SciLigion

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox (debate notes)

by Bernie Dehler       12-17-07

My running notes on the Dawkins/Lennox debate, which took place Oct. 3, 2007.  Click here to freely listen to the audio:

RE: The book “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

Legend:
RD = Richard Dawkins
JL = John Lennox
Mod = Moderator

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Part 1, 47 min.

-- At 13 RD confirmed into the Anglican faith.  At 16 left the faith when encountering Darwinism.
-- RD wrote 8 books.
-- RD: Science explains things elegantly where religion fails.
-- JL: Mathematician and philosopher of science… grew up in the violence of N. Ireland.
-- JL: studied atheism, in concept and in practice through history.
-- JL: says Dawkin’s book warns others of religious abuse, and says both agree… shares passion for truth, neither are post-modern.
-- JL: God is real; not a delusion.  Reality is most real in Christ, God incarnate.
-- JL: Christianity does not build a firewall against truth; but Jesus is the truth.  Goes back to who Jesus is; liar, lunatic, or Lord.
-- JL: Not divided by science, but by worldviews.  We all need to look at evidence to see which is an illusion; atheism or Christianity.

-- Mod: Religion says to be satisfied with not understanding… please explain.

-- RD: We are overwhelmed with beauty and the complexity of the world, and have a desire to worship something.  Science emancipates us from this feeling.  Attributing it to a maker does not explain it, contrary to religious thinking.  However, everything can come about by purely naturalistic causes.  We now know essentially how life came into being… descent from common ancestor, though lacking some details and having some gaps.  Don’t know how cosmos came into being, for example.  Science seeks out these details and answers, but religion teaches us want to not understand… just say God did it and stop.  There is no pushing force to understand… religion stifles the desire to seek knowledge.
-- JL: Disagrees that “faith is blind.” Says some faith is blind.  Blind faith could be of religious or secular people.  Faith for the flying spaghetti monster is blind, since no evidence for it, but science and Christianity has evidence… evidence from logic, history, science, and experience.  You can’t speak of proof, but evidence, in this field of study.  Science should not be equated with rationality, as that outside science is unreasonable… art is not unreasonable.  There are limits to science… can’t answer “who am I, what is my purpose, where am I going?”  Sometimes Christians are guilty of the “God of the gaps” idea.  There are gaps that science closes, but also some gaps that science opens.  Modern science exploded in the 16/17 centuries, arose out of a theistic background, as humans expected a law of nature because of the Lawgiver.  Religion was the driving force behind science.  Isaac Newton discovered the law gravity, and then he praised God over it.  Says RD is making a mistake of equating mechanism with agency…. Which is in finding a solution and then thinking you don’t need the giver of it.

-- Mod:  Real war is between rationalism and superstition.

-- RD: Going bavk to previous JL, if JL says faith has evidence, then it isn’t faith.  Faith is only used when no evidence.  In general, how do we know someone loves us… how is that faith.  Signs of love are evidence of faith?
-- RD: Back to question… reference to attempt at putting creationism into schools.  Does evolution lead to atheism… RD says yes.  The biggest battle is over rationality and superstition,,, school battles are just skirmishes.  RD says a universe with God is quite different than one without God.  Science can tell us which one we live in.  Belief in miracles is superstition… and these miracle persuade them to join the church.  RD says science does impinge on religion… there is overlapping magisteriums… disagrees with NOMA principle.
-- JL: Agrees with RD against the NOMA principle.  He says atheism undermines science… because we believe in the rationality of the universe… and that concept doesn’t come from science, but from God.  If everything is reduced to most basic structures… ultimately chemical reactions in brain, why believe it? It is like sitting on a branch of a tree and cutting off the branch.  Atheism is trying to get rationality from irrationality.  Science shows fine-tuning… which is evidence.  Atheist explanation is multi-verse… not convincing.  Big bang looks like it came from the book of Genesis, but science didn’t get it until 1960… the big bang is a finite beginning to space time, just like the big bang.

Part 2, 44 min.

-- Mod: Who designed the designer?

-- RD: Disagrees the Bible is great in predicting the big-bang… 50-50 chance (either eternal or beginning).  Darwin explains how life evolved.  How the universe began? We don’t know.  We know biology, but not cosmology… cosmology is waiting for it’s “Darwin.”  RE: Fine-tuning… saying “God did it” doesn’t answer it… who designed the designer?  Anthropic principle with a multi-verse idea is not desirable either… but better than saying “God did it, so stop investigating.”
-- JL: Darwin does not explain life… just how some of it works.  “Who created God” is an old schoolboy question… surprised it is a major thesis in the book.  Yes, a created God is a delusion!  Just like his book says.  Saying “who made God” is not speaking of the God of Jews, Muslims, and Christians.  God was not created, but is eternal.  Universe was created, but not God.  Does RD believe in eternal matter? Where did it come from?  God is more complex than the thing we are explaining.  Things like DNA are so complex and point to a complex designer.  The meaning of the message is not going to be found in the paper and ink, but in the story written by the paper and ink.

-- Mod: Christianity is dangerous.  Imagine a world with no religion, no suicide bombers, crusades, no greedy/robbing televangelists, etc.  Even mild religion gives an environment for extremism.  Faith is an evil, not a virtue, and is very bad to teach children such a thing.

-- RD: regarding teaching children that faith is a virtue… he is not saying all religion is bad or dangerous.  Teaching kids that ‘faith is a virtue’ teaches them that faith can’t be questioned… just believe and respect it, don’t question it but tip-toe gently away.  This creates environment for Muslim suicide bombers and other terrible acts that don’t need to be justified by rationality, etc.  He recommends teaching skepticism, for kids to decide for themselves.
-- JL: Back to intelligent design… evidence of DNA for a designer… more reasonable than from natural processes.
-- JL: Back to the faith topic… crusades and other abusers were not truly following Christ.  Christ’s kingdom was not of this world, and didn’t fight and kill.  Christ was put on trial for insurrection, and was declared innocent by the judge.  Imagine not a world with John Lennon, but with John Lennox—a world with no atheism, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot, (three heads of three atheistic states), no Gulag, no cultural revolution, no killing fields, etc… that would be a world worth imagining too.  He says RD tried to “airbrush” out the atrocities of the communist world.  JL says he has lots of experience with communist countries, and atheism was a central tenet of them, not peripheral.  Marx’s criticism of religion was central.  RD is being accused of being superficial of this.  Atheism was their motivation, not just a common characteristic.  RD is re-writing history.  Accuses RD of trying to hide the fact where atheism leads.  JL does not say RD would lead to kill like Stalin, and RD should acknowledge that all religions are not the same.  Atheists states have also demanded allegiance… and persecution evils for not obeying.
-- RD: He is not trying to say religious people do bad things.  Agrees Pol Pot did bad things, and atheism may have egged-on Marxism.  RD complaint is that a rational person can do hideous things because of faith.  An atheist wouldn’t do that… turn-off reason because of religion.  The 9/11 suicide bombers people were not crazy, they were smart… just misguided by faith.  Stalin exploited the peasantry from earlier centuries set-up by religious devotion.  Summary, we will not do evil things for reason, but only from faith.  (I think RD was really stumbling here…)
-- JL: There is a logical path from atheism to violence.  JL says atheism is a faith as well… “Do you believe atheism?”  RD says not believing in Zeus is like not believing in God.  JL says both have faith systems.

-- Mod: You don’t need God to be good… or evil.

-- RD: If you think you need God to be moral, you may mean you need a book.  Hope it isn’t Bible or Koran, because it is hideous when coming to morals.  Some decent verses, and ok if you pick and choose… but you pick and choose based on intellect.  You may need religion because you are afraid of God or want to suck-up to God, but neither of those are noble.  How does he know what is moral? He says there is a universal human acceptance… it is cross-culture, though some disagreement in detail.  Example of good universal rule is the “golden rule” and don’t need the holy book for that.  From evolution, we developed a lust to be good, when living in small villages (kind of like the lust for sex).  The Darwinian pressure is reduced because we no longer in small villages.  He says morals shift decade to decade (racism, sexual discrimination, cruelty).  RD says there is therefore “something in the air” driving this, and not from a holy book… whatever it is, it is not religion.
-- JL: Can an atheist be good? Of course.  Humans around the world show a common core of morality showing we are made in the image of God.  He says RD says we can’t get ethics from science, and there is no justice or design or purpose (no evil or good)… DNA doesn’t know or cares… it is just there.  Good or evil doesn’t exist?  Pol Pot is not evil? 9/11 suicide bombers are not evil?  There is no morality there.  If no evil or good, then how can you say religion is evil or atheism is good.  If RD says we need to rebel against genes, but which part of us, since we are made of DNA?  Atheism does not give a solution to morality, but dissolves it.  How can something mindless and with no purpose impose morality.  Quoting Hume “You can’t derive morality and ethics from matter and energy.”   Non-godly morality leads to utilitarianism.  If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.  Trying to get morality from elsewhere is doomed to destruction.

Part 3, 27 min.

-- Mod: Jesus likely did not demand divinity… Jesus was a loyal Jew… “Jesus would be turning in His grave if he knew of paul’s plan to take Jesus to the pigs.”

-- RD: Back to “DNA doesn’t care or know about morality”… maybe it is hideous, and maybe that is how the world is.  It can give us something to rise above.  We can rise above Darwinian dictates, such as when we use contraceptives.  Natural selection is an ugly process with beautiful consequences.
-- JL: Jumps on RD statement that “there is no good or evil” and RD doesn’t seem to have a come back.
-- JL: Historicity of scripture… history experts have high praise for Gospel of Luke.  Lev. Talks about treating stranger as one of our own.  Parable of the good Samaritan illustrated “love your neighbor as yourself” of Leviticus.  RE: Miracles violate nature… Hume didn’t believe in miracles, but also didn’t believe in cause and effect.  Miracles don’t violate laws of nature… Example, if 4 dollars in drawer become one in morning, don’t claim laws of nature violated, but laws of the state are violated.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

JL: The answer is not atheism, although some criticism of religion is valid.  RD gets rid of the fairies, but most don’t believe in them anyway.  RD says no evidence of God, yet says earth is like garden,,, and a garden has a gardener.  The world of RD is no paradise—denies good and evil and denies justice.  There will be a day God will judge the world, but Christ resurrected will save us.  Atheism is an illusion, and justice is real… fanatics and terrorists will answer one day.

RD: It all comes down to the resurrection of Jesus for John Lennox… forget all the science.  The resurrection is so petty and local and unworthy of the universe.  It is easy to be deceived in seeing a gardener for the garden… but Darwin showed us the truth.  It is not chance, but natural selection.  Life has an explanation from simple beginnings… the greatest achievement of human mind.  The alternative is contrary to common sense.  We can’t disprove God, but is very, very unlikely.

Commentator Reaction (both Christians):

-- The collision of world views.  Discussion of RD’s book’s main points.
-- Lennox real-world experience of communism/atheism was impactful.  It was godlessness as the operational platform of the Russian empire… and RD struggled with it.
-- Debated: Faith has no evidence or faith is rooted in evidence… different opinions by debaters.
-- Surprised to hear Dawkins say “We don’t know the origins of the universe.”
-- Dawkins supposedly won’t debate on the topic of “science vs. Creationism,” but he brought it up here.
-- The audience seemed evenly divided, or maybe preferential to Dawkins.
-- Surprised by Dawkins saying “Darwinism gave us a lust to be good”… thought it was really strange.
-- Interesting observation of a biologist vs. a mathematician/philosopher
-- Skepticism is a gift to a child? Commentator agrees.
-- Lennox also agreed with evil of religion.  As Francis Schaefer said, “in a world without God, there is not a reason why to distinguish between cruelty and non-cruelty.”  Consider Columbine shooting and Pol Pot and Nazi Germany… hard-pressed to say the world is getting better.
-- They found both speakers delightful and winsome.

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."

Was the "forbidden fruit" actually fruit?

by Bernie Dehler
9-29-07

Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV)
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

  As I mentioned earlier, a friend lent me a book by Hugh Ross and Fazelle Rana (old earth creationists, of the "Reasons to Believe" ministry) called "Who was Adam?"  This is because I was asking the question: was the forbidden fruit really, literally, fruit?  In other words, should in be interpreted literally or figuratively?

  If one takes all of Genesis literally (as "young earther's" do), then it all has clear meaning.  Whether it is correct or not is another question.

   If one takes Genesis both literally and figuratively, which parts are literal and which figurative?  The authors of this book are "old earthers."  This means they interpret that the six days of creation are not actually 24 hrs each, but can represent vast amounts of time... millions of years, even, for any of the "days."  However, when Genesis says that God formed man from the ground, uniquely and not of evolution, they take that literally... as a special creation.  So what about the forbidden fruit? Do old earthers think it was literal or figurative?  As far as I can tell, there is no answer from them.  I saw nothing in the book, and nothing when I searched the web. 

  If anyone knows, please email and let me know.  Here's the official question: "Do old earthers interpret the forbidden fruit to be literal or figurative?"  (Please cite references with page number or an Internet URL; please don't refer generally to other books.) 

  My hunch is that the "Reasons to Believe" ministry has no answer, and so there is a big void or gap in their proposal to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with modern science.  If there is an answer from the old earth standpoint, I would then also like to learn about their other interpretations for other parts; such as the talking serpent, the tree of life, etc. Until I get their interpretations, I can't agree or disagree with them!

Theistic Evolution... Anti-God? (Part 3)

By Bernie Dehler
9-21-07

  ...continuing to Part 3 of why Christians (wrongly) are so against any kind of evolution, even theistic evolution (click here for Part 2).  I'm responding to the weblink entitled "10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution" at ChristianAnswers.net (click here to see the original).

  Here is "Danger #2," and I quote:

Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps

  The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).

  However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".

  First, my critique of paragraph 1... I agree with it all!

  Paragraph 2 is very strange!  They accuse the "theistic evolutionist" of having the "god of the gaps" mentality.  First, let me explain the "god of the gaps" mentality.  It is usually an argument of atheists, against creationists who claim that God must have created everything since there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution (such as the question of how life first arose from non-life... one of the largest "mysteries of life").  Therefore, atheists accuse these Christians of having a "god of the gaps."  Unfortunately, science advances, and fills in these gaps, which make this "god of the gaps" get smaller and smaller. 

  By the way, a good example of the "god of the gaps" mentality is seen in the ID (Intelligent Design) movement, sponsored by the Discovery Institute (click here for info).  The ID movement doesn't offer any explanations for how life was created or advanced, other than "an intelligent designer" did it (and they never mention who the designer is).  The ID movement has one plan: to discredit evolution by showing problems that evolutionists haven't solved yet.  In this way, they are nothing but critics, offering no alternatives.  Even the young earth and old earth creationists offer alternative origin theories... but those in the ID movement offer nothing.

  Evolution is the ultimate rebuttal to the "god of the gaps" charge, therefore, it is beyond confusing and amusing as to why this article would accuse theistic evolutionists as having the "god of the gaps" mentality.  If anything, they should have charged the evolutionists with having a "nature of the gaps" mentality, where all gaps are/will be explained by nature (a materialistic presupposition).

  My hunch is that they are accusing theistic evolutionists of having a "god of the gaps" mentality because they are framing the theistic evolutionist as one who believes in atheistic evolution, and adding God just where the mysteries are.  However, I think theistic evolution must instead be thought of how God actually did things-- His marvelous and very creative design plan.   

  By the way, science has been doing a good job of explaining more and more about origins as time goes on, that's why it is important to get into the details and be educated.  Personally, I think the most important area to study is genetics and DNA.  DNA is being used in court to solve crimes and prove things, and in the same way, the "biological fossils" in DNA are becoming evidence for theistic evolution.

  Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.  Feel free to add questions/comments in the comment section.