SciLigion

Darwin's Religious Odyssey

By Bernie Dehler
10-30-07

     I just finished reading "Darwin's Religious Odyssey" and found it very well researched and written.  The author is William E. Phipps, who wrote a few other books and is a professor at Davis and Elkins College.  (Click here for book details at Amazon.com.)  (I tried to find some more internet info on the author, but I couldn't find a bio or picture of him... he must have some privacy issues...?) 

  Anyway- here's some of the highlights I noted:

  Overall, the author of this book shares insight into the dialog between Darwin and others in academia, regarding both science and the religious implications.  Darwin was in contact with many of the leading scientists of his day.  Darwin was also very well versed in Paley's "watchmaker" argument for God's special design, and even strongly believed in it at first.

Pg. 16.  Some interesting info about Darwin being a devout Christian believer while on his voyage on the Beagle, and even after that expedition.  Darwin was quoted as saying:

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as unanswerable authority on some point of morality.

He received his religious training at Cambridge prior to the Beagle's voyage.

Pg. 21.  Darwin was very upset about slavery as he encountered it in his homeland and on travels.  Pg. 23 talks about Darwin's observation of abuse towards a slave, and how it revolted him.  Pg. 24 mentions Darwin rebuking college Lyell regarding the slavery issue.

Pg. 32/33 explains how the educational system at Darwin's time was dominated by creationists, which shows the current that Darwin was working against.

Pg. 52/53.  This shares a sad time when he lost his daughter at age 10... his favorite child.  In those days, intermarriage among relatives was common, and Darwin suspected there was a hereditary issue at play.  The author thinks this may have played into Darwin losing some of his faith, and in the Bible which promises good to good people: "There shall no evil happen to the just" (a Biblical proverb).

Pg. 54.  Here is explained Darwin's love and appreciation for his wife.  She took care of him in his frequent sickness (sickness likely from his many expeditions and travels).

Pg. 59.  Darwin meets USA biologist Asa Gray, who is actually a devout Christian, and they share many correspondences and confide/collaborate with each other.  They had plenty of theological discourses.  Asa Gray describes himself this way:

...one who is scientifically, and in his own fashion, a Darwinian, philosophically a convinced theist, and religiously an acceptor of the 'creed commonly called the Nicene,' as the exponent of the Christian faith.

Pg. 61 quote:

To set the tone for examining the argument of the Origin, Darwin placed three epigraphs from eminent Christian philosophers at its beginning.  By using them, he attempted to head off polarized thinking that truth was arrived at by either a totally theological approach or by a totally scientific approach.

Pg. 87.  This part talks about opposition to Darwin by those who take a literal interpretation of Scripture.  Even they are Protestants who have refused the "inerrancy" and leadership of the Pope, it is as if they now have a "paper Pope" called the Bible.  Those who accept Darwin say there are two books for God's witness: "God's Word" (the Bible) and "God's works" (nature).

Pg. 90 discusses some of Huxley's debates (Huxley is the one who publicly debated religious opponents of Darwin).

Pg. 107.  Darwin avoided issues of human evolution, then finally addressed it head-on in another publication called "The Descent of man and selection in Relation to Sex."  This is called his second most important work.  Some of the firestorm response is noted starting on pg. 126.

Pg. 133... this is very interesting.  It shows how Huxley, who defended Darwin, actually thought it was good to teach the morals of the Bible.  The author says:

Much to the disappointment of the irreligious, who liked to think of Huxley as their champion, he favored Bible instruction because it can inculcate "the religious feeling, which is the essential basis of conduct."

Overall, I'd really recommend this book.  Check your local library; that's where I found it.  It's a great way to get into the mind of Darwin and to get past many of the current misconceptions of him.  It sounds like he was quite a gentleman and a pillar of society (serving both his church and local government, besides his scientific discoveries).

Science vs. Philosophy

by Bernie Dehler
10-29-07

     In my origin studies, I think I have come to see something.  It is a situation of "science vs. philosophy."  I'll give two examples.

  Example 1: Darwin introduces evolution by means of natural selection.  Apparently, Darwin didn't engage or debate with philosophers at all; nevertheless, it shook philosophers to their core!  Here's an excerpt (emphasis mine) from the introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species (introduction by Ernst Mayr; click here to see the book):

No one resented Darwin's independence of thought more than the philosophers.  How could anyone dare to change our concept of the universe and man's position in it without arguing for or against Plato, for or against Descartes, for or against Kant?  Darwin had violated all the rules of the game by placing his argument entirely outside the traditional framework of classical philosophical concepts and terminologies.  Perhaps this is the greatest difference between him and all of his predecessors, be they antievolutionists such as Linnaeus, Cuvier, and Louis Agassiz, or evolutionists such as Lamarck.  No other work advertised to the world the emancipation of science from philosophy as blatantly as did Darwin's Origin.  For this he has not been forgiven to this day by some traditional schools of philosophy.  To them, Darwin is still incomprehensible, "unphilosophical," and a bete noire. 

  Example 2: The origins debate.

     On one hand, there is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, as championed by The Discovery Institute (Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, etc.).  Their premise is that evolution couldn't have happened, because of "specified complexity."  William Dembski (also in the ID movement) has also attempted to prove this "philosophy" that "evolution is highly improbable" by way of mathematics, in his book "No Free Lunch" (click here to see the book; I didn't read it, but have discussed it with one who did). 

     My take: it seems to me that microbiological evolution has overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened, by way of biological pseudogenes (called "biological fossils").  Therefore, if someone has great philosophical reasons for rejecting evolution, I'd say "that's nice," but unfortunately irrelevant, as science has been able to demonstrate with overwhelming evidence that evolution actually happened.

     By the way, there's nothing wrong with thinking that God designed the world by means of evolution.  God is still just as majestic and awe-inspiring for using evolution for design, and in fact, I think it even makes God more majestic and awe-inspiring. 

We are 98% Chimpanzee?

by Bernie Dehler
10-28-07

     The following are my notes from the book "What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee," by Prof. Jonathan Marks.  Click here to see the book at Amazon.com .  Click here for his homepage.

     In general, the book looks like a collection of his essays, which seem to mainly teach, by sharing examples, how sometimes scientists overstate their beliefs as "scientific" when they are really just beliefs.  One prime example is showing how blacks are neither inferior (mentally) to whites, or superior (athletically) to whites.  Prof. Marks says there is no noticeable differences between the "races."  Races are really more of a cultural demarcation.  Here are my notes from the book (2002 edition):

Pg. 114.  This whole section talks about the nonsense of trying to pinpoint homosexuality being due to genetics, as some claim.  It may or may not be; the point is, there is no valid scientific reason for stating such... even if the pronouncement comes from the mouth of a scientist. 

Pg. 117 summarizes it with this quote (emphasis mine):

The question is not ," Do you believe homosexuality is genetic?"... The question is, "What have we actually shown scientifically about it?"  And the answer is, almost nothing.

Pg. 120-121.  He speaks in this section about earlier attempts at eliminating undesirables, as based on their genetics.  That NAZI-type movement is dead, but was called "eugenics."  The idea was that bad thoughts and deeds came from a bad mind, which comes from bad genes; and that these immoral people should be regulated.  In response to that, Prof. Marks says on pg. 121:

It's not stupid or illogical, but it is dead wrong.

The scientific viewpoint (of wiping-out mental misfits) was so widespread in that day, that Prof. Marks says (on the same page):

In fact, you can pick up literally any textbook of genetics from the 1920's and find those ideas.

Pg. 141.  In this area, he talks about how humans are connected across the races.  We are all pretty much the same.  Will this knowledge help eradicate "racism" from our world? He says no... racism is a fear of "others" and is cultural... a form of "group hatred."  He says on pg. 141 (emphasis mine):

The problem, as a molecular anthropological perspective can reveal, is that group hatreds are not genetic but folk-hereditary issues.

Pg. 188.  In this section, he criticizes those who try to overstate how much chimps are like humans.  They even "make love" as humans do.  Yeah, right, says Prof. Marks.  Far from it.  He says on pg. 188:

(Regarding the sexual antics of chimps) Doesn't sound the least bit like love-making in humans, at least the way most of us been fortunate enough to experience it, and it quite possible says more about the author than it does about chimpanzees.

Quote from page 189:

Apes are not subhuman, they are nonhuman.

On pg. 190 he mentions some researches who claim that chimps are like retarded people, and again responds that no, they are nonhuman.  He says:

Not only are apes not like mentally handicapped humans, but more important, mentally handicapped humans are not like apes.  Nor are blacks, Jews, hunter-gatherers, or New York cabbies.  All people are perfectly human, and all apes are not human at all.  That's the simple biology.

Pg. 191 had an interesting tidbit about Huxley, who was called "Darwin's bulldog," who said this regarding the evolution/creation debate:

The nonwhite peoples of the earth, argued Huxley, are the forms of life that connect the races of Europe to the ape as surely as the duck-billed platypus connects mammals to the lower vertebrates.

Good thing scientists don't believe this now... but it is some embarrassing prior scientific dogma. 

To summarize the section on animal rights, he says it is important to treat animals "humanely," but be sure that they aren't "human."  (There are a animal rights activates who disagree and want to blur all species as the same, according all species with the same "human" rights.)

Pg. 199.  This section deals with the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) (which came after the Human Genome Project; mapping the human genome).  He goes into detail as to how this was a flawed idea from the beginning and wasted millions of taxpayer's dollars.  The whole science establishment was carried away with nonsense; Prof. Marks was trying to be a voice of reason.

Pg. 219 talks about the theoretical question of "what would a chimp/human half-breed be like?"  He looks at aspects of the question, including considering how a thing might be raised (as a chimp or a human).

Pg. 225 discusses the difficulty of science vs. descendents when digging up old human remains.  Scientists want to test these bones, destroying them in the process.  Descendents want to properly bury their ancestors.  Sometimes the fight went to the Supreme Court.  Even Congress is involved in passing laws on the issue.

Pg. 256.  This section describes the creation vs. evolution wars, and how it suppressed the teaching of evolution in America for quite some time.  (I grew up in the 1970's and 80's, and think I experienced this; I didn't hear much at all about evolution while in school.)

Pg. 257. Some discussion of Phillip Johnson, the "Father" of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

Pg. 266.  This section deals with the history of studying science and scientists.  I thought this was interesting and informative.  I think this general knowledge is very helpful for getting a good perspective in which to view the creation/evolution debate and science in general.

Pg. 282-283.  In this section, Prof. marks mentions Richard Dawkins who states that there is no meaning for the universe.  Prof. marks points out how that is a non-scientific statement, and should not be confused with science.  it is just an opinion.

Overall, I thought it was an interesting book.  It was definitley worth the price (as I got it from the local public library).  Overall, the main point was to keep the science to science... and know when scientisits are "overplaying their hand."

Is "Theistic Evolution" Christian? (Part 2)

by Bernie Dehler
10-16-07

     I read a very good article called "Theistic Evolution and Christian Theology" by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (click here to read it).  The conclusion? Yes, there is room in Christianity for evolutionary beliefs.  There are a number of very good points in this essay which Evangelical Christians need to know (they need to be corrected).  I will do that in multiple blog posts.  By the way, I consider myself an Evangelical Christian also.

     The following is a section I'd like to quote and add some comments.  This is in regard to debates amongst creationists (old earth, young earth, evolutionists, etc):

We should respect each other, but respect does not require agreement.  We can respect someone and their views, while vigorously criticizing their views.  If we are searching for truth, we should avoid the intellectual laziness of postmodern relativism, because for most questions about origins a skillful use of evidence and logic can be a valuable source of knowledge, leading to improved understanding.

        For dedicated Christians who care for both people and ideas, the goal is an appropriate humility that requires a balance between two desirable qualities — confidence (which if overdeveloped can become rude arrogance) and humility (which can become timid relativism or aggressive postmodernism) — that are in tension.  But most of us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in our own theories, so trying to develop the virtue of modest humility usually has a beneficial effect.  {more about appropriate humility when interpreting the two books of God}

     As the Bible says, "knowledge can puff up," but that isn't to say that knowledge is bad or to be avoided.  I've heard so many Christians who proudly seem to advocate avoiding any debates.  However, I think that the real honest "thinkers" love and enjoy an "honest" debate as a means to more fully understand the truth.  All truth is revealed in two books: God's Word and God's works.  Taking just one or the other leads to great and serious error.  It is absolutely required to consider both to get at the whole truth.

Is "Theistic Evolution" Christian? (Part 1)

Bernie Dehler
10-16-07

    I read a very good article called "Theistic Evolution and Christian Theology" by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (click here to read it).  The conclusion? Yes, there is room in Christianity for evolutionary beliefs.  There are a number of very good points in this essay which Evangelical Christians need to know (they need to be corrected).  I will do that in multiple blog posts.  By the way, I consider myself an Evangelical Christian also.

     The following is a section I'd like to quote and add some comments.  This part is a response to young earthers who essentially say "In a process of old-earth creation, either with or without miracles, many animals would live and die, so God would not use this cruel method."  Here is the response from the essay:

Initially this argument seems impressive, but when we look at the Bible more closely we see that eternal life is promised only to humans, not animals.  Whether the universe is young or old, the everlasting life we lost by sin is available from God as a gift of grace through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as explained in Animal Death before Human Sin -- Biblical Theology is for Humans, not Animals.)

     I would also add that according to evolution, humans have arrived really, really late on the scene.  It is just a blip on the radar of time compared to the ancient age of the universe and the earth.  Almost an infinite number of life forms (hyperbole, really, just a very HUGE number) have pre-existed before humans.  Even in the time of humans we can see all kinds of animal misery (lions and bears killing each other for territory, etc.).  It all looks so violent... how could God have a part in that?  The key, I think, is to understand it is just nature, and not humanity.

     For example, lions and bears (as well as all other animals) can (and do) rape, and kill for territory.  Is that a sin?  No.  Humans also do it.  Is that a sin?  Yes, because we are made in God's image.  I think understanding this helps to put things in a clearer perspective.  We are definitely not animals, because we are made in the image of God (we know of, and are subject to, the universal moral law).  We can and should handle the animals humanely, but not as humans.  They aren't human.                  

"The Language of God" Book Comments

by Bernie Dehler

  I can honestly say that this is one of the best books I've ever read: "The language of God: A scientist Presents evidence for Belief."  It is written by Francis Collins, who was the head of the human Genome Project.  Francis is a self-described evangelical Christian, and also a sort of "theistic evolutionist."  I got this book from the library, but I feel that it is so valuable I'm going to buy my own copy for my personal library.  Here are some of my notes (page numbers are from the "large print" edition):

Pg. 35: Reading the works of CS Lewis can bring one to Christ.  Francis has two philosophical reasons for being a Christian: the moral code and the inner spiritual yearning.  It seems he was drawn to Christ through philosophy rather than directly from the Bible.  Faith came first; Bible second.

Pg. 67: Validated for me that the relationship with God is the most important thing in life; and so, it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Pg. 103:  Introduction to the anthropic principle of the design of the universe (and the design of all of reality).

Pg. 186: Chromosome evidence for a common ancestor for ape and man... "ape" chromosome 2 fused into the human one.

Pg. 187: Chromosome evidence for common ape/human ancestry in gene "caspase-12' (gene is messed-up real good in humans, but functional in chimps and other mammals, including mice.  If humans were made unique, why insert a nonfunctional gene in the same place where used by apes? 

Pg. 189: Although we share biology with lower lifeforms, humans are unique in having a moral code and a yearning for God and eternal life (just as the two trees represent in Genesis, I might add).

Pg. 199: Grasping the long periods of time in evolutionary thought.  It is remarkable and almost incomprehensible how much "life" happened even before humans were on the scene.

Pg. 209: The importance of learning from the science/religion debate with Galileo in 1633.  Same debate, but much deeper, as this involves origins.

Pg. 220/221: Francis mentions 3 main fallacies used by Richard Dawkins.  (Dawkins is a famous anti-God critic and scholar, writing a book called "The God Delusion.")

Pg. 232: Francis explains that "Young Earth Creationism" is incompatible with real science.  (From my reading, this is the general consensus of all scientists; and 40% of scientists believe in a personal God, so it is not like most scientists are anti-God as young earth'ers seem to claim.)

Pg. 260: "Intelligent Design" (ID, Discovery Institute style) is a ship headed no where but the bottom of an ocean.  ID Is basically a "God of the Gaps" approach, which makes God irrelevant when things are understood, as science shows over time.

(My note: ID is like an armchair quarterback; watching a football game on TV and yelling instructions to the coach.  It proposes nothing; no (young or old) age for the universe.  It basically says "God must have designed everything because it is impossible for things to come about by themselves.")

Pg. 280: The God of the Bible can be worshiped in the cathedral and in the laboratory, marveling over his handiwork as expressed in the genome.

Pg. 290: Personal testimony of the gospel message: Problem: sin; solution: Savior.

Pg. 300: The need for both science and religion.  Albert Einstein is quoted "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Pg. 302: The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth.

Pg. 306: Message to public: stop denying your own questions of mortality and spirituality... deal with it today.

Pg. 307: Seek to reconcile science and religion; it is very rewarding!  The "war" between science and religion is very unfortunate and unnecessary. It is only the extremest on both sides (fundamentalists and atheists) that fuel this war, just like any other war.

Pg. 338: Appeal to reasonableness on issues such as stem cell research (don't summarily dismiss anything without deep thought).

Pg. 346: Interesting side-note, a movie based on the future when DNA can be analyzed to select a mate.  The movie is called GATTACA. 

Pg. The nonsense of trying to create a perfect kid with DNA.  even with perfect DNA, they can still be a slacker, smoker, drug abuser, etc.  "Nurture" (not just "nature") plays a HUGE role in who we are.

What is "Theistic Evolution"?

by Bernie Dehler
10-1-07

  I've been trying to learn more about Theistic evolution.  I came across a great introductory essay, and so I wanted to pass it on to my readers.  Click here to see it.  It is called "Evolutionary Creationism" by Denis O. Lamoureux.  Denis is a Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, and holds Doctorate degrees in both biology and theology.  I found this article very well written and very helpful.  Thank you Dr. Lamoureux!

  It is a very interesting read, and has info that you'll never hear in a Baptist-type church.  There is information on how poetic the Genesis creation and flood account are, as well as discusses the ancient Hebrew idea of science.  Many things are starting to make sense for me as I learned how the Hebrews understood science and the universe.  The funny thing is, "young earth" creationists still have this same view of science, because they think that the Bible actually teaches science.  For example, young earther's think there is a layer of water over the entire universe.  The Hebrews thought there was water over the universe because a clear blue sky is BLUE, like water!  With modern science, we now know the sky looks blue because of visual effects in the upper atmosphere.  You don't believe me that young earther's, like ICR (Institute for Creation Research), believes in a water canopy over the universe? Click here to read about it in an article of theirs. 

  A water canopy over the universe... that must qualify for "loonyligion."