To Make a Difference

Every semester, I meet individually with each of my students to discuss their plans and dreams for the future, and offer some personalized career counseling.

With many, I ask them a pair of questions to try to get below the surface, and for many, it is very difficult to answer them, even for those that have thought about them before.

1)      What are you good at? What are your gifts, strengths, talents, or skills? What do your friends admire about you?

2)      What are you passionate about? What energizes, motivates, or inspires you? What makes you exult or rage?

For many, if not most, the most common passion expressed is to make a difference in the world or to help people.

It is striking to me that this should be such a common refrain, as it seems independent of any spiritual tradition or other recognizable single factor. However, there are some interesting things I have either noticed or inferred from the sum of their comments.

Atheistic Sectarianism and Problems with Religion Developing Evolutionarily

Several weeks ago, I wrote a blog about the TED talk by Alain de Botton on Atheism 2.0. I have an update that almost sounds like it’s ripped from the front page of The Onion, but is a serious article from the LA Times. In “Atheist writers clash over how to not worship a nonexistent God,” de Botton and Dawkins criticize each other on how to practice their atheism.

De Botton is raising $1.5 million to build a temple to atheism, where folks can contemplate 300 million years of life’s existence on Earth and think good thoughts. Dawkins argues it is rubbish and the money should go to funding nicely atheistic schools.

At first glance, it is crazy, and one is likely to side with Dawkins on this one.

Vibrant Dance 2: Reynolds: Reconciling the Cosmos: Orthodoxy and Beauty

{RJW Note:  The second position paper given was by Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University, Los Angeles, California, and founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, a great books program, and fellow Celtophile. As a philosopher, he is a departure from the theologian-heavy lineup and his perspective helps also to define the discussions. Dr. Reynolds also comes from a young-earth perspective.

When I asked him for a copy of his notes as we walked down the hall, he stopped, pulled out a notepad and ripped out a single sheet of paper with a loose handwritten outline and handed it to me. Again, the generosity of these scholars in sharing their work for me to share here is humbling and I am very grateful. It is remarkable to see the different styles of preparation and presentation each uses. Today’s post will constitute a merging of his rough outline with my notes. Any inaccuracies in the substance and intent of his message are mine.}

Dr. Reynolds began by making it clear that even at this conference on faith and science, he was neither theologian nor scientist, and plays neither on TV or movies, as some might wonder given he’s in LA. To begin with offering his epistemological perspective, he defined and discussed the nature of science and then theology. He seemed largely unconcerned with the tensions between the two fields, and appears to be a NOMAist, one who adheres to the idea that they are non-overlapping magisteria (that science and faith answer fundamentally different questions and so do not overlap areas of expertise, so the tensions should be in mostly in appearance than reality). This is my assessment of his views, not an explicit statement by Reynolds.

What is science? It is a likely story of sensory experience that becomes rapidly complicated by philosophical assumptions. {See my 8-part series on “What is Science?”} To ask the question, ‘how to do science?’ is not a science question, but a philosophy question. To cloud it further, if you ask {most} scientists how they do science, their answer is {most likely} different than how they actually do it. Furthermore, scientists do not reject the ‘wrong’ model for the ‘right’ model, but make forward progress by getting rid of one wrong answer in favor of another wrong answer. {but maybe, hopefully, less wrong?} To muddy the waters further, it is possible to adopt the right idea at the wrong time and it could retard the advancement of science.

File This Bill under “Ambivalence”

The Texas Legislature is in session, and a bill has been proposed to protect faculty and students from discrimination for studying “theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”

As you can imagine, this is simply igniting the blogosphere, mostly with outrage at how backwards Texas is. Pick your own favorite invective and it is surely being hurled our way.

I am having a very difficult time deciding how I feel about the bill. Part of me supports the general idea of protecting academic freedom from political correct whims. We have respected research on many esoteric and minutial topics, yet there are some topics that are simply taboo. The purpose of tenure is to protect academic freedom to explore extremely controversial topics with a minimum of blowback. To the extent that universities fail to hold themselves to that standard, such laws may be useful. Regardless of how folks feel about “Expelled,” there is a certain level of antipathy towards areas with theistic implications, whether or not they explicitly have anything to do with evangelical Christianity.

To be honest, there is also some controversy among scientists of faith as to how to define ID. Is it a theory, as the bill calls it, or something more vague? A theory implies a series of testable/falsifiable hypotheses that suggest research to answer specific questions. If ID merely suggests a different interpretation of the data, but does not offer insight on how future experiments can be performed that would reveal either an increase or decrease in the ruggedness of that interpretation, it is of limited scientific value.

Of course, I suspect some ID proponents would rebut with the idea that if they had the freedom to pursue ID research in the open, then they would be in a better position to move from the latter to the former. Fair enough.

For me, the heart of the matter goes back to the whole agent/mechanism dichotomy. When looking at origins, we need to be careful to distinguish the mechanism by which things occurred, from the agency initiating and/or guiding that mechanism. Both sides muddy this line pretty badly and it makes for increased antagonism.

The mechanism question is best explained thus: Did the various species on earth arise from whole cloth, either instantaneously or in a type of punctuated equilibrium, or by a series of gradual processes from simple to more complex? There are a number of variations from these descriptions, but basically this covers the various proposed models.

The agency question is quite independent from the answer to the mechanism question: What initiated the first thing we can clearly identify as a living organism and was subsequent development directed or random. If directed, how and by what?

Then there is the clincher agency question:  Can we definitively distinguish the difference between various agencies? If the mechanism is Darwinian evolution, how would we tell if it were motivated by an intelligence with a purpose or simply was a series of random mutations that now that we are here, we call ‘lucky?’ The same question can be asked for whatever answer we come up with to the mechanism question.

If we cannot distinguish between agency models, then the discussion is moot, and must firmly remain in the areas of philosophy. If, however, there were a way to distinguish between the agency models, then it seems like it is of paramount importance to pursue that course and resolve it. Otherwise, we are limiting our own progress. But to the extent the question cannot even be discussed in the academy, there will be a nagging question in people’s minds, “what if?” The Christian church has received a great deal of criticism over how it handled various key scientific discoveries and how if they had embraced the investigations rather than squelching them, more progress might have been made faster. Are we as the scientific establishment making the same mistake that we accuse the Church of making?

If ID researchers can garner grant money, attract students, perform competent investigations and help resolve even the clincher question, why not allow it? Why should universities care as long as they are getting their overhead? It certainly adds to the diversity of the community.

I know many in the scientific community see the issue as moot. They are upset because they genuinely believe the issue is settled, the horse is so dead that it’s already a fossil in the British Museum. At the very least, part of tolerance is allowing others to scratch their itch.

Also, many believe ID is just an excuse for quietly inserting religion into science. While many ID proponents are scientists of faith, not all are. While a few may have a hidden agenda, most don’t. I personally know many people in the ID movement, and they have absolutely no desire to post the Apostle’s Creed in their classrooms and recite it at the beginning of class. However, no matter how convincingly that is argued, I know that many naturalists cannot be convinced that ID is nothing more than a secret Christian conspiracy. All I can say is that it isn’t. You can choose to believe it or not.

(Some readers are probably asking where I come down on this as I am obviously sympathetic, but not quite embracing, and so wonder if I am adopting an artificially neutral position to ‘appear legitimate.’ I address that issue here.)

Going back to the proposed bill, the small-government, freedom-minded part of me isn’t terribly thrilled with it. Here is yet another law cluttering the books. Even if the universities do not discriminate and take the attitude I propose four paragraphs ago, would the ID researchers be able to obtain grant money or be reviewed fairly in the literature? Can this bill help with that? Should it try? How will the Law of Unintended Consequences have an impact on things? Many well-intentioned laws end up, through the vagaries of practice and interpretation, doing the exact opposite of their intended effect. If someone wanted to study the scientific implications of, say, the Hindu creation story, would that be covered by the protections of the bill? It is an equal protection bill? The wording appears so, but the challenges of a pluralistic society require us to examine such things, preferably ahead of time.

Did Representative Zedler consult with faculty and universities to explore impact before proposing the bill? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to “bite the hand that’s petting me.” I’m exploring the issue as a scientist—looking at it from various angles to see if it is needed, wanted and/or accomplishes the intended purposes. If the answer is no to any of those, it needs to be reexamined for improvements or possibly discarded as a nice try.

I have no doubt that my ambivalence on this issue will irritate folks on both sides. I think there is need for increased charity towards one another, and let the data lead where it will, but I’m not convinced this bill is the best way to make progress towards that.

SDG

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

Gaskell vs. UK #2: The Louisville Courier-Journal

Several days ago, I did a post on Gaskell vs. The University of Kentucky, and now have the first update. The Louisville Courier-Journal (LC-J) ran a story Friday about the case.  There are apparently a number of disconnects between what the story says and Gaskell’s actual words. My primary source for Gaskell’s position is his online essay which the committee read.

The LC-J article reports that he gave talks to various campus religious groups across the country [1. true statement] and that he believes that the theory of evolution has “major flaws,” [2. not a fully accurate statement of either Gaskell’s words or beliefs] and implies that is the dominant topic of his talk [3. decidedly false]. What Gaskell actually states is, “It is true 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 usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations.”

As 1. is true, there’s no point in commenting on it.

2. Perhaps “questions” would have been a better term for colloquial use than “problems,” but neither word, nor the context of his statement conveys the idea of “major flaws” (i.e. that the theory should be chucked as incorrect or wrong). Gaskell doesn’t even use the word “flaw.” In many areas, we use the term “problems” to indicate something that needs to be solved, rather than something that is incorrect. For instance, we will tell students to do the problems at the end of the chapter for homework, and no one interprets this as saying the chapter is incorrect. We try to solve innumerable problems in our research to refine and improve our explanatory models, theories and hypotheses. He is also careful to separate the scientific theory from the naturalistic philosophy commonly, but not necessarily, associated with it, and states that his primary "problem" is with the philosophy rather than the science.

{Note that this discussion is of what Gaskell did or did not say, not whether his statements are true. This is an important distinction for purposes of the case. He readily acknowledges in his essay the diversity of views out there.}

3. Regarding the LC-J article's implication that the talks focused on evolution, the above quoted sentence is the majority of what he says about evolution in the entire talk. In fact, he (with tongue in cheek) bemoans as an astronomer any time he has to talk about biology at all. The title of the essay is “Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation.” There is nothing about evolution in the title, and he only covers it in passing because Genesis 1 talks about the creation of life, so he’s obligated to at least mention the topic.

The LC-J article also mentions “he recommended students read theory critics in the intelligent-design {ID} movement.” This is only partially true. Gaskell’s purpose is to give an overview of the different perspectives out there and encourages readers to research all of them for themselves. This is the mark of an educator, not a demagogue. Furthermore, Gaskell specifically says that ID as a movement does not offer an interpretation of Genesis, but just asks if there is evidence for design in the universe by an intelligence, and is not about mechanism.

Later in the LC-J article it says, “But UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it.” Logic states (as Gaskell implies in his essay) that if there are no remaining questions about it, then why is it still a field of study?

The article also states, “Gaskell had given the talk to religious and other groups at campuses around the country, including one at UK in the 1990s.” According to Gaskell’s attorneys, this was an invited talk—with the invitation issued by the Physics and Astronomy Department after some department members had read the essay!

Finally, his attorneys also dispute the claim by UK that the reasons for passing over Gaskell included “a poor review from a previous supervisor,” saying the written review which the search committee had received actually rated Gaskell as “superior” and “superior-plus.”

Overall, apart from these issues, the article seems to be fairly balanced, but it does leave the impression that Dr. Gaskell is a religious extremist and it trumps his credibility as an astronomical scholar.

I’m sure as the February 8^th trial date approaches, media discussion will escalate. As significant events occur, I’ll post about them, but will not critique every document/article that comes out. If you are interested in seeing every jot and tittle, a Google search will provide a plethora of hits.

As always, do keep the Gaskells and their legal team in your prayers—for wisdom, peace, protection, and a fair hearing in the courts.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: A Vision for the Church

Wednesday’s evening sessions were fascinating, but I have no report for them. As part of my volunteer (pleasurable!) duties, I served as a teaching assistant (TA) for two of the four breakout sessions—basically, made sure the room was set up for the speakers’ needs and be available if they need anything. Thus, I missed Dinesh D’Souza’s testimony. {Ever notice how some folks are known by a single name—Elvis, Madonna? Dinesh D’Souza’s one of those who’s known by their first and last name.} The breakout session for which I served as a TA was “Scientific Challenges to Neo-Darwinism” by the Discovery Institute team:  Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, and Doug Axe. It was basically 4 talks and Q&A in 90 minutes. Whew! Very fascinating, and I wish I could have taken notes, but I had a fair bit to do TA-wise. Sternberg’s talk is the one I remember best, about how the popular story of the evolution of whales is untenable. Very interesting—I’d love to hear a Darwinist’s response.

Thursday morning and the last day started with Deborah Haarsma’s testimony. I unfortunately missed this one too.

So we’ll proceed to the first plenary talk of the day by Alister McGrath from King’s College, London (which is different that The King’s College, in the Empire State Building, from where Bruce Gordon and Dinesh D’Souza hail), speaking on “A Vision for the Church: Science, Faith and Society in 2030 and How We Start on That Road Today.” Under Doctor’s orders, McGrath was unable to travel, so sent a video of his talk that he specially recorded for us, as opposed to recycling an earlier presentation.

He started with the question, “why is the relationship between Science and Religion so important? He then gave views by atheistic scientists. Steven Jay Gould said that science is religiously neutral, so science can’t point toward or away from faith. Yet, Stephen Hawking’s asserted that God is not needed based on string theory, which is hardly a religiously neutral statement.

Interestingly, string theory is highly speculative (and quickly falling out of favor in the scientific community), so he is speculating on a non-science issue based on a speculative theory based on no evidence. Given that the laws of physics are descriptive of a mechanism, we still need an Agent setting those laws in motion, so Hawking’s premise is flawed.

{Again, we see the agent/mechanism spectre rising yet again. Must be frustrating for those naturalists!}

So, from where do the “laws of physics” come? Hawking attributes agency to the laws themselves, which only pushes things back one step.

McGrath said that scientists are a bit worried about Hawking’s latest book because they fear it may erode the authority of science. They don’t want that authority (and power!) weakened in the public mind by the way he engages in such wild speculation.

Gould believed science cannot comment on God without overstepping its bounds. {Sounds like NOMA} Richard Dawkins has indicated that science is unable to say anything about what is ethical. {This is an astounding statement, given how much effort evolutionists have spent trying to explain an evolutionary mechanism for human ethics and morality.} McGrath references a book, “The Limits of Science” by Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar. {Incidentally, when you click on the Amazon link, take the time to read through some of the comments.}

Detective fiction is popular because people like to see how things fit together—weaving clues together. In the same way, we like to know the sense of things in science, faith, and their interface. So understanding how we approach each is important. The dominant paradigm in science is “inference to the best explanation,” or inferring from the data what explanation holds them together best. {Medawar disputes this paradigm in his book, claiming intuition and serendipity are  more important.} By contrast, faith goes beyond, even transcends, reason. {Which Medawar apparently would say that much of science is the same, with interesting philosophical implications.} Yet, McGrath argues that some people are trapped within reason, and unable to make the leap to faith. {Future blog post on this one!!}

Darwin himself said he didn’t’ have a problem with evolution versus faith, calling his theory provisional. It is important to note here the existence of two Darwinisms: 1) the scientific theory and 2) the worldview. Even Richard Dawkins says that Darwinism 1 may be changed so radically in another hundred years, we wouldn’t recognize it! {Do you, like me, find yourself getting Dawkins and Darwin confused? I suspect a linguistic conspiracy!)

Going back to faith, St. Augustine interprets Genesis, seeing within it two patterns in Creation—an instantaneous bringing about of things and a slower progression of development—‘embedded causalities’ which are revealed over time. {It’s sort of like puberty is embedded into our genes, but not revealed until the time for it to kick in.} He said, “the Creation is a seed that begins to grow over time.” This is in 401 AD—1400 years before Darwin! {This is also a nasty blow for the young earth folks—shows that ancient theologians didn’t even take Genesis 1 as six literal 24 hour days of Creation!} {This is actually a very insightful perspective by Augustine—life develops over time, culture develops over time, so why not Creation? Parallelism is an important hermeneutical technique.}

With theories in such flux, McGrath concludes, where will we be in a generation’s time—40 years from now?

There are two authorities in culture—science and faith, and without dialogue, they will continue to drift apart. Religion can offer an ethical construct for morally neutral science. Therefore, he encourages, pastors should learn the language of science so they can reach out to scientists and minister to them.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Signature in the Cell

The final position paper of the day was by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute entitled, “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”

As Meyer got started by talking about natural versus artificial selection, it occurred to me that artificial selection is even found in the Bible, as far back as Genesis, when Jacob was working for Laban to earn Rachel’s hand. In order to increase his herd at the expense of Laban’s, when the strongest and best animals were going to mate he did certain things so that the offspring would be marked as his, and when the weaker animals were mating, he left them alone so they would be marked as Laban’s. Thus he was using artificial selection to create a superior herd and a weaker herd. (Gen 30) (NB: Jacob’s method of marking is rather suspect, but the fact that he was selectively breeding the stronger animals together and the weaker ones together is the point!)

Meyer asked a couple of introductory questions:  Is adaptation the only appearance of design? And, if not, has natural selection explained away all other appearances of design? In other words, the naturalists say that nature has the “appearance of design,” but not actual design, and that adaptation is a key factor that gives the appearance of design.

In answer, he quotes natural philosopher Bernd Olaf-Kuppers, “the problem with the origin of life is basically the origin of new information.” So, can either adaptation or natural selection be given as an initial source of the information density required for life?

Naturalists initially offered up Chance as the origin of information, but even they have rejected this as being insufficient. The next theory was “pre-biotic natural selection”—that certain arrangements of non-living (pre-biotic) materials was better able to transmit/promote life than other arrangements. Meyer showed that this doesn’t work because it is a non-sequitor:  how can a non-functional system reproduce to form a functional system that functions better? In other words, natural selection is defined as “A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.” So how can something that is pre-biotic (not alive) survive and reproduce better than something else that is also not alive? If it is not alive, then it is by definition incapable of survival and reproduction.

Even Nobel laureate Christian de Duve recognized the problem by saying that theories of origin “need information, which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.”

A third and more contemporary scenario Meyer offered from the naturalists was the general category of “self-organization scenarios.” Here, the idea is that in some solution somewhere billions of years ago, molecular bits bumping around aggregated together in a specific order due to certain attractive forces based on the unique compounds that make up the DNA ‘letters’ and formed the first DNA or RNA molecule, and presto, this random assembly of chemicals happened to code for the first living thing. The problem with this proposal is that it doesn’t work. The DNA letters are chemical units called bases, which are attached to a molecule composed of a sugar and a ‘phosphate group.’ This molecule to which the bases attach is like a vertebrae that when connected to others forms a backbone, and the bases stick out from the backbone like a half-rung of a ladder. The vertebrae are all identical to each other and the letters only attach to the backbone in a way that leaves a given vertebra to attach to any other vertebra, regardless of the base attached to it.

An analogy would be a set of train cars. You can have box cars, flatbeds, tank cars, cattle cars and so on, but they can be placed together in any order because the parts that link them together are universal and identical. The couplers ability to latch to each other is 100% independent of what kind of container is place on top of the undercarriage. It is only the presence of an intelligence, the loadmaster, that determines which order the cars should be linked for the train’s itinerary. {Meyer used a different analogy- a prop he brought, but this conveys better in print.}

Meyer then asked, “can the design hypothesis be transformed into a scientifically rigorous argument?”

To address this, he showed how Darwin explicitly used an approach called “multiple competing theories” in arriving at his evolutionary conclusions. In other words, he looked at various possible hypotheses for the data to explain a historical event (origin of life) and used “inference to the best explanation” to eliminate the bad hypotheses. In plain English, he used logical inferences to see which hypothesis did not adequately explain the data and eliminated them from consideration. Ideally, this leaves the strongest hypothesis remaining.

Using this approach, Meyer drew on another priniciple, that of uniformitarianism—“the present is the key to the past.” The natural laws at work today were at work in the same way throughout the universe’s history. Given that today, “the creation of new information is habitually the result of conscious activity,” he reasons that the creation of life from non-life is the creation of new information and therefore must be the result of conscious activity.

Thus, he argues for Intelligent Design. I agree with Falk on one thing at least, that ID is a one issue view—is design scientifically discernable? And therefore, it is an umbrella over all three main creationist camps (young earth, old earth and evolutionary creationism). While there is a wide variety of opinion on mechanism within ID, they are focused on the issue of whether agency can be detected. However, the ID folks at the conference from the Discovery Institute were definitely old earth progressive creationists and seemed to spend as much time trying to show why evolution is not a viable mechanism as trying to show that God’s agency is scientifically detectable. While there may be some correlation here, and at the moment I tend to agree with them, it does seem to be a distraction from their main point and creates unnecessary (at this point) division within the Christian scientific world.

Random question to the masses: I’ve noticed that in all of these discussions, plant life is virtually ignored and the focus in evolutionary discussions seems exclusively based on animal life. It seems that it would be worthwhile to examine how evolution would ‘explain’ which came first, plant or animal? How did the transformation occur between the two? Where do protists fit in? I think the naturalists’ answer would be that a protist that metabolized via photosynthesis was the first life form and eventually plants and animals diverged from that, but how does that affect the time needed and what genetic traits are common to plants, animals and protists that would give clues to this common ancestor if such a critter did exist?

SDG