

My first blog

Greetings everyone out there in blogsphere, or whatever they call it. This is my first blog, so I hope your expectations are not too high. I'll see where it goes. I want to focus on spiritual thoughts relating to God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Lord's church, and perhaps including discussions of my weekly Monday Morning Musings articles for those on the list (or you can read current and past MMM's at www.sandpointchurchofchrist.com). It might be a good place for open discussion about personal spiritual struggles or questions. That might mean I have to get really open and honest, and that's pretty scary (let me get used to blogging first). Perhaps in the process I can help you clarify some of your own struggles, and maybe even point you to some answers, or at least to the right place to find them.

So where do I begin? How about with a question? Here is one that I think is worth pursuing, and which has been on my mind lately. What is the difference between "religion" and "spirituality"? What we usually call "religion" is being rejected today by an entire generation of Westerners, and being replaced by a more personal, if somewhat vague, "spirituality". Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What is sort of the point man or spokesperson for many young believers today (especially those in the 20-something age group) who are turned off by "organized religion." Miller does have a lot of good things to say and with which I agree. But Miller is very down on "religion" while being keen on "spirituality." By "religion" he basically means "church," or at least the way "church" is traditionally done (and granted, the way church is "traditionally" done may not be the best or most scriptural way). But I wonder if what he is offering as an alternative is basically religion without commitment. If I can be spiritual without going to church, without being involved with other Christians in any organized fashion, without having to give up my Sundays, or give of my financial means, or be part of a functioning body, well, that would be really great. I could continue to do my own thing. I could have "religion" without the sacrifice, spirituality without transformation.

Yet at least half of the New Testament is written to deal with our relationship in the body of Christ as expressed in the local church. The book of Acts opens with the new disciples devoting themselves to what we would call "church" (Acts 2.42), and throughout the rest of the book we see that establishing local churches (Christians acting in collective units) was a major focus. If we didn't have "church" (religion), we wouldn't even have a New Testament, since most of the letters were written to local churches, often dealing with problems that arise out of such relational entities as "church". Anyway, just consider 1 Tim 3.15: "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." Call it "religion" if you will, nothing could be more spiritual than working together with others in God's household. Of course, if that is the end of our "spirituality," we are missing something indeed. Anyway, what are your thoughts?