Expelled, the newly released movie by Ben Stein, will generate howls of horror by the community of evolutionists, particularly those in the academic world. Our readers should know what the furor is all about.
Intelligent design (ID) is a concept which has become popular mainly in the last two decades. It proposes that the multiple instances of precise fine tuning in the cosmos and the incredible functional complexity of living things from the cell to integrated organ systems bespeak origins which can best be explained by an intelligent agent. But any mention of ID in venues from research labs to public school classrooms generates mocking ridicule, or worse, from scientists and department heads securely locked in a box labeled “NATURAL EXPLANATIONS ONLY – NO SUPERNATURAL CONSIDERED!”
The case for design and the weaknesses of evolutionary theory are discussed in the film but play secondary roles as the film proceeds. Primary attention is devoted to the blatant suspension of academic freedom and the dangerous practices of social Darwinism such as the Holocaust, eugenics, and abortion. No professional scientist in the world of academia, no matter how well-reasoned and logical his proposal, no matter how his thesis otherwise conforms to recognized scientific principles, is ever allowed to propose, discuss, or even mention ID. The usual penalty if he does? Discipline, censure, non-renewal, and a bleak prospect for future employment. Many dismissed scientists, university officials who have sanctioned the dismissals, and well-known evolutionists are interviewed by Stein. The viewer is left to make conclusions primarily based on those interviews and historic film clips of the impact of social Darwinism in the 20th century.
This film will likely produce an “earthquake.” The strength of the worldview that supports evolution and excludes the supernatural will be tested. That worldview is that of atheism/naturalism. There will be a clash of atheism/naturalism with the theistic/Christian worldview. Expelled will take you on an emotional journey along the fault lines of the earthquake. It is a powerful film!
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query atheism. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query atheism. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Diverse Clergy Positions
A recent survey (A Survey of Clergy and Their Views on Origins) conducted by BioLogos reported the results of 743 telephone interviews with clergy of all Christian denominations in churches of all sizes. Pastors were polled on their views of creation and evolution. The survey reported on many related issues as perceived by the pastors.
Young Earth creationism is espoused by 54% of American Pastors--19% with absolute certainty and 35% who expressed qualified certainty. Progressive Creationism describes 15% of pastors--7% of these are absolutely certain while 8% express qualified certainty. Theistic Creationism is the position of 18% of the pastors, of whom 3% are absolutely certain and 15% claim qualified certainty. One more category was termed Uncertain by the pollsters: The remaining 12% of pastors believe God created life, but admit they are not certain how. (In the general population another category would undoubtedly be represented: those who believe in naturalism--the view that there is no God who created the universe. The cosmos essentially self-assembled, they claim. This represents the view of atheists, but not the view of pastors.)
Our blog has frequently discussed the three main positions described above and what their adherents believe with respect to creation and evolution. Those positions represent approximately 87% of pastors in the survey. It is our opinion that the general population has a somewhat different opinion profile. Between 40% and 50% of the population subscribes to the young earth creationist view of human origins. This indicates a strong view of creationism. The remaining population subscribes mostly to a view of theistic creationism, according to many sources. The views of creationism are not changing significantly.
The questions of evolution and creation are significantly intertwined. Did God create life, or did life self-organize? Did creation events take place only in the last 10,000 years? Did life develop slowly and gradually over millions of years? Did life develop in step-like fashion over millions of years? (This would point to creation events.) What process does evolution describe, and how does (or how did) it occur? Such questions are integrated with our theological and scientific beliefs. The integration is not like simply blending two chemical entities to create a homogeneous mixture. It is far more complex.
If we call ourselves creationists, do we displace our embrace of science? If we embrace science, do we displace our embrace of creationism? Our embrace of creationism has affected our embrace of science, according to the scientific community. But should it? This blog has advocated the soundness of scientific method according to a theistic world view. In the last four hundred years, most Christians in the sciences believed that the scientific method supports a theistic world view.
The strife between creationists, epitomized by the results of the BioLogos survey, traces its roots to a phenomenon of the late 19th century. Stephen C. Meyer, in his concluding chapter of Darwin’s Doubt, places the blame on what is now termed the “New Atheism,” described by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others. According to Meyer, the “New Atheism” is not really new. It represents “a popularization of a science-based philosophy called scientific materialism which came into currency among scientists and philosophers during the late nineteenth century in the wake of the Darwinian revolution.”
Scientific materialism was an outgrowth of the Darwinian Revolution. It denied evidence of supernatural design in nature, especially in the world of life forms. Sadly, the same scientific materialism even denied ultimate purpose in human existence. Christians should reflect on the marriage of their belief in evolution, driven by mutation and natural selection, to the theistic worldview as expressed in biblical creation passages.
We are thankful that a large majority (69%) of Christian pastors do not adhere to evolution. But by the same token, we are saddened that 31% of the population subscribes to evolution or is uncertain of the evidence for divine acts of creation in our world of living things, including the world of human beings. And we are uneasy with the young earth creationists’ out-of-hand rejection of legitimate science findings with respect to supernatural acts of creation over long time periods. Our prayer is that our agreement on God’s divine acts of creation overwhelms our disagreements over the time frames of creation.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Deposing the Queen
Many science laypersons may not be enthralled with our recent discussions of science methodology such as methodological and metaphysical naturalism. For them, merely acknowledging the beauty and order of the natural world suffices. We hope one positive dimension of their experience consists in admiring the artistry of the Creator.
Deeper research highlights the interesting timeline of events from the onset of the Scientific Revolution to the present day. Many scientists strongly affirmed the actions of God when the revolution began. Soon the transition to a more naturalistic vision of the world took hold among scientists. We wonder with Robert C. Bishop, “If the scientific revolutionaries were theists who deployed MN in the service of discovering the nature of God’s creation, then what happened in the intervening centuries such that the sciences and their methodologies are now routinely disassociated from God?”
During the High Middle Ages, a phrase became popular among scholars: Theology is queen of the sciences. Philosophers have addressed the meaning of this statement for centuries. Before considering specific developments during the 19th century concerning the manner in which the sciences became “routinely disassociated from God,” we link two past posts referencing theology as “queen of the sciences:”
By 1830 many scientists had endorsed a deistic belief system. Most deists believe in a First Cause but their belief was not based on biblical revelation and their attitudes concerning the physical world were not founded on a creationist belief system. Deists believed in a mechanistic world and in their personal, self-generated knowledge. Their reason pushed faith into the realm of superstition and mythology, but many believed in ultimate goodness of the universe even though God did not interact actively with creation.
Faith became secondary even among many 19th century theologians. For some, God’s role as First Cause vanished by mid-century. Agnosticism and atheism were ways of life by the time of Charles Darwin’s publication On the Origin of Species. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnosticism, describing a permanent suspension of belief in God. The argument for design was waning. Metaphysical Naturalism had been birthed in the practicing science professions. God was unnecessary; natural processes seemed more credible than supernatural processes. Even Charles Darwin, however, could never account for the origin of life according to a naturalistic account.
After 1859, Darwin had complained that secondary causes were not often cited to explain the natural history of life on earth according to his revolutionary theory. As time went on, secondary causes assumed more importance in the thinking of bioscientists while belief in divine, miraculous action diminished. Even theologian George Frederick Wright, among others, pronounced that we should not resort to an unknown cause until the power of known causes has been exhausted. This pattern acquired the staunch support of scientists. Agnostics and atheists felt comfortable with this approach. They collectively believed their naturalistic science was most sensible since many felt science is silent on the question of God. Many theologians found themselves in agreement. The idea that only scientific methods deliver knowledge acquired traction.
Nineteenth century science acquired a methodology which excluded awareness of God. Some acknowledged scientific methodologies such as abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) clearly signal divine “input” as the best explanation in the absence of convincing contrary proof. Even more traditional inductive and deductive science methodologies were consigned to unacceptability by scientists because they signal supernatural action in terms of life origins.
Contemporary scientific views do not allow supernatural conclusions about the origin of primeval life, the sudden appearance of Cambrian Explosion life, and most remarkable, the very sudden onset of modern humanity in relatively recent tens of thousand of years—a mere instant ago on the 3.8 billion year timeline of life on earth.
Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory has captured our modern culture. In terms of documented history of the 19th century, we observe the displacement of God from the psyche of the science establishment, and to a lesser extent, from the general population. The displacement has been in place for 150 years. According to Nature, a science journal, over 90% of America’s most esteemed scientists either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of God. This statistic is variable depending on how the questions are posed. It is true that the science profession is not a bastion of theistic belief.
In many respects theology, the queen of the sciences, has been deposed even though science is a profession exposed to the beauty and wonder of God’s creation on a daily basis. The movement toward belief in metaphysical naturalism, especially since the life of Charles Darwin, is disappointing. We rejoice, however, that science professionals successfully discover the beauty of mundane secondary processes by which our lives operate.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
“I am fearfully and wonderfully made” exults King David in Psalm 139:14. In his extensive commentary on the Psalms, 19th century Prince of Preachers Charles H. Spurgeon wrote that the science of anatomy was quite unknown to David. Had he been aware of the details of nerves, sinews, blood vessels, and organ structure, his awe would have been multiplied. Beyond that, we may wonder what David would have thought and written had he known of body cells and their role in making tens of thousands of different proteins in the human body and assembling them precisely into various body tissues, organs, and complex organ systems.
Scripture uses Hebrew verbs to state that the Creator initially produced the cosmos ex nihilo, out of nothing existing previously. Theologians describe such miracles as transcendent. At the creation event, God also created matter to obey a multitude of physical laws governed by physical constants--fundamental, invariant quantities observed in nature. We may say the cell was created and coded with the ability to make our bodies and the bodies of all living things. This ability clearly has the hallmark of an intelligently designed process since codes are always the product of a mind.
King David the psalmist pronounced the human body “fearfully and wonderfully made” three thousand years ago. Knowledge of human anatomy advanced slowly and did not flourish until the 17th and 18th centuries. But detailed knowledge of cell function and how we are made has been acquired only within the last few decades.
Psalm 139, according to Spurgeon, “warns us against that practical atheism which ignores the presence of God, and so makes shipwreck of the soul.” With our present knowledge of the protein manufacturing ability of the cell, the phrase “fearfully and wonderfully made” becomes even more powerfully meaningful.
Scripture uses Hebrew verbs to state that the Creator initially produced the cosmos ex nihilo, out of nothing existing previously. Theologians describe such miracles as transcendent. At the creation event, God also created matter to obey a multitude of physical laws governed by physical constants--fundamental, invariant quantities observed in nature. We may say the cell was created and coded with the ability to make our bodies and the bodies of all living things. This ability clearly has the hallmark of an intelligently designed process since codes are always the product of a mind.
King David the psalmist pronounced the human body “fearfully and wonderfully made” three thousand years ago. Knowledge of human anatomy advanced slowly and did not flourish until the 17th and 18th centuries. But detailed knowledge of cell function and how we are made has been acquired only within the last few decades.
Psalm 139, according to Spurgeon, “warns us against that practical atheism which ignores the presence of God, and so makes shipwreck of the soul.” With our present knowledge of the protein manufacturing ability of the cell, the phrase “fearfully and wonderfully made” becomes even more powerfully meaningful.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Mystery of Unbelief
Individual belief in the existence of God, the reality of God as the Creator of All Things, and his influence on our value system and behavior are a subjective matter. That is to say, the matter of belief, a complex subject in itself, is dependent upon and intrinsic to the individual in ways that are often undiscoverable to others and to themselves. Subjectivity and self-consciousness are related. Both are mysterious qualities of human experience.
Many parents or mentors are baffled when their young people drift away from Christian belief, sometimes openly avowing agnosticism or even atheism. “Where did we go wrong?” they ask. Many adult Christians who taught young people in Sunday School classes or supervised youth groups in their churches are startled by the attrition. Desertion of Christian beliefs and values as young people progress from middle school to high school and eventually to college is of increasing concern to parents and church leaders.
Since 1970 there has been a startling growth in people identifying themselves as “nones,” or “religiously unaffiliated.” By one metric the “nones” now account for 20% of the population, up from 5% in the past several decades. Not all of the “nones” would self-categorize as atheists. One phrase heard with increasing frequency from the “nones” is “organized religion.” The term is often an expression of disapproval.
Many researchers are discovering purported reasons for unbelief. Justification for unbelief falls along a wide spectrum: Many people, regardless of their age, claim their religious experience is irrelevant, boring, uninteresting, unhelpful, or irrational. Objectively, this evaluation may not be reasonable. Subjectively, however, such appraisals need no defense because personal opinions, preferences, feelings, or desires rule, especially in our day when individualism and being ourselves is a highly valued personal characteristic.
Reasons to Believe founder and president, Dr. Hugh Ross, in a recent ministry letter touched upon a comment offered by one of his volunteers—his young teenaged grandson recently announced that he did not believe in God because “there was no evidence.” That young person’s statement might be categorized as a subjective rather than an objective utterance. The objective truth of God’s existence remains. Although no one has evidence for the existence of God by actually seeing him, there are logical evidences for the existence of God. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument popularized by William Lane Craig points to the existence of God.
More persuasive evidences of God exist in the characteristics of the universe itself—a universe created by God. Hugh Ross’s organization presents explicit evidential reasons for believing in God. Offering evidence of God’s work in the creation is a hallmark of the Reasons to Believe ministry. Ross’s most recent volume, Always Be Ready, (2018, RTB Press), fulfills the exhortation of I Peter 3:15, “…Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess (NET).
Hugh Ross has written many apologetic volumes citing the unique characteristics of our physical universe as evidence of the Creator’s work, and by extension, evidence of the Creator’s existence. In his most recent volume, Always Be Ready, Ross stresses our Christian responsibility to be ready to defend our faith and present reasons for it. He devotes only one chapter to formal scientific content with the disclaimer, “The book…barely (if at all) resembles any of the other books I’ve written to date. Only one chapter, the one that follows this one, provides scientific content readers have come to expect from me. Still, even this content comes to you in an unusually simplified, summarized form.”
Ross follows with a “simplified, summarized” chapter of eleven pages in which he devotes his skills to outlining some of the arguments he elaborates upon in hundreds of pages in his older volumes. These are the topics he summarizes: (1) cosmic origin and features (2) fine tuning evidence (3) life’s origin and advance, and (4) humanity’s origin. It is our prayer that detailed study of the topics listed above may provide spiritual truth seekers evidence of God’s existence and of his works in Creation. In this way we may replace subjective disbelief with objective belief in the God of Creation.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Rational or Irrational?
Atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are currently having their time in the sun. Their books and live broadcast debates with Christians are very popular. These adherents of atheism enjoy calling believers in supernatural creation/design in our universe "irrational." Many believers in God and God's apparent actions are troubled when doubters wave the "irrational" banner, like cheerleaders at a pep rally, provoking applause from the audience. What's a believer to do?
A dictionary search connects rationality with reason. In turn, reason is defined as thinking in a connected, sensible, and logical manner. Belief in an omnipotent Creator (the CAUSE) more powerful than His creation (the EFFECT) should strike us as reasonable. Effects have causes. Design implies a designer. Both statements are logical. Belief in the existence of God who has acted to produce our universe from nothing is certainly not irrational.
In contrast, believers in God have reason to accuse atheists of being irrational when they ascribe the current order, constancy, and predictability of the universe to randomness and chance. Even the theistic evolutionary beliefs of some Christians who attribute evolutionary speciation to unknown or uncertain processes -- can those beliefs be said to be more rational than belief in supernatural creation? Atheists and agnostics claim there is no evidence of the existence of God. The evidence of the natural world, however, does not support their belief system, but rather, ours.
A dictionary search connects rationality with reason. In turn, reason is defined as thinking in a connected, sensible, and logical manner. Belief in an omnipotent Creator (the CAUSE) more powerful than His creation (the EFFECT) should strike us as reasonable. Effects have causes. Design implies a designer. Both statements are logical. Belief in the existence of God who has acted to produce our universe from nothing is certainly not irrational.
In contrast, believers in God have reason to accuse atheists of being irrational when they ascribe the current order, constancy, and predictability of the universe to randomness and chance. Even the theistic evolutionary beliefs of some Christians who attribute evolutionary speciation to unknown or uncertain processes -- can those beliefs be said to be more rational than belief in supernatural creation? Atheists and agnostics claim there is no evidence of the existence of God. The evidence of the natural world, however, does not support their belief system, but rather, ours.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sermons from Science
“God of the Atom” was one of my many experiences with Moody Science Films beginning in the 1940s. The films were an outgrowth of the ministry of the visionary Dr. Irwin A. Moon, a California pastor who had used effective object lessons from science back in the 1930s. He began an evangelistic outreach with Moody Bible Institute in Chicago in 1938 called “Sermons from Science.” The Moody Institute of Science was founded in 1945 with live demonstrations and film productions. Many skillfully crafted science films were produced over the next decade or two, such as Red River of Life, City of the Bees, God of Creation, and Time and Eternity. Their popularity is legendary.
In the 1950s and 1960s the films were marketed not only to churches, but also to public schools, industry, and the military, where in our day, the mention of religious themes may generate a storm of protest. In 1948, President Truman appointed the “President’s Commission on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces.” An agreement was made with Moody to use the films in military character guidance programs. At the time, the Secretary of the Army cited their obligation “to the parents of the youthful soldier to continue insofar as possible under the conditions of military service, the wholesome influences of the home, the family, and the community.” By 1951, 200,000 military personnel were watching Moody science films each year. A Supreme Court Decision in 1962 ended the practice.
According to reviewers of modern Moody science film DVD reproductions I consulted, Irwin Moon “believed that the marvels of science provided visible evidence of a divine plan of creation…a glimpse of the natural world so complex that it could only be explained, according to the films’ narrators, through the existence of a higher power or intelligent designer.” Another reviewer, after showing the DVD remakes to his children “knew that the films would cultivate a taste for beauty, a love of science, and a sound theological perspective on the Creator.” Still another writer decries the fact that modern educational programs tend to bombard children with a visual assault of flashy scenes, distracting sound effects, and obnoxious or irreverent dialogue.” Having experienced these Moody Science classics six decades ago, and having used them in church and once or twice in my public school science classes, I attest to their high quality and faith-strengthening, spiritual value.
There is a sad irony to my conclusion. Beginning roughly fifty years ago, after the Moody science films had been produced, our knowledge in the fields of genetics, cosmology, medicine, oceanography, and technology, to mention a few, have all undergone startling changes. New discoveries in these fields have proliferated exponentially. One would think, therefore, that public confidence in the reality of the Creator who fashioned it all, would also have grown exponentially. Alas! Not so. Many have become jaded to scientific discoveries. Our culture is more secular than ever. Materialism deflects us from the simple joys of God-awareness. We battle boredom, frustration, and time constraints in a society with more material goods at our disposal than ever before. Books on atheism achieve more popularity than warranted.
Psalm 29:2 (NIV) affirms the message of the Moody Institute of Science film classics. “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name…” A reading of the next eight verses in Psalm 29 reads like a catalog of natural wonders Dr. Moon presented in the films. Today's scientific discoveries reveal more and more about multiple natural wonders, flashing through our senses like a vastly enhanced Moody science film.
In the 1950s and 1960s the films were marketed not only to churches, but also to public schools, industry, and the military, where in our day, the mention of religious themes may generate a storm of protest. In 1948, President Truman appointed the “President’s Commission on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces.” An agreement was made with Moody to use the films in military character guidance programs. At the time, the Secretary of the Army cited their obligation “to the parents of the youthful soldier to continue insofar as possible under the conditions of military service, the wholesome influences of the home, the family, and the community.” By 1951, 200,000 military personnel were watching Moody science films each year. A Supreme Court Decision in 1962 ended the practice.
According to reviewers of modern Moody science film DVD reproductions I consulted, Irwin Moon “believed that the marvels of science provided visible evidence of a divine plan of creation…a glimpse of the natural world so complex that it could only be explained, according to the films’ narrators, through the existence of a higher power or intelligent designer.” Another reviewer, after showing the DVD remakes to his children “knew that the films would cultivate a taste for beauty, a love of science, and a sound theological perspective on the Creator.” Still another writer decries the fact that modern educational programs tend to bombard children with a visual assault of flashy scenes, distracting sound effects, and obnoxious or irreverent dialogue.” Having experienced these Moody Science classics six decades ago, and having used them in church and once or twice in my public school science classes, I attest to their high quality and faith-strengthening, spiritual value.
There is a sad irony to my conclusion. Beginning roughly fifty years ago, after the Moody science films had been produced, our knowledge in the fields of genetics, cosmology, medicine, oceanography, and technology, to mention a few, have all undergone startling changes. New discoveries in these fields have proliferated exponentially. One would think, therefore, that public confidence in the reality of the Creator who fashioned it all, would also have grown exponentially. Alas! Not so. Many have become jaded to scientific discoveries. Our culture is more secular than ever. Materialism deflects us from the simple joys of God-awareness. We battle boredom, frustration, and time constraints in a society with more material goods at our disposal than ever before. Books on atheism achieve more popularity than warranted.
Psalm 29:2 (NIV) affirms the message of the Moody Institute of Science film classics. “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name…” A reading of the next eight verses in Psalm 29 reads like a catalog of natural wonders Dr. Moon presented in the films. Today's scientific discoveries reveal more and more about multiple natural wonders, flashing through our senses like a vastly enhanced Moody science film.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Discrediting Faith?
Beautiful sunsets, magnificent mountains, and various other glorious natural displays have long triggered deep feelings of worship. My mother was fond of quoting the King James translation of Psalm 121:1: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help.” She balanced the poetic quality of verse 1 by a follow-up quote of verse 2: “My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.” For her, the majestic hills in our northwest New Jersey neighborhood triggered deep reverence. But my parents’ Christian faith was affirmed even more deeply in gaining understanding of how God’s created world worked.
My father was a statewide agent for a seed company during the 1940s. In that role he was involved in promoting the cutting edge agriculture which widely came into use during the first half of the 20th century--the development of plant hybrids. Two pure strains of plants called “inbred” varieties are crossed to produce a hybrid plant which manifests the best traits of both inbred varieties. Further crossing of that hybrid with another hybrid results in a “double cross,” manifesting the best traits of all four original pure inbred strains.
A small “Corn Data Notebook” from Hoffman Farm Seeds of Landisville, PA, 1946 edition, states “These great hybrids are continually improved, season after season—by patient, careful selection and progeny testing…and by introduction of new bloodlines.” The Hoffman firm was my father’s employer. As a child, I remember my father using mysterious terms like “inbred” and “cross.” He kept busy planting “test plots,” visiting farmers and helping them overcome the inertia of traditionalism, persuading them of the value of hybrid plants possessing “hybrid vigor” and their potential for greatly increased yields.
One may wonder whether discovering and applying genetic knowledge of how hybridization works weakened my father’s faith in God as the Creator of the many thousands of strains of pure, inbred plants. Quite the contrary! He praised God for man’s ability to discover how hydridization works and embraced it enthusiastically. The Genesis 1:28 exhortation to "...Fill the earth and subdue it...Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" would appear to apply here as well.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his much discussed book The Language of God, has captured the imagination of some evangelical Christians by proposing the compatability of theistic evolutionary beliefs with traditional orthodox Christian precepts. His topics for chapters 7-10, successively, are (1) Atheism and Agnosticism, (2) Creationism, (3) Intelligent Design, and (4) Biologos (codeword for theistic evolution). He calls each of these positions “options.” Collins dismisses options (1), (2), and (3), and suggests that the correct position is option (4)--theistic evolution.
Collins, in Chapter 9 (p. 193), claims belief in intelligent design attempts to “ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day had been unable to sort out – whether a solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower.” We may infer that Collins cites a solar eclipse as an example of an errant belief that God periodically performs a miracle of blackening the sun. We may further infer that people citing the beauty of a flower believe God is performing a “miracle” each time a flower blooms. Collins implies many intelligent design adherents have a “God-of-the gaps” religion, citing the above as examples. He states such “theories” have a dismal history, because “advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps,” thereby discrediting their “faith” that God performs miracles.
In The Language of God, Collins paints adherents of intelligent design as God-of-the-Gaps believers in a “discouraging tradition” running “a huge risk of simply discrediting faith.” He states “Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps,” thereby discrediting the faith of many that God ever acted supernaturally along earth’s historical timeline. I conclude Collins would say that since we now know the moon, in its precise and predictable motions, periodically comes between the earth and the sun, our faith that God ever performs any sort of miracle has been discredited. Naturalistic scientists commit the argumentum ad futuris fallacy in their argument: Accept our argument because future evidence will support it. Some writers have named this the "naturalsim-of-the-gaps" argument.
As my parents grew older they became more aware of natural processes set in place by God to form mountains or make hybridization possible. Were my father alive today he would see the biotechnology of genetic engineering in the same light. Application of such technology reflects the function of intelligent design features long present in the world of nature. We do not weaken the credibility of the intelligent design concept; we strengthen it. One of the best examples of this strengthening effect is the incredible increase in our knowledge of the cell’s complexity since 1950, including the structure and coding functions of the DNA molecule. Intelligent design theists do not believe in God because of what we do not know, but because of what we do know.
Because of science, the concept of intelligent design has been strengthened exponentially.
My father was a statewide agent for a seed company during the 1940s. In that role he was involved in promoting the cutting edge agriculture which widely came into use during the first half of the 20th century--the development of plant hybrids. Two pure strains of plants called “inbred” varieties are crossed to produce a hybrid plant which manifests the best traits of both inbred varieties. Further crossing of that hybrid with another hybrid results in a “double cross,” manifesting the best traits of all four original pure inbred strains.
A small “Corn Data Notebook” from Hoffman Farm Seeds of Landisville, PA, 1946 edition, states “These great hybrids are continually improved, season after season—by patient, careful selection and progeny testing…and by introduction of new bloodlines.” The Hoffman firm was my father’s employer. As a child, I remember my father using mysterious terms like “inbred” and “cross.” He kept busy planting “test plots,” visiting farmers and helping them overcome the inertia of traditionalism, persuading them of the value of hybrid plants possessing “hybrid vigor” and their potential for greatly increased yields.
One may wonder whether discovering and applying genetic knowledge of how hybridization works weakened my father’s faith in God as the Creator of the many thousands of strains of pure, inbred plants. Quite the contrary! He praised God for man’s ability to discover how hydridization works and embraced it enthusiastically. The Genesis 1:28 exhortation to "...Fill the earth and subdue it...Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" would appear to apply here as well.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his much discussed book The Language of God, has captured the imagination of some evangelical Christians by proposing the compatability of theistic evolutionary beliefs with traditional orthodox Christian precepts. His topics for chapters 7-10, successively, are (1) Atheism and Agnosticism, (2) Creationism, (3) Intelligent Design, and (4) Biologos (codeword for theistic evolution). He calls each of these positions “options.” Collins dismisses options (1), (2), and (3), and suggests that the correct position is option (4)--theistic evolution.
Collins, in Chapter 9 (p. 193), claims belief in intelligent design attempts to “ascribe to God various natural phenomena that the science of the day had been unable to sort out – whether a solar eclipse or the beauty of a flower.” We may infer that Collins cites a solar eclipse as an example of an errant belief that God periodically performs a miracle of blackening the sun. We may further infer that people citing the beauty of a flower believe God is performing a “miracle” each time a flower blooms. Collins implies many intelligent design adherents have a “God-of-the gaps” religion, citing the above as examples. He states such “theories” have a dismal history, because “advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps,” thereby discrediting their “faith” that God performs miracles.
In The Language of God, Collins paints adherents of intelligent design as God-of-the-Gaps believers in a “discouraging tradition” running “a huge risk of simply discrediting faith.” He states “Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps,” thereby discrediting the faith of many that God ever acted supernaturally along earth’s historical timeline. I conclude Collins would say that since we now know the moon, in its precise and predictable motions, periodically comes between the earth and the sun, our faith that God ever performs any sort of miracle has been discredited. Naturalistic scientists commit the argumentum ad futuris fallacy in their argument: Accept our argument because future evidence will support it. Some writers have named this the "naturalsim-of-the-gaps" argument.
As my parents grew older they became more aware of natural processes set in place by God to form mountains or make hybridization possible. Were my father alive today he would see the biotechnology of genetic engineering in the same light. Application of such technology reflects the function of intelligent design features long present in the world of nature. We do not weaken the credibility of the intelligent design concept; we strengthen it. One of the best examples of this strengthening effect is the incredible increase in our knowledge of the cell’s complexity since 1950, including the structure and coding functions of the DNA molecule. Intelligent design theists do not believe in God because of what we do not know, but because of what we do know.
Because of science, the concept of intelligent design has been strengthened exponentially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)