withallyourmind.net

   In response to an earlier post, Two Contradictory Truths, a commenter said:

In fact, many very smart people argue that science and faith deal with fundamentally different kinds of things in very different ways. The contradiction is an illusion; one would not say the English language contradicts the German tongue.

   Rather than just replying in the comments, I thought I would dedicate a post to some of my thoughts on the matter. The person who made the comment was advocating what I would call the non-interacting complementarian model of the integration of science and theology. According to this view, which is the majority view expressed by those who would advocate Darwinian forms of evolution, science and theology are two distinct and non-interacting ways of looking at reality that can each give a full description of that reality without having to recourse to the other. People who take this view will say things like that science and religion are both authoritative in their own domains. What exactly are these domains? According to Stephen Jay Gould, “the empirical constitution of the universe” is the area of expertise of science and “the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives” is the area of expertise of religion.
   This particular model of integration is popular for good reason - this model accurately describes how science and faith interact most of the time. The precise nature of the atonement, for example, arguably has no bearing on how many protons a particular atom has, or vice versa. But the fact that scientific explanations of things like the water cycle work and do not contradict the Christian faith should come as no surprise since Christians have nearly always held that God chooses to work mainly through secondary causation, that is, by using the laws of nature (which, the Christian will say, are upheld by God and based on his own orderly nature).
   The problem arises, however, because Christians, for example, believe that occasionally God acts through direct or primary causation, in ways that cannot be described by the laws of nature. It is in these primary causal acts that science (as commonly defined) can contradict faith and vice versa. For example, Christians believe it is a historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Surely, this goes against everything we know of how nature usually works and if science is defined as only that which can be investigated by appeal to natural law, then science would rule that such a resurrection is an impossibility. Science therefore contradicts a key tenet of the Christian faith. Now, here many would say “Oh, well, the resurrection is something we must believe on faith.” But anyone who says this does not understand what the Christian is claiming. The Christian claim is that Jesus physically, empirically, and actually rose from the dead.
   As another example, there is currently a debate in the branch of physics known as cosmology as to whether the big bang was really the beginning of the whole universe or whether certain oscillating models are true. If these oscillating models are correct, then the universe has always existed and there was no beginning, which directly contradicts the Christian belief in creation ex nihilo (from nothing). It also seems true that scientific advances can actually reinforce religious beliefs. For example, the discoveries of the big bang and fine tuning have both been used in arguments for the existence of God.
   What we have seen then is that what I called the non-interacting complementarian model of the integration of faith and science works well in describing the way science and faith usually interact, but that if both science and religion are taken seriously as methods that lead to knowledge, then it is simply wrong to claim that they never can or will interact or contradict each other. Much more can be said on this issue and I plan in the future to use the concepts of God’s primary and secondary causation to show why intelligent design and descent with modification are both equivalent (and scientific) explanations for the development of life. It will mainly be a condensation of what can be found in Stephen Meyer’s The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There Be a Scientific “Theory of Creation”?, for those who don’t want to read the whole 37 or so page article.

This evening, throughout America, knocking sounds will be heard as children of all sizes will be dressed in their costumes parading through neighborhoods looking for treats. Christian families will be following their consciences as to their degree of participation. A different knocking was heard 488 years ago on this very day, October 31, as a young monk named Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany (I know it is questioned whether he actually nailed them to the door, but please humor me as it has provided the segue, above.)

Luther’s writing of the “95 Theses” is generally spoken of as the beginning of the protestant reformation. His reason for writing this paper was to contest the abuses of power and errors of the Roman Catholic Church. These theses argue against the selling of indulgences, a fund-raising practice of the church whereby a person can buy their loved-one’s way out of purgatory. Although, Luther had not yet fully developed his gospel of grace, the seeds were contained within this document. He would go on to proclaim that a man is saved by faith alone, and not by works.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)

Today, I celebrate the courage of a man to stand against the world to proclaim the truth of God’s grace. I am daily comforted by the fact that my salvation does not rest on my own works or righteousness. I don’t deserve it. I cannot earn it. I can do nothing to merit it. I am made righteous by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That’s it! That is truly something to celebrate. It is the central belief that sets Christianity apart from all world religions. Nothing I do will earn my salvation. My salvation depends on what Christ has done.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26 (ESV)

A Reuters news article today bemoans the “anti-science” sentiment that is supposedly pervading America. Some poor scientists are having a “crisis of confidence”. Once again, unfortunately, the authorities quoted have it all wrong. There is no overwhelming “anti-science” sentiment. There is, however, a rising anti-naturalism sentiment. America has tolerated this bipartate reality of science and faith for about as long as it can stand. Cornell acting president Hunter Rawlings, in his “state of the university” address last week, made an outstandingly insightful remark:

When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers.

I doubt, however, he gained much insight from his own statement. It is not the ID community that is shunning informed exchange. The idealogues are the naturalistic Darwinists who refused to allow Darwin’s theory to be questioned. Design theorists do not at all mind discussing Darwinism. They simply want both the strengths and weaknesses on the table for discussion.

The public is aware that a naturalistic explanation of complex organisms has fallen short in many areas. They believe Darwinism oversteps its bounds when it claims to prove more than it does. If scientists wish to gain the support of the public, perhaps they should refrain from such statements as this one made by Richard Dawkins in a 1989 New York Times review:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Now, most everyone believes in some type of evolution (change over time), but not the naturalistic, chance-driven dogma presented by Darwinists. I must be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked…or maybe just not willing to grant Darwinism the untouchable status that naturalists believe it deserves.

No, the United States is not becoming hostile to science. They are, however, no longer willing to blindly submit themselves to a group of scientists who view them as ignorant, stupid, or insane when those scientists themselves are not even able to critically evaluate and question their own dogmas, such as the a priori exclusion of intelligent design.

Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart have just published a new book called, “The Plausability of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma. His “new” theory is called “facilitated variation”. This theory is supposed to take the wind out of ID’s sails by addressing one of the major weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, the appearance of complex, novel structures in organisms. I have not yet read the book, but I did listen to Marc Kirschner explain his theory on On Point Radio.

I was disappointed that I heard nothing really new at all. At the risk of oversimplifying Kirschner’s explanation (listen for yourself, here), it appears he appeals to the wonders of human development in the womb and the reparative powers of the human body to explain the appearance of complex organs and cellular machines in organisms. While it truly is amazing that a human being, or any being for that matter, develops from one undifferentiated cell, I fail to see how this at all accounts for Darwinism’s shortcomings. All of the complexity of the human body is already programmed in that first cell. It doesn’t develop by mutation and change as the organism develops.

Based on the radio interview, it seems this “facilitated variation” adds little if anything to the debate. There was no new science presented. We have known what Kirschner presents for many years. It seems he, unconvincingly, proposes that embryology and development helps explain Darwinian evolution. In fairness, I’m sure that much more detail is presented in the book. I can only critique his radio interview. Based on what I heard, I do not believe science is any closer to resolving Darwin’s dilemma with this theory.

Nancy Pearcey seeks to dispel the myth that science and Christianity are incompatible in the article, “Christianity is a Science-starter, not a Science-stopper.” She briefly examines various world cultures and asks why the scientific revolution occured in Christian medieval Europe. Many secularists today propose that Christianity assumes that the world is a “perpetual miracle” and closes off vigorous scientific research. Nothing is further from the truth. It is no coincidence that the scientific revolution occurred in a Christian culture. Why did it not occur within the Greek culture, in a culture of polytheistic or eastern religious philosophy, or in muslim society? The answer lies in a Christian worldview which assumes a rational God who made a world subject to rational physical laws. This excerpt, which was quoted on Stand to Reason, is revealing:

This fact is certainly suggestive, and it has prompted scholars to ask why it is that modern science emerged only out of medieval Europe. Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark identified the 52 figures who made the most significant contributions to the scientific revolution, then researched biographical sources to discover their religious views. He found that among the top contributors to science, surprisingly only two were skeptics (Paracelsus and Edmund Halley).

Stark then subdivided his subjects once again into those who were “conventional” in their religious views (that is, their writings exhibit the conventional religious views of the time), and those who were “devout” (their writings express a strong personal investment). The resulting numbers show that more than 60 percent of those who jumpstarted the scientific revolution were religiously “devout.” Clearly, holding a Christian worldview posed no barrier to doing excellent scientific work, and even seems to have provided a positive inspiration.

It is important that we help to shatter the myths surrounding Christianity’s relationship to science. It has not been an antithetic one. Christianity gave birth to modern science and still provides a strong philosophical foundation for vigorous scientific research.

I read a book several years ago which was very influential in my life. It is an autobiography of a great American, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. I initially read this book at a time in my life when I made the decision to stop believing things just because I was told to believe them, and to think for myself. Frederick Douglass was an American slave. The book chronicles his struggle and determination to be free. As I read this story, I could not help but think how so many of us allow ourselves to be enslaved. When we allow others to tell us what to think, without thinking for ourselves, we are in bondage. Much of Christianity is enslaved to secular society. Many are enslaved to false teachings within Christianity. Why? Because either they cannot or will not think.

The book tells of a time when Douglass went to Baltimore to serve a new master and mistress. His mistress, Mrs. Auld, began to teach Douglass the basics of reading and writing. Here, in the words of Douglass (not mine), is what happened next:

Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read…”If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master – to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now”, said he, “if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.”

This wasa pivotal moment in Douglass’ life. He had always pondered, but never understood how the white man kept the black man enslaved. At this point, the lights went on. He “understood the pathway from slavery to freedom”. Douglass knew he must learn to read, which more importantly would allow him to think for himself. He says as much here:

I have observed this in my experience of slavery, - that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in his slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right and he can be brought to that only when he ceases to be a man.

To be truly free one must think. We must use our minds to glorify God. We must worship Him with all our minds, by learning to think correctly. Thinking is not always easy or comfortable. Sometimes we would rather not think or risk any change. Some would rather remain a slave, than to leave the comfort of their present situation. Douglass complained:

I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing…In moments of agony, I envied my fellow-slaves for their stupidity. I have often wished myself a besast. I preferred the condition of the meanest reptile to my own. Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking! It was this everlasting thinking of my condition that tormented me.

As Christians, we should not allow ourselves to be enslaved to false teachings, whether secular or religious. To escape from slavery means we must use our God given faculty of reason and examine the things we have been told to believe.

I was reading Thinking Christian’s latest blog, which references an article in the November 3 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine called “Darwinian Warfare”. Here’s the quote from Rolling Stone:

But ID is also revealing itself here in Pennsylvania in another form. It’s having a coming-out party as a deliberate satirical echo of the great liberal lie of the modern age: the idea that progressive science and religion can co-exist.

For a century or so since Nietzsche, popular culture in the West has operated according to an uneasy truce, in which God both is and is not dead. We teach our children the evidence-based materialism of science and tell them they can believe in God and a faith-based morality in their spare time if they like.

And in some parts of the country, we celebrate Scopes as a victory over ignorance, while still insisting that we do not also celebrate it as a victory over religion.

What these endless Scopes sequels tell us is that somewhere many years from now we’re going to hit a fork in the road, beyond which this have-it-both-ways philosophy isn’t going to fly anymore. Is God dead or isn’t he? Are we believers, or not? They know what we think. They just want us to come out and say it.

I don’t suppose the author of this article comes down on the side of the believers, however, he nails the real issue. Two contradictory viewpoints cannot both be right. To think we can live our secular lives with one set of beliefs and our sacred lives with another is ludicrous. It’s the intellectual equivalent of multiple personality disorder. Truth is truth. If it is true in church, it is true in the world. One cannot rationally except scientific naturalism and Christian theism at the same time.

J. P. Moreland, in Love Your God With All Your Mind, writes about the compartmentalization of our sacred and secular lives. In religion, we are told we are to operate in faith and belief. In society, we must use our minds and reason. What kind of inconsistent living is that? Reason and faith are not contradictory. There is only one truth. Rolling Stone (not a source I would necessarily turn to as a beacon of truth) hits this nail on the head. American is trying to live like there are two contradictory truths. We have been told that religion can be true in one sphere and science can be true in another, and that is okay. What? Truth is truth! The goal of both science and religion is to seek that one truth.

While the conclusion of Rolling Stone might be to eliminate either science or faith, considering them incompatible, the better solution is to develop a single, coherent approach which recognizes that there is but one truth. The goal of science, as well as religion, is to find it.

The journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Philosophia Christi, has posted a preprint of a review by Jonathan Witt of a book by Barbara Forrest, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. This is especially fitting since Barbara Forrest is among those who testified for the plaintiffs in the ongoing Dover intelligence design trial. I must confess I have not read the book, but based on the review, Forrest continues the same argument we hear over and over again…that intelligent design is nothing more than an devious attempt to teach creationism in the public schools, “replace the scientific method with belief in God”, and unify church and state.

The reason they know this is the motive of ID is because the leaders are Christians, and they are motivated by religion. Witt does an excellent job exposing the fallacious reasoning of Forrest. A scientist may have many motives for his work, but, really…who cares? Evaluate the evidence and the arguments, not the motive. Forrest serves on the board of an atheistic organization, so I guess we need pay no attention to her arguments, since her having an opinion disqualifies any statements she makes as mere propaganda.

Witt also addresses the complaint of a supposed lack of genuine ID scholarship and research published in peer-reviewed publications, by illustrating its baselessness. He presents examples of the above. Finally, he describes the arguments of Forrest as a question-begging appeal to methodological naturalism and an appeal to concensus. He describes the tone of the book as “paranoia”.

What I find interesting is that this summary encapsulates almost anything I read in oppostion to ID. Darwinists refuse to address the evidence. They attack the proponents and their motives. They appeal to concensus. Eventually, they will have to confront the science and the failures of scientific naturalism.

A recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Faith Healers and Physicians–Teaching Pseudoscience by Mandate” compared those opposed to evolution with Russian tyrant Joseph Stalin. The Christian Medical Association, an organization of Christian doctors to which I belong, has spoken out against a “scientific inquisistion” aimed at silencing those who oppose the darwinistic explanation of living organisms.

“Instead of an open and systematic consideration of the evidence, a small but powerful scientific elite have launched the equivalent of a “Scientific Inquisition” against any scientist who dares to break ranks to consider the claims of intelligent design. Besides persecuting any scientist who dares consider the evidence for intelligent design, the ruling elite would also excommunicate any scientist who sees God behind that design.”

It is important to recognize the ostracism and persecution scientists face if they choose to identify themselves with intelligent design. Opponents of ID complain of the lack of peer reviewed publications which support ID, but fail to mention that submission of ID material is summarily dismissed as pseudoscience and not given equal consideration with other material. It can be very damaging to one’s career in science to identify himself with ID concepts. I’m glad to see the CMA throw their support behind a fair hearing of intelligent design.

Ok, I’ll admit it…the problem of evil is a real problem for Christians. However, my point here isn’t to try to give an answer to it. I think that has been done well enough by others. (See especially Alvin Plantinga - The Free Will Defense). Rather, I want to point you to the fact that the problem of evil is a problem for everyone. And the thing is, if you don’t believe in a transcendent, all-good God, you shouldn’t have a problem. Without such a God, moral values can have no objective basis. They simply become cultural norms. But they aren’t just norms that vary from context to context. The holocaust was wrong. And I mean it was truly, objectively wrong. It would have been wrong even if the Nazis won WWII and convinced everyone on earth that it was right. The problem of evil isn’t that evil exists. The problem of evil is that we know it exists, and we know it’s not supposed to. We feel upset at evil and we all long for a day when there will be no more. The Christian view of evil matches all our deepest feelings. Evil is unnatural, but all will be made right someday when Jesus comes again and rules the whole earth with righteousness. Other views just leave man with a contradiction between what he knows and what he claims to know. And this is something that I think all apologists should stress when confronted with the problem of evil (in addition to trying to reconcile evil with theistic belief).
Here is an extended quote by C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity that shows the atheist’s problem of evil:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent raction against it?…Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.