Young Earth/Old Earth

At today’s Christian faculty lunch, the topic of Science and Faith came up, particularly in the context of Genesis and the old earth/young earth debate.

My friend and colleague Sarah Salviander has started a ministry called Six Day Science, which I’ve written about before, and in spite of the appearance of the name, she is an old earth creationist. I asked her how things with that ministry were going and she was a little frustrated with the complete lack of response to email introductions she’d sent out to local pastors. We as a group sympathized, and shared that many pastors, not trained in science, tend to automatically take the young earth position. Furthermore, since many young earth creationists believe that is the only inerrant interpretation of Genesis, anyone holding a different view has a doctrinally weak view of Scripture. Consequently, many pastors try to insulate their congregations from those who hold different views, especially if that church has a school affiliated with it. This really helped her understand the dynamic involved.

Gaskell vs. UK #4: Martin Gaskell on “The Gaskell Affair” (Guest Blog)

{Note by RJW:  I am delighted to have my first guest post by none other than Martin Gaskell. It seems appropriate with the time spent by this blog on the case to give Martin himself a chance to offer some commentary. I am grateful for his willingness to share his thoughts here.}

Now that the Gaskell v. University of Kentucky religious discrimination lawsuit over the 2007 search for a director of the MacAdam Observatory of the University of Kentucky (see posts 1, 2, and 3) has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, I am free to talk about the case and related topics. There have been many blogs and tens of thousands of online comments about this. Addressing every point raised would be an overwhelming task, so here I just want to address what seems to be the biggest and most critical misunderstanding: my views on biological evolution.

I don’t give lectures on biological evolution

On January 21, the DailyTech blog said, “Martin Gaskell … has a keen interest in music. But reports of his keen interest in disproving evolution were grossly exaggerated.” I would put it even more strongly than that:  I don’t even have any interest in evolution! In fact, I don’t have any interest in biology at all (or chemistry either—sorry Robb!). {No problem, Martin—RJW}.  If you look at a list of my publications, you simply won’t find any papers on biology (In the interests of full disclosure, however, I do have to admit that you will find a passing reference to some biological processes in this paper). Since I have no interest in biology I do not go around the country giving talks on evolution. The University of Kentucky (UK) statements about this have been misleading. For example, on January 11, their official spokesman, Jay Blanton, stated, “Dr. Gaskell’s public comments on biological evolution were well-known to the university community at the time of his interviews for the position. He had lectured on the topic at UK several years ago.” In fact, I have never given a lecture on the topic of biological evolution anywhere. The only public lecture I had given at the University of Kentucky (a lecture on astronomy and the Bible) had been 13 years earlier.  Not only have I never given any talks on biology, I’ve never been asked to give one, and I would decline if asked. Why would anyone want an astronomer to give a lecture on biology? If some group wants a lecture on biology and the Bible they will ask a Christian biologist.

I do have a standard talk I have given from time to time with the title “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” My lecture notes for this are available online. Unfortunately many people have been commenting on the case without actually reading what is in the lecture and what my views are. If you are interested in Gaskell v. University of Kentucky, do please read all of my notes in order to see what I actually say and to get everything in context. If you do this you should realize that biology gets minimal mention. There are just under 10,000 words in the lecture notes, and less than 200 of these have been evoked to try to argue to I am “anti-evolution”. That’s only 2% of the notes.

I don’t think that there are “major flaws” in evolutionary theory

Let’s look at the two most discussed passages in my lecture notes. The first is:

It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations.

This has been misquoted as me saying that there are “major flaws” in evolutionary theory.  The phrase I actually use, “significant problems”, is quite different from “major flaws”. In science, a “problem” is something to be solved. We scientists like problems!  As Robb said in a previous post, when a teacher assigns the problems at the end of a chapter this does not mean that the chapter is wrong! I had inserted my parenthetical remark about the existence of problems in evolutionary theory being “a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job” to try to make it clear what I meant by problems:  I meant the things that biologists and geologists get paid to work on. I have often served on panels for agencies such as NASA or the National Science Foundation to advise these agencies which research they should support. I’ve never seen a proposal for research in an area in which it was claimed that there are no problems or the problems were insignificant. Such research just wouldn’t get supported. Proposers go out of their way to demonstrate why their interests help solve significant problems.

In nearly every field, problems are bigger than they are made out to be in introductory courses. This should cause no surprise; it is not something unique to evolutionary theory. It is important to let students and the public know that there is uncertainty in science.

Rather than having my astronomer’s view on whether there are problems in evolutionary theory, let’s see what Dr. James Krupa, Associate Professor of Biology at UK, said when asked under oath about my statement above. Dr. Krupa works in the UK ecology and evolutionary biology group.

Q. Are there problems in evolutionary theory that remain to be resolved?

A. All science is continuing to answer more questions. That will happen in any branch of science forever. So when one -- if one claims that all issues in nature are now answered by evolutionary theory, we're still answering.

Q. So there are still problems to be solved in evolutionary theory?

A. Yes.

Notice that he says “all science” and “any branch of science”. He’s quite confident in saying that there are questions to answer in fields in which he does not work.

Let’s look at the other passage brought up as evidence for my supposed “anti-evolution” views:

… it should be realized that, despite some popular claims to the contrary, science has no satisfactory explanation of the origins of life yet. Note that the question of the origin of life is a separate problem from the question of the validity of some theories of evolution.

Anyone thinking that science already has a satisfactory explanation of the origins of life merely needs to look at the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis. (Wikipedia does not, of course, always give a reliable perspective on issues but it does at least provide a readily accessible place to start reading.)  Dr. Krupa was also asked about the passage just quoted. He replied “that is correct” and “research on origins of life is a separate research area from evolution … so that is correct.”

Another thing that has been brought up from my lecture notes is that I refer to books written by members of what is called the “Intelligent Design” movement (note the capitals). Here is what I say in my notes:

A discussion of the current controversies over evolutionary theory and how Christians view these controversies, is beyond the scope of this handout, but the now extensive literature discussing and reviewing books such as those of Phillip E. Johnson (“Darwin on Trial”) and of biochemist Michael J. Behe (“Darwin's Black Box”) will give you some of the flavor of the diversity of opinion of Christian biologists (and geologists).

The problem is that a number of people are focusing on what I refer to, rather than how I refer to them. The “how” is important. The thing to note here is that I refer to the literature discussing and reviewing the books. That is quite different from endorsing everything in a book. I am frequently asked questions about things in my field by fellow researchers. I will commonly give an answer such as “that was shown by Joe Doe in 1982”. That does not mean that I am endorsing everything Joe Doe says in his 1982 paper.

My views on biological evolution

My own views on the evidence for evolution should be obvious from my lecture notes. I state clearly that

The evidence is very good (and gets stronger every year) that all life on earth descended (i.e., evolved from) from a common origin.

Dr. Krupa was asked about the statement.

Q. And is it correct to say that the evidence is very good and gets stronger every year that all life on earth descended; i.e., evolved from a common origin?

A. All evidence right now indicates common origin.

I also very clearly state my own personal opinion of evolutionary theory:

I personally have no theological problem with the idea of God doing things in the ways described in modern theories of evolution.

Here is what Dr. Krupa said when asked about this:

Q. What do you think of this remark where he says, "This is probably a good place to state that I personally have no theological problem with the idea of God doing things in the ways described in modern theories of evolution"?

A. That is the views [sic] of those that consider themselves a theistic evolution [sic], and that's fine by me.

Q. And is that different from creationism?

A. It is different, yes. So all the denominations, Christian denominations in this country who accept evolution would classify themselves as theistic evolution [sic]. So they can accept the science of evolution and they can believe in God.

Q. So in this remark you would have no problems with Dr. Gaskell?

A. I have no problems with this comment.

Notice two things here. First, notice what Dr. Krupa says about my position of “theistic evolution”. He says, “that’s fine by me.” Then notice that states that it is different from creationism. (i.e., he is confirming that my viewpoint is not that of a creationist)

The chairman of the UK department of biology said I was not anti-evolution and did not identify any biological conclusions that he disputed, nor any deficiencies in my understanding of the scientific method.

The chairman of the UK biology department, biochemist Dr. Sheldon Steiner, reinforced this when he was asked under oath:

Q.  Dr. Steiner, at the time that you read this [the lecture notes], I believe you said that you didn’t think that Dr. Gaskell was antievolution; is that correct?

A.  That’s correct.

Furthermore Dr. Steiner was asked “And what scientific biological conclusions, if any, does Dr. Gaskell reach in this paper that you dispute?” He failed to identify a single one.

Dr. Steiner was also asked “Is there anything in [the lecture notes] notes which indicates that Dr. Gaskell does not appreciate or understand or has deficiencies in the scientific method?” He did not identify anything.

The director of the main anti-creationist organization in the US said that I was not anti-evolution and could be a good person for the University of Kentucky directorship

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a non-profit organization based in Oakland, California, which describes itself as “the premier institution dedicated to keeping science in the classroom and creationism out.” Based on information on their website, the NCSE considers theistic evolution an acceptable view. The NCSE director is Dr. Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist by training. She was told by the chairman of the UK search committee about the UK biologists’ opposition to hiring me. She was asked about my views and referred to my lecture notes. After reading the notes and investigating me further, Dr. Scott wrote that I was “accepting of evolution” and furthermore that I “could be a good person for the job.”

My 1997 lecture at UK was at the invitation of the Physics and Astronomy Department

Something that has not been widely realized in all the recent discussion about the lawsuit is that my 1997 University of Kentucky public lecture on astronomy and the Bible was at the invitation of the Physics and Astronomy Department. Some members of the department had read my lecture notes in 1996 or 1997, and, on the basis of these, decided to invite me because they thought my perspective on science and Christianity would be a worthwhile one for people to hear.

The University of Kentucky had my lecture notes on a class web site.

I put my lecture notes on my own personal web page, never on a server at my then current university. However, UK astronomy professor, Dr. Gary Ferland, put my lecture notes on a UK class website.  When asked about this under oath he said:

A. I put it on my class website. I said that there is no conflict between science and religion. This is an example of a very deeply religious person who is a respected astronomer, and he had provided this file which I had posted. So I wouldn't -- I mean if there were anything -- if there were anything blatantly wrong, I would not have put it on my website.

Q. And when you say blatantly wrong, would that include denying the validity of the theory of evolution?

A. If he had left mainstream science, I certainly would not have put it on the website.

Some closing thoughts

The fuss over my views on biological evolution is strange because, as I said above, biology is not a subject that interests me. In my talks on Genesis when I get to the verses on biology I always joke (as I do in my lecture notes) “Yuk! Biology!”

A lesson from all this is: read things carefully and don’t jump to conclusions. If you hear something outrageous sounding about someone, check up on it. Prior to and during the Kentucky observatory director job search, one astronomer at UK had been telling people that Alan Sandage (one of the most famous astronomers of our time) and I both believed God had made life on the earth only 8,000 years ago. The UK astronomer could have sent both Alan Sandage and me a one-line e-mail asking whether this was true. I would have straightened him out in one word: “no!” Sandage was a Christian, but, like me, he did not believe God created life only 8,000 years ago either. This came up a dinner I and others had with Sandage some twenty years ago and Sandage was quite annoyed about people believing such things. The same mistaken UK astronomer also believed that the most prominent astronomer in another country believed in UFO conspiracies. I simply e-mailed the purported UFO believer and asked him if this were true. It was not. In fact, he had co-authored a book in his native language saying there was no evidence that the earth had ever been visited by UFOs.

Although I don’t work on evolutionary biology myself, I married into a family that does. My father-in-law was the famous marine biologist and naturalist Kenneth Norris (to get a perspective on what he was like, I highly recommend his recently published last book, Mountain Time). Ken read over and commented on my lecture notes. My wife, Barbara, was trained as a micropaleontologist and my brother-in-law, Richard Norris, was a graduate student of the famous Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Dick is now an internationally known professor of paleobiology at the Scripps Institution, UCSD.  He works on large-scale evolutionary trends and the mode of species formation.  If I were claiming that all those dead critters in my wife’s thesis or that my brother-in-law studies were only 8,000 years old I wouldn’t just be having scientific problems—I’d be having marital problems!

SDG

Vibrant Dance: “God’s Creativity and Providence”

{This post was to be about Fuz Rana’s (RTB) talk about “Biochemistry and the Bible:  How Fine-tuning in the Design and Specific Unfolding of the Biosphere Support Christianity,” but during his talk my laptop battery died and I lost pretty much all of those notes, so I am skipping to Darrel Falk’s presentation. I will listen to the CD of Fuz’s talk in the next few days and take a new set of notes. They will be limited as I won’t have access to his slides, but it should be a passable representation of his talk.}

Darrel Falk from the BioLogos Foundation presented their position in “God’s Creativity and Providence for the Unfolding of Life: An Evolutionary Creationist’s Perspective on the Universe.” A key point was that he (and many in his camp) don’t really like the term ‘theistic evolution,’ preferring rather the term, ‘evolutionary creationism’ because it puts the noun emphasis on creation rather than evolution, and I can definitely appreciate the distinction.

As someone who is admittedly skeptical about the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to truly model the AMAZING diversity of life on this planet, especially the ‘explosions’ of speciation  that occur spontaneously in the geologic record, I was really looking forward to a cogent explanation of this position, addressing some of the key criticisms of it by other creation viewpoints.

Unfortunately, I was really disappointed for a number of reasons. One of the biggest distractions were Falk’s slides—he used extremely fancy fonts and effects that made them hard to read and absorb quickly. They were visually artful and attractive, yet did not communicate the information efficiently. He tried to give a two hour talk in 50 minutes, so flew through critical slides, which compounded the problem of being able to read the info. Falk himself was distracted—he had an early technological glitch with a laser pointer that really bothered him and he spent a lot of time with extraneous and filler comments that made it harder to follow his train of thought. I am a PhD scientist, but haven’t had any biology since high school, so I was having to put my mind in an unfamiliar paradigm, so I can imagine the difficulty for a non-technical audience. In all honesty, I kind of gave up on notetaking fairly early because I had to concentrate so hard on what he was saying, so will have to go back and listen to it again, and revisit.

He spent probably half to two-thirds of his talk discussing the insertion of the Alu DNA sequence into the genetic code and tracing it through the genetic codes of several species. Alu is a stretch of DNA that codes for a specific protein and tends to insert itself in particular places due (I think) to environmental or other kinds of stress, and then get transmitted to future generations. Therefore, the logic goes, if it occurs in the same place in several species, then they must have a common ancestor.

Not knowing more about Alu insertion, I have several questions based on what I understood in Falk’s presentation. It is not clear to me when he says “it inserts into particular positions,” whether that means that it inserts randomly, so when it appears in a genomic sequence, that means it is truly a unique fingerprint and the chances of it appearing there in another species is so improbable as to ignore the possibility, or, if it tends to insert in specific parts of the code in different types of species, so those are fingerprints for genetic similarities. If it is the first, then there may be some validity to it supporting common descent. If it is the second, then I see it as no more unique as vertebrates tending to have four limbs, which could be common design just as easily as common descent.

Another question is if Alu can so easily insert itself into the code, can it also delete itself and/or mutate? If so, how can we really be sure it is useful as a tracking tag?

I had many similar questions throughout the talk, when I could follow the arguments. I’m not offering these questions as contrarian attempts to discredit his position, but as an attempt to understand it, and illustrate areas for improvement in the argument’s clarity.

When Falk got to the end of the Alu discussion, he went on to cover at least two other completely different evidences for the evolutionary creationist position, but covered all of it in a quarter of the time he spent on Alu, and it simply blew past me.

As I indicated in my Day 1 Recap, a common problem the position speakers had was covering too much info at medium depth. It would be better to do a low orbit overview of the entire position in 10-15 minutes, then do a thorough discussion of ONE point from beginning to end to show the ruggedness of the argument on that point. The context of this session was that of introducing one’s position to people you assume know nothing about it, with the opportunity to go into greater detail in the later breakout sessions for those interested.

I look forward to learning more about the Evolutionary Creationist position in the future and sympathize with Falk—sometimes Murphy just takes center stage.

SDG

Vibrant Dance Day 1 Recap

There were seven plenary sessions today and one breakout session. It was kind of a marathon, but worthwhile. The first two plenaries, by Andy Crouch of Christianity Today and Ross Hastings of Regents College, helped set the tone of unity in Christ and the fundamentals we agree on and therefore the proper place of the different theories of Origins in evangelical Christendom. Dan Heinze then discussed “What is Science?” to establish the extent and limits of science. The remaining talks were speakers from the three major ‘camps’ present at the symposium. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe presented the Progressive Creation view as applied to cosmology and biology respectively. Darrell Falk from BioLogos gave the theistic evolution (or Evolutionary Creation) viewpoint, and Steven Meyer from the Discovery Institute discussed Intelligent Design (ID). This way, the entire spectrum of what is to be discussed was presented on the first day, so that remaining sessions can refer back to this foundation. It is a good plan.

I plan to give a short recap of each day’s sessions and in future posts discuss each of the talks I attended, so that it can be delivered in blog-sized bites.

I missed most of Crouch’s talk because I was helping with registration, but it seemed pretty good. Hastings’ talk was similar (only heard part of it), but we had a lovely discussion over dinner, and I respect and like him a lot. Heinze’s talk on science was a good evaluation of what science can and cannot do and why. Of the four position talks, I have to say that Fuz’s on the biological story of the earth from a progressive creationist perspective was the most solid and tightest. Meyer’s was pretty good, but I think Falk has it right that ID is a single issue camp that is really an umbrella for the others (including the Young Earth folks):  Did God do it or not, regardless of the How. Ross as usual had the slickest presentation, yet his reliance on overwhelming the audience with improbabilities makes it hard to truly evaluate the solidity of his assumptions, and some of his predictive tests seem to be God-of-the-Gaps things—‘we haven’t found evidence of X yet, so as long as we don’t, then it makes God a plausible argument.” How often do we find out that God can do things differently than we expect? Finally, Falk’s presentation was poorly done with difficult to read slides, which made it a little hard to evaluate how convincing his arguments really are, and he tried to cram too much into too little time. This last point was a bit endemic to all, and while it is an understandable problem, it might be better to give a more surfacy overview of the position in a few minutes and then thoroughly explore a single point or area to demonstrate the power of that position on that topic as an example of the overall quality of the argument.

I will come back and address each talk more fully after the conference is over. Note: I have advertised this blog to most of the speakers, so I say these things knowing they may well read them at my open invitation. My spirit in these posts is constructive praise and criticism both, and would express these sentiments to them directly were we to sit down together to discuss them, so I invite dialogue. It is in the best interests of all of us for all of the positions to express themselves at their very best for good scholarship and constructive dialogue between them and with the secular scientific community. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and qualified scholars in their own right. I also think I may do a post on effective PowerPoint presentations!

SDG

Pan-Creationism

As I wrote my previous post, I realized it might be a good idea to reveal my view of origins. Trying to follow good journalistic practices, I have attempted to describe various views as a neutral third-party, but this can be confusing to readers who are trying to infer what I think about such a contentious issue.

I recently decided that I am, ultimately, a ‘Pan-Creationist.’ To wit, it all panned out and here we are. Before you go accusing me of copping-out, let me explain.

I believe firmly in the first five words of Genesis:  “In the beginning, God created.” After that, I WAS NOT THERE, so I don’t know.

I believe God is perfectly capable of creating the universe in six seconds, so six days isn’t a problem when it comes to His ability. Neither do I limit Him to six literal 24 hour days. It is a very interesting question, but to me it is not a doctrine on which I intend to stand or fall.

Dammit, Jim, I’m a chemist, not a Hebrew scholar, geologist, or biologist. I’ve never even taken a biochemistry course. Therefore, I do not have the technical expertise to comment with authority on the topic of origins, so I refuse to. That is not a cop-out, it is professional integrity.

I do not hold the Bible to the standards of the Journal of the American Chemical Society or similar. Given that scientific journals came thousands of years after Scripture, I don’t see modern scientific standards as being backwards compatible with ancient Hebrew literature.

As a layman who has studied the Bible for over 25 years, and as a PhD scientist who understands the scientific method and sees it as a valid and powerful method for studying the natural world, I lean at this point in the direction of progressive creation. That is, that the six days of Genesis 1 are periods of time, and creation occurred over billions of years. However, I am still open to new data and new interpretations of both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. I find intriguing arguments in most of the various camps from the young earthers to the theistic evolutionists, but have not found a compelling set of arguments to place me firmly at a defined position. My experience tells me that the truth of hazy things often lies somewhere between the extreme views, so I tend to gravitate there while waiting for new info.

Part of the issue goes back to my theme of agent-mechanism dichotomy. Science, as a tool of studying the natural universe is able to offer extremely limited insight on things supernatural. Therefore, I have to rely on more than science to determine if the agent of creation is God, naturalistic forces, or some other unknown force. My assessment of all the data I have, including personal experience, is that God does exist. Historical sciences like paleogeology, astronomy and evolutionary biology have the substantial limitations of not being repeatable, with no living eyewitnesses or written documents (reliable or otherwise). Thus, interpretation of the data relies on key assumptions that apparently competent professionals disagree on, largely based on whether they assume the supernatural can even exist or not. This makes definitive mechanistic determinations difficult, but not impossible.

In summary, did God do it? Yes. How? I look forward to seeing the better than blu-ray version when I reach Glory. Til then, it’s an open question.

SDG

Define Your Terms!

I got into an argument with a friend the other day over evolution. He argued that basically evolution had done nothing good for the world, and I maintained that, in spite of some questions about the ultimate accuracy of the model, it had successfully guided research into some useful discoveries. He responded that they were made using what Bacon, Newton and others had developed long before Darwin came along.

We went round and round until I realized that we were talking past each other. He was arguing against evolutionary philosophy, and I was talking strictly about the scientific theory of evolution as a mechanism. I realized that this was the agent-mechanism debacle that I keep railing about, all over again. In his mind, ‘evolution’ refers to the entire kit and kaboodle of atheistic evolutionary theory and philosophy of origins. In my mind, I see distinct separations between Darwin’s scientific theory (and subsequent derivations) and the naturalistic philosophy with which it is often paired and which tend to feed off of each other.

Therein is the confusion—to many people, Christian or otherwise, there is no separation between the scientific mechanistic theory of evolution and the naturalism prevalent among atheistic/agnostic folks. Thus, to talk about one, you are talking about the other.

Unless one recognizes that they are separate (though closely related), it can be difficult to evaluate the theory on its scientific merits or lack thereof (depending on your viewpoint). The theory says the diversity of life arose through genetic changes over time. The philosophy says therefore that God did not have any hand in getting us here and, in fact, doesn’t exist.

Thus, it is imperative to carefully define your terms in most any discussion and make sure all parties agree to them. Unfortunately, even once I realized the confusion and explained it to him, we were forced to agree to disagree, as he seemed unable or unwilling to concede my assertion that they were separable.

For those folks who are ‘theistic evolutionists,’ this is the uphill battle they face. There are all too many people on both sides like my friend who don’t see them as separable. Therefore, many Christians see them as heretics, and many naturalists see them as cheap compromisers trying to find a way to allow for their faith in the face of ‘overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.’

In nearly every field, there is at least one issue that causes bitter division. What is it in yours? Can some of the heat in the division be reduced by taking a step back, and starting from first principles, set up the definition of terms such that jumbled ideas can be separated? (Maybe this isn’t possible long term as the jumbled ideas may truly be interrelated, but is it possible to temporarily set up a separation for purposes of argument and theory refinement?)

SDG