Debating Darwin: Should evolution be taught as the only truth?

By Alexander Carpenter

Institute of Ideas
London, UK
Oct 28th, 2007

"The debate over creationism has sprung up as the latest flashpoint in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution - from the 1925 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to the recent Dover, PA court case – new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK. Concerns centre on school science education, from Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the controversial teaching packs distributed by the anti-evolution group Truth in Science. The rise of 'Islamic creationism', modeling itself on ID, adds to concerns that Islam poses a special threat to secularism in Britain. Although the Royal Society and much of the scientific establishment have denounced the teaching of creationism, a recent MORI poll revealed that over 40% of the public believe that creationism or ID should be taught alongside evolution in school science classes.

While few seriously endorse the literal biblical story of creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism's shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is 'just a theory' after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should ‘teach the controversy’? Science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time. Does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.

Is science, or 'scientism', just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists' failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer?  Is this merely another case of the 'balance fallacy' – the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time?"

54 min.

Comments

[Bevin]

Part of the problem is that the science classes have not accurately taught students how to do science, just what the current theories and most-accepted hypotheses are.

As a result, they have let the ID's and the Short-Age Creationists, with their totally unscientific approaches, claim that they too are doing science.

They are not.

Science is about

(a) developing a hypothesis - a formal model

(b) using it to produce predictions of experimental results

(c) doing the experiments and checking the results

The theory of evolution has an extremely detailed set of hypotheses, makes very precise predictions, and those predictions match the experimental results.

The ID'ers are trying to get equal time in the science classes without doing science, but hijacking the science nomenclature - using science words - but without using them in the same way

It is not the "balance fallacy" - instead it is an attempt to add the teaching of a foreign language in a wood-working class.

/Bevin

[Colin MacLaurin]

Yes, alternate theories should be mentioned in science classes. Education, including science, should help students to think for themselves. My lecturers at Avondale College have been superb in giving me freedom to think for myself.

"Science" as dogma can be very arrogant, just as fundamentalist as religion can be. However "science" as the method of inquiry has much going for it, yet as someone who believes in 'revealed religion', I believe there is only so far these methodologies can take us.

I admit my bias. I presently hold to I.D. beliefs. Radical alterations of my scientific views were a major part of my conversion experience. I picked up [Adventist] John Ashton's In Six Days from the uni bookshop, and it convinced me. This was completely by 'coincidence' - it was a little later that I knowingly interacted with Adventists.

For those who reject I.D., let me say that I strongly support you as not only having a rightly place within Adventism (that is, if you are), but additionally that your voice needs to be heard. I.D. should absolutely not be a barrier and stumbling block to receiving the gospel! Those who can't accept creationism need to fellowship with Christians like you.

Sadly, I have read numerous testimonies of people who gave up on their faith when they embraced science culture (as opposed to science as "rational thinking"). I have much appreciation for science. In particular, physics and math[s] were my favourite subjects at school, and I have an 1st class honours degree (with a faculty award) in math[s]. However something I am very grateful to the Adventist church community for is teaching me that EQ (emotional intelligence) matters as well as IQ. Some exalt science - I think they should take a look at the "science" of love and people skills as well. Praise God!

[Cliff Goldstein]

Colin--

Just curious . . . What would, ah, be the place in Adventism for someone who rejects I.D.? I for the life of me can't think of one. Seems to me that this person ought to find a church whose whole foundation is not based on the biblical creation account. Seems a little dishonest, does it not, to try and carve a place for them in the SDA church?

Cliff

[Daneen Akers]

Hi Cliff,

I’ve been a regular reader and an occasional commenter on this blog for a while, and I’ve noticed in the past that you seen to watch to greatly restrict who is an Adventist. It seems that an Adventist must naturally see doctrine, especially when it comes to literal creationism, your way or they should just go somewhere else.

Why is that? Isn’t Sabbath keeping possible without a literal six-day creation belief? Why can’t I explore what I believe and examine varies positions from within my faith?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Daneen

You ask a very interesting question. Seventh-day Adventists offer open communion. If you believe Jesus Christ is Lord; according to my understanding you are welcome to "take part in communion". This it would seem you are family. I guess you would not likely be a candidate for office if your views were well known. I, of course, am hardly silent. Yet I attend occasionally with friends and to greet new pastors. To me having Jesus as my personal Savior beats all doctrinal disputes. Tom

[Carrol Grady]

Cliff, it is really disappointing to me to see such an exclusionary view of our church. Your "my way or the highway" attitude seems rather arrogant. Is there no longer any room in our church for the Holy Spirit to reveal new truth to us? Is anyone who had a different understanding of biblcal truth than you automatically in the wrong? Do you then believe that homosexuals are not welcome in our church either?

[Gerhard Haas]

Let's hear it for Cliff Goldstein! If doctrines don't matter and one doesn't believe that God created us (isn't that what one who rejects ID would ascribe to?) mightn't joining the Unitarian Universalists be a better choice?

Meanwhile, as to the very interesting science v ID debate: seemed to have very little to say about science but a whole bunch of name calling and politics. I do agree with the one commentator - if we creationists are so misguided, stupid and ineffective in trying to state our position, why is secular culture and, in particular, academia so alarmed about us?

[Carmen]

Cliff, is the whole foundation of our church based on the biblical creation account? If you are referring to Sabbath as a memorial to God's creativity---that can be honored and remembered without a literal reading of Genesis 1 creation. Don't forget the decalogue as mentioned in Deuteronomy 5! That passage mentions Sabbath keeping in the context of God as a deliverer from slavery and bondage. Surely, you don't mean to reduce the SDA message to something so narrow as to crumble if 7 day creation is not accepted as total factual history.

[Dick Larsen]

We have been this debate several times already with Cliff.

The 2 renderings of the 4th commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy give to the questions of which one did God give from Sinai and why are there 2 versions?

As far as the ID/Evolution debate on the video, it seemed more a sparring of the egos and I would guess the sparring opponents were chosen for their sparring theatrics. Hardly scientific unless it is a study of personalities.

[Lisa Clark Diller]

Also, let's not confuse ID with creationism, especially 6 day creationism.

[Alexander]

Gerhard, as someone who takes doctrine and evolution seriously, let me help you understand the alarm: note your cheering on of Cliff in his quixotic tilt toward some kind of Adventist Donatism.

This testing of fellowship has actually happened over and over in Christian history, with groups of believers using an increasingly rationally problematic belief as a test of commitment to the community.

However, holistic, healthy religion is made up of believing, behaving and belonging.

Often those who over-emphasize belief end up making the mistake of presuming that others are so single-minded. There are in fact thousands of scientists who take their Christian doctrine and their evolution seriously. It may not make sense to those who don't know the data as well or who short circuit from belief to belonging, but in fact, Christ says by our fruits will we be known.

Note the reduction of Adventism to a small idea when one equates our raison d'tre to six days or a politically-driven ID card of faith.

Doctrine and natural revelation are tools for knowing God, not a test of fellowship. Why not follow Christ's example of determining community parameters based on how we actually behave, particularly toward the least of these?

[Cliff Goldstein]

Folks, I'm not saying "my way or the highway." I am trying to get an answer to a question that still utterly baffles me, and that is why would anyone who doesn't believe in a literal seven-day creation, or even ID, want to be a member of a church whose very name includes the idea of a seven day creation?

I guess my mind works differntely than others, that's all. I'm in in this church, not because I was raised in it, not because of the community, but because of the teachings, and if we could be so, so, so wrong on such a basic teaching as a literal seven-day creation (because creation is really billions of years of evolution) then I would ask myself, Why would I want to be part of a group that's so wrong?

Maybe other folks don't care so much about logic, reason, and what seems to me basic integrity, but logic, reason, and integrity would tell me that I really ought to go somewhere else. I'm baffled as to why anyone who really thinks evolution is true thinks that they should be a part of this church.

Despite the rhetoric since I wrote "Seventh Day Dawinians," I never advocated kicking people out over it; I simply stated what appeared obvious to me then and still does now: if you believe in evolution, then you really don't belong in the SDA church. To me, that point is so obvious, so plain, so basic, it seems surreal that it even has to be discussed.

But, alas, we've debated this on here before and no one seems to be changning anyone's minds, so what's the sense of bantering this about?

cliff

[David R. Larson]

Cliff

It appears to me that your first entry in this thread of comments goes straightaway to the question of church membership. But as far as I can tell so far, this is not the topic of this conversation.

Neither is it the merits and demeits of one form of evolutionary theory or another. The topic of this conversation is a political question: Should [public?] schools teach ID and similar theories in their science classes? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think you can make helpful comments on this issue with which others can interact. Why not make them? Why keep coming back again and again to the question of church membership, a matter that our denomination wisely leaves to the local congregation in any case?

I wonder if issues surrounding church membership are becoming obsessive for you. If so, might I suggest that you relax and turn to other matters? Afterall, your ability to determine who gets to be a member is very limited because one whose membership is removed from a congregation for believing the wrong thing about origins can almost always find another that will accept him or her on the basis of profession of faith, even if the second congregation is thousands of miles away. I know this to be true because in my ministry I have helped make this happen.

As you might expect, those who are re-admitted to church membership are often the most enthusiastic and supportive members of their new congregation.

Church membership is not something you can do much about, Cliff. Why not devote your talents and energy where you can make a difference?

Thank you! Dave

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Clif

Do you believe that the book of Genesis gives us a complete picture of the origin of this earth and its subsequent history--prior to the histories of Egypt and Babylon? I am a creationist. But I believe we have only a fragment--on a need to know basis. Therefore, I believe that the sciences taught in public schools should stand clear of origin. As far as it should go is comparative anatomy and function. I do think you state your views in a most proprietary way--amazing for one so democratic in one's world view. Tom

[Andrew]

I agree so much with the responses to Cliff's comments.

People seek answers. They may come up with different opinions. Does this mean they are wrong and you are right? To you ,probably, not to them. Also, the alternative to literal creationism is not evolution. Surely an alternative could be “I have no clue as to what happened in reality”. There could be clues in evolution, as there maybe with the creation story. Literal interpretation of the Bible is a dangerous game. One could be accused of being apologists for genocide, abuse of women, slavery, even racism. How many people in history have viewed their particular race as superior (special, chosen)? ID doesn't necessarily lead to a theistic God, it is a persons belief system that links the two. Who wrote Genesis? Who knows? Certainly not one author. And we interpret with a Hellenistic mindset not a Hebrew one. Did Moses exist, or Abraham, not sure we can support this extra-biblically – it maybe true, but then again...... So many reasons not to be too dogmatic.

It is the person who has no doubts who frightens me.

[Cliff Goldstein]

Dave--

I touched on that point ONLY because of the comment made by Colin about those who don't believe even in I.D. (much less a six day creation) having a place in the SDA church. I was just responding to that, which is why I said what I did. I was baffled by the statement, and still am, but as I said too, I am ready to drop it. Folks know my position on that and I don't want to sound like a broken record.

But when I was in religious liberty I was torn on the question of teaching I.D. in public schools. As stronlgy as I was a creationst, I was also an advocate or church-state seperation as well, and hence the conundrum, which I am stil not sure how to answer.

By the way, I am listening in my car right now to a lecture series from the Teaching Company on the "Origin of Life" by a guy named Hazen. He teaches at George Mason and has been involved in origins research for decades. He's very very good, very articulate, and obviously a hard core materialist with life originating by chance in some pre-biotic soup. Fascinating! What I find interesting now is all the speculation about how, well, many serious scientists think that, perhaps, we are all really Martians. Yup, it could be that asteroids from Mars brough the first life here and it just evolved from it. What a compelling case! Very factual, logical, and reasonsable. Maybe that's the answer after all. I mean, it's science, right? Who are we Bible thumpers to compete with science.

Cliff

[Andrew]

Cliff

It seems to me that far from defending your own views on their own merits, you seek to expose ridiculous alternative opinions on the assumption that these are the only alternatives to your opinions and therefore your view is the only rationale explanation.

[Elaine Nelson]

How many saw the recent Nova on PBS, a a 2-hour special on the Dover, PA. trial on the teaching of ID vs. Evolution in the public schools. Transcripts of the trial were re-enacted and the best part, IMO, was the scientist's explanation of "theory," which is grossly misundertand by the general public: i.e., gravitation is still called a "theory," meaning ALL scientific findings are so classified. However I doubt there are any humans will refute the theory of gravity. Comparing similar scientific findings (theory) with the theory of creationism is a ridiculous. All scientific theories are peer-reviewed; tested and attempts are made to show all possible errors. Only after wide acceptance in the legitimate scientific community do they become established. Even then, there is always the possibility of newer findings that may possibly refute these.

Now compare that with ID (which in the program were shown to have originally used the term Creationism, substituting for ID which showed the same leopard, only an attempt to change the name of the animal.

If belief in these were made mandatory for SDA membership, it would prove to be either a good "housecleaning" or the scientists among us would retreat to other schools to teach.

[Russell]

Thus speaks the voice of wisdom.

[David R. Larson]

Cliff

Thanks for a helpful response! Have you developed criteria specifying when the church out to appeal to secular power to enforce its views and values and when it shouldn't? I am not satisfied with anything I've come up with so far.

[Glen Davidson]

I do agree with the one commentator - if we creationists are so misguided, stupid and ineffective in trying to state our position, why is secular culture and, in particular, academia so alarmed about us?

Ask Galileo as he eyes the instruments of torture before him, "If geocentrism is so misguided and stupid, why are you afraid of it?".

Glen Davidson

[Glen Davidson]

I already posted the following at scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, and think it speaks to the "controversy" here, too:

Even where there are legitimate controversies, any comparison has to be done on an equal footing if there is to be any sort of "balance of views." Let's suppose there were any kind of alternative to the theory of special relativity--in college one would use the same empirical methods and virtually the same rules for theoretical modeling to "teach the controversy."

When "one side" wants to teach science, and the "alternative" rests on the belief that details are not important, "Causes" may be invoked when there is no hint that they exist detectably in any area, and ancient religious beliefs deserve to be respected for no other reason than that they are ancient religious beliefs, there can be no balance. The differing ideas aren't even on the same stage, let alone being comparable.

I suppose that "gaps" could be taught, on the other hand, but of course they can't be the same BS gaps that the DI zealously brings up to discredit evolution, for these come from the same lack of balance that Judge Jones ruled against. Anyhow, real gaps in our knowledge often are taught where they can be properly appreciated, at the college level.

IOW, "balancing" out the teaching of biological science attendant with its most comprehensive theory with a bunch of religiously-inspired nonsense fails to balance at the starting gate, at our willingness to actually question what we believe rather than to cling to ancient superstition.

Well, obviously I'm not much interested in Cliff's little agenda for cleaning out the church (Who cares, after all, that Acts tells us "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"? Others have alternative gospels), but mostly about the subversion of education and public discourse. That was the original issue.

Glen Davidson

[Dick Larsen]

At some point, in the interest of education the controversy should be taught. I am not sure if that is actually a science class though or at what age level but probably by third or fourth year of highschool. Not to long ago I read an article about the teaching of a Bible class in public schools. Not to proselytize but in an attempt to bring about understanding of how and why there are different world views.

[Elaine Nelson]

There are already designed curricula for teaching the Bible as historical background to understanding the basis for the largest religious belief in the world. Ignorance should not be encourged, but the Bible should not be taught as dogma; just as Greek myths are a very important subject for understanding its relation to our world today.

If ID were taught as philosophy, not science, would there still be a problem? Since ID is not testable nor falsifiable.

[Your Friend]

"Maybe other folks don't care so much about logic, reason, and what seems to me basic integrity, but logic, reason, and integrity would tell me that I really ought to go somewhere else. I'm baffled as to why anyone who really thinks evolution is true thinks that they should be a part of this church."

I'm with you 100% in this area, Cliff. Stay with it!!

[Beth]

I've been a lurker for awhile but couldn't resist this topic since it is of great interest to me. The reason scientists reject ID is not because they are scared but because it does not follow scientific methodology. It is a philosophy (and a thinly disguised attempt to reintroduce creationism). It is marketed to the general public instead of going through the scientific gauntlet of testing and scrutiny by peer reviewed journals. Scientists can get very moralistic about the ethics of scientific inquiry and they get very peeved when people don't play by the established rules and then lie and whine about being discriminated against. Traditional science has done a pretty bad job of educating people about what science is, what a theory is, and just how incredibly robust the findings are that support evolution. They would rather be doing science frankly. They roll their eyes when they hear statements that evolution is "just a theory" and that there is a controversy over ID. There is a controversy in the general public but there is really no scientific controversy. Elaine you're right, the NOVA program was great. Sad that the creationists behaved so unethically.

I would say to Cliff to that I understand the importance of keeping a group identity. That is why I no longer consider myself an SDA because there is just too much distance between my beliefs and the church's. Having been raised SDA though it's in my blood and I still have ties :) I would strongly caution church officials to not draw a line in the sand over evolution because in the end they will lose and lose biggest among scientifically educated young people. Can I believe that God created the world and still accept evolution? Yes, many people do and I'm one of them. Does it greatly complicate the Christian narrative? Oh you bet it does but that doesn't change the reality.

Actually there is an irony here in that we are talking about how you define science and how you define SDA. Should we call supernatural explanations science? Should popular opinion decide what we teach as science? Who gets to decide what being an SDA means?

[Beth]

Oops I should add that I just made up a URL and the website connected to my name isn't me. Unfortunately I am no where close to artistic. I suppose I should be grateful that the website wasn't worse :) Hopefully that's fixed now.

[Daneen Akers]

You bring up an interesting question, Beth. Who gets to decide who can call themselves an Adventist? Can I be deciding what I believe about origins and still be in the church? Can I be a theistic evolutionist (like Collins of The Language of God fame) and still be an Adventist?

I deeply appreciated Julius Nam's essay earlier this year as part of the Blogging the 28 series on the preamble. (Click my name to read his full essay at ProgressiveAdventism.com.) He finds the genius of the preamble is that it intentionally limits the 28 and only gives scripture creedal status; however, it does not define how a member has to read scripture. Of course this opens up debates about hermeneutics, but that's the beautiful, messy promise of a community of believers committed to journeying on their faith walks together. I especially appreciate his emphasis on humility and deference towards those who don’t agree with us (something I know I need to practice more of).

As for ID, I’d love to see it taught in schools, but just not in science classes. I know Elaine said above this is already in place (philosophy classes, etc.), but as a recent high school teacher, I’m quite sure this isn’t universal. We’d all do well by some classes in world religions and philosophies--the average American can’t even name all 10 commandments much less discuss the tenants of major world religions like Islam, something that seems increasingly like a major deficit.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

We think of ID as King David or John the Revelator. Most think of ID in the context if Deism of Ben Franklin et al. The question is will a Deistic view of origins lead us to or away from Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. That is the 64 dollar question. Tom

[Russell]

Education should not be hijacked by personal opinions. All philosophies should be taught in an equal context. Favouring one over another does not help anyone's education. People increasingly need to understand "world views" and their respective historical contexts. This will lead to more tolerance and understanding. I was brought up in various church schools, and although the general education I received was very good; on world views, bias was obvious and not taught in an equal context. Young minds are impressionable and it is a form of abuse to effectively try and "brain wash" them into a particular direction.

[Andrew]

"My Friend"

You seem to apply logic in an illogical manner. When someone says "I don't necessarily believe in ID" doesn't mean they believe in evolution. The need to impose criteria on who and who should not be a member of the SDA Church, belays a basic inability to embrace divergent points of view. Even a Church, needs to evolve. This has been seen throughout history. The protestant revolution released the human spirit to progress and embrace freedom not just in deeds, but in thought and expression. Without this, we would still be living in the dark ages. Today, the more secular societies are the most free. Religious societies are oppressive. Perhaps a church organisation is just a microcosm of a theocracy. So perhaps we should relax a little and understand that people have different ideas and understandings. An organisation that can embrace this will be much richer in its diversity.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Andrew

A poor choice of words: "Even a Church needs to evolve." Would it not be a better phrase: "Every Church needs to grow?" But of course we mix religion with theology. Religion is the study of the behavior of man. Theology is an attempt to understand God. Religion is derived. Theology is revealed. Religion based upon the Life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the resultant of the sayings and doings of the Christ--the revealed Son of God. To grow, we should examine the 28 Fundamental Beliefs and see if they are congruent with the Christ Event. I prefer to call that growth not evolution. Tom

[Don Rhoads]

The idea of Evolution began as a hunch by Darwin, who could not reconcile what he observed with the then-conventional-wisdom of fixity of species and special creation. His idea has developed into the theory of Evolution as we know it.

Scientific explanations rely on testable and predictable regularities of nature, and Darwin’s theory has been very successful in providing such explanations for many observations. That is why Evolution is called science.

Some of us have a hunch that not everything can be explained by scientific theories, and so are drawn to the idea of Intelligent Design (ID), which invokes the actions of a Designer. If ID could develop into a theory that utilizes the regularities of nature for predictive purposes, it could then be called science. But the whole idea of ID is that these regularities do not explain everything, so it seems there is a contradiction here.

Intelligent Design, therefore, seems to be an incorrigibly religious idea. I think that I, as an Adventist, am thoroughly entitled to use the insights of Evolution to explain what I observe in nature. I am also entitled to maintain a religious belief in Intelligent Design, though I do not have the right to insist that it be taught as science in public schools.

[Andrew]

Dr Thomas

You are right, so forgive my less than subtle "play" on the word evolution. The 28 fundamental beliefs are open to interpretation of what the bible says. Some are stronger than others. This is a religious question, which for me, is something I have little interest. (not saying it isn't important, just that my questions are more fundamental) The foundation of the bible being scripture in itself is something I would question. Of course the bible is a set of documents, some of which have little or no historical extra-biblical support, and in some cases conflict with historical evidence. This doesn't seem to be a good basis for dogmatic belief. It certainly does seem a basis for “growth” in understanding. I am not sure in your reflection, where you perceive growth to exist.

[Beth]

Yes Don I think you stated it very well. As believers, we understand that there is more than just the measurable and observable. There are beautiful mysteries beyond our human abilities. One cannot be a believer without acknowledging the limits of science. As we approach the Advent season, I just get goosebumps thinking about God becoming incarnate. Science is helpless to explain that. For me personally though, ID as defined and played out, has done a real disservice to the advancement of our understanding of the Intelligent Designer. By marketing yourself to school boards and the general public as a scientific theory on par with evolution but refusing to go through the hurdles necessary to achieve that status is disingenuous to put it mildly.

[bruce]

Clifford Goldstein

When God deals with us humans He seems to prefer working through other channels rather than working with us directly. One exception is the Sodom story. Another the Sinai epiphany. Much more often He used nature (famines, diseases, floods) or the other peoples to get His point across. The Midianites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians et al were His tools at various times – at least the writers believed so. This is quite interesting since I find it hard to visualize Assyria or Midian presenting a true image of the God who was using them as His tool.

When God wrote to us humans He seemed to prefer involving humans rather than writing the books Himself. The only part that may be His printing is the Decalogue – and there are two versions of that. This poses the same problem as above where we, as the writer, may not always present the clearest picture of the God who is using us.

He works through you, Clifford. Whenever I get to a Sabbath School class I think “Clifford Goldstein had a hand in this” and so I can take the statements as thought provoking and encouraging without their being doctrinal. And He works through me as a Sabbath School teacher – on a much smaller scale, however. I work with my hands but even a working stiff can recognize that the point of the Bible is not rote obedience – He would have made robots for that – but to get across the point that the One who made us cares deeply for us and wants to be a real part of our lives for the here and now and for time to come as well.

The writers each wrote from their perspective. Same with the editors and didactors. And the ones on the “committees” choosing which books were to be part of the canon. It is amazing that this is still the clearest picture of a loving God that we have – at least that I am aware of.

About the creation. It is a repeating theme throughout the Bible that God is the Creator of everything, including life forms and us. The time factor is not a repeating theme – mentioned only in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

I am an Adventist who suspects that Creation took a lot longer than I was told as a kid. Maybe you think I am not an Adventist anymore. I don’t mind if you decide otherwise. However, I wouldn’t know what other system to worship with.

bruce

[Andrew]

Bruce
I take and agree with some of your points. I do have questions though:
How do you think, God utilised third parties such as Assyria? It seems unlikely he could use them like robots to fulfil his plan. Maybe I misunderstood you.
This use of humans to write is interesting. Did they think they were writing scripture? As you say there were two versions of the commandments, but also many other stories (e.g. creation, flood (370 days or 40 days and nights). It has been shown that these “doublets” were written by different authors with their own agendas. What is truth about the stories will depend on knowing the context to them. Even then, it may be difficult, especially if you go further and try to apply lessons for today.
The committee for choosing the books of the canon already had the old testament in its current form. The protestant canon of today is not exactly the same as the one the committee endorsed.
Being the clearest picture of God, is only true for you presumably because you believe that the biblical story is true. Would this not make a circular argument.
I like the fact that you admit the need to worship, as this does seem to be a running theme throughout humanity.
The timing of creation is important for reinforcing Jewish ceremonial beliefs including the Sabbath. The use of certain numbers (7, 12, 40) are repeated throughout the bible and therefore reinforce a symbolic, rather than literal view.

[Cliff Goldstein]

Folks--

I really appreciate the intelligent and kind-spirited nature of the discussions on here (a far cry from Adventists of tomorrow). There's so much I'd like to talk about but who's got the time (I'd love to dive more into the debate on open theism; I have a whole lot of thoughts on that)?

For me the question is, and has been, Why would the Genesis account be written in a way that is just so antithetical to the idea of evolution? The ancient mind was able to comprehend evolution; you find ANE texts that talk about this idea; Lucretius, about 2,000 years ago, did as well. Why would the Genesis account be so radically different from what man speculates it is.

Sorry, but I find evolution so bogus, so filled with metaphysical specutations, so filled with fanciful leaps of faith, that I'm amazed anyone with the slightest amount of common sense, once they step back, could take it seriously . . .
And then to somehow try and meld it with Christianity? Or Adventism?

Not that it matters, really, but I just for the life of me can't understand the logic of those who think that they can be Bible believing Christians and at the same time believe in evolution. I'm not judging anyone, or condemning anyone; I'm just trying to understand the logic, that's all. You'd have to so denude the text of any real meaning as to render it all but meaningless, in the sense that if you could fit Darwinian evolution into Genesis you could fit anything into it which makes it really mean nothing, at least IMHO.

Gotta go to bed now (I usually get up at 3:30AM).

Cheers

[Colin MacLaurin]

No-one has answered Cliff's question. Please explain your position to him by finishing the sentence: "I'm support evolution and am Adventist because..."

There is no doubt that Cliff overstates his case for poetic effect - in "Seventh-day Darwinians" he wrote, "Nazism's a snugger fit" with Christianity than evolution! A magazine editor told me that Cliff is not as dogmatic as he may come across - it's more of a persona he slips into, which his role requires. So: don't take him so seriously! Cliff doesn't own the Adventist church any more than the BRI/ATS does, or the pope owns Catholicism!

Cliff, please think about how your comments may affect people. You say you don't want to kick people out of the church over this stuff, but there are people out there who would. For me, I almost quit theology at Avondale after feeling discouraged by not fitting some people's "box" of what Adventism should be. Then I discovered the likes of Alden Thompson and Spectrum, praise God!

By the way, I loved your sermon at Memorial church in Cooranbong, NSW, Australia a few years ago. As a new Adventist, I sat with all the white-haired folk and greatly appreciated your logical discourse on the problem of pain. I said "hi" to you as you sat in the car afterwards.

[Elaine Nelson]

Evolution filled with "fanciful leaps of faith"? And supernatural events of Creation and the entire Genesis story is based on rational, normal events? Who's kidding who?

Evolution postulates THEORIES; Creationism postulates non-falsifiable supernatural events, never to be repeated.

[Beth]

I'll try and answer Cliff's question though I'm speaking as a former SDA. Let me start by saying I agree with Cliff that, as a world view, evolution does not meld well with the traditional Christian story. If I could line up evolution and a literal Creationist view and ask myself, which one "fits" with a coherent God view and makes the most sense theologically, there is no doubt that literal Creationism would win. It is a great story of how we were created perfect and everything that is wrong in the world is really our fault not God's. Jesus came to save us after we messed up. Evolution is very very messy when it comes to figuring out how sin and redemption play out. Honestly I'm baffled right now myself. However, and that is a HUGE however, while you can evaluate a scientific theory on the basis of its philosophical strength, that is not very helpful in evaluating its scientific strength. I can reject the germ theory of disease on the biblical basis that God sends disease and healing and any "naturalistic" explanation that counters that idea is theologically suspect. That doesn't change the fact that germ theory still provides a really good explanation (and a much better start for countering disease) than the theological one. Evolution as a scientific theory is extremely well validated and supported by years and years of work. It has only been strengthened in the last few years with the genetic work that has been done. Detractors can say it is failing til the cows come home but actual honest research says otherwise. I know that there is still much misunderstanding about what evolution actually says (due primarily to the distortions put out by detractors) so I am very aware that when I say evolution, many people hear, "Silly guesses by so-called scientists who want people to think God had nothing to do with life." I also understand that the really strong resistance is due to the fact that evolution does complicate the Christian narrative. I am someone who was thoroughly trained in the scientific method and I understand both the strengths and limitations. Asking me to disbelieve evolution is asking me to reject a very strong scientific theory for philosophical reasons and I simply cannot do that. It is asking me to say the earth goes around the sun because that is the correct Christian view. For many many sincere Christians who understand the strength of the theory, it is asking us to deny way too much. I can easily reconcile a belief in God with an acceptance of evolution and many do it. It is impossible for me to reconcile a literal creationists view (young earth, all of life appearing suddenly) with the mountain of evidence disproving that. I doubt that will answer everything LOL but it is from the heart.

[Cliff Goldstein]

Colin--

I agree: don't take me that seriously (seriously). I sure don't-- and folks who know me personally don't seem to either . . . .

Colin, I wish I could picture you and our meeting but I can't. Where are you now? I do meet a lot of folks and as I age I forget the names of people I see almost every day so I doubt I could remember you (but glad you liked the sermon).

I agree, I've yet to have anyone give me a logical and coherent reason on how they can meld Adventism with evolution. YOu might mock my "Nazi" analogy but, putting aside the moral elements involved, I mean it: it seems about as incompatible.

But, what's the sense of going on with ths?

As for Beth, I really don't know what to say, other than to ask if you could possibly entertain the fact that the entire evolutonary lens, through which you interpret the facts-on-the-ground, could be built on completely false metaphysical principles, becuase sooner or later doesn't science eventually meld into philosophy and to some degree metaphysics? I mean, after a while, don't even the formulas and phenomenon, at the deepest level, rest on things beyond where we can go, and hence enter the realm of faith, or metaphysics? (Is that fair to ask, or am I just parading my ignoramussness for all the Spectrumies to see?)

[Elaine Nelson]

Beth, you have made many excellent points. Questioning the germ theory is antithetical to the idea that God sends diseases, which is what the ancients believed. They also believed many things that are strange and weird to us today. And yet, we are supposed to sift out the biblical answers to all sorts of phenomena and yet include the latest scientific theories on all sorts of things that were once felt to be the province of God.

Where would our medical institutions be today if we incorporated the idea that God sends diseases and that's "just the way it is"? We simply do not accept the Bible's answer to the causes of disease. Then how our we to nullify all the wonderful discoveries of the last few centuries and still continuing on the study of the human body and disease processes? Should ID replace all the knowledge we've learned since the beginning of time and revert back to the common wisdom of those days? We either grow in our understanding or we return to the ancient wizards and alchemists for their advice. Which will it be?

[Beth]

Yes Elaine there are many other examples of Christians replacing the Biblical explanation with a materialistic one. We don't insist that meteorologists announce to their students that, while hurricanes are caused by warm moist air and cold air etc, our theory is incomplete because it does not perfectly explain and predict hurricanes. Students are encouraged to consider the alternative scientific hypothesis that a "supreme force that cannot be named because then it would be religion" is angry and wants to punish the coastal peoples for not following "its" law well enough. Getting even closer to the Genesis story, we could insist that agriculture students be taught that weeds grow better than crops because God cursed the ground. Actually we would be on better ground because those explanations don't actually conflict with the scientific explanation - they just aren't scientific. Which brings me to my second point and Cliff.

Cliff, I think I understand the point you were making but please let me know if I am off base because I'm not at all sure. You asked me to entertain the possibility that even the assumptions that underly science are metaphysical and could be false. I would agree with you 100% that you could be right. There is nothing about science that is unquestionable and it is certainly possible that our entire way of viewing the world is wrong. There are all sorts of possible scenarios for our reality and the movie series Matrix played with some. Science says, "Everything we think we know about the material world is subject to revision." Right now, the scientific method truly is the best way to learn about the material world. That method is a tool that we use. It is not the be all and end all and we may come up with something better. Right now we use it because it works better than anything else we have (even scripture which has not been particularly helpful in giving us information about the material world. Not its purpose.)

Now when we asked to examine the Genesis story literally there are things that Science can say nothing about. "God created" is untouchable. However there are parts of "God created all of life in six days about 6,000 years ago" that are subject to scientific scrutiny. If life appears suddenly we could see that reflected in the material world. If the earth was about 6,000 years old we could see that. Unfortunately we don't. And I don't mean we kind of sort of see stuff that could be interpreted in different ways depending on our view. I mean we really don't see evidence of it. We see lots and lots of evidence that directly contradicts that. Soooo, what do we do?

While I accept your assertion that ultimately all of science may be based on faulty assumptions, that is not all you are asking me to do. You are asking me to accept another explanation that directly contradicts the evidence and is subject to the exact same criticism. Maybe our interpretations of the Bible are based on faulty assumptions or maybe even the whole Bible is.

Here's a scenario that might help illustrate what I'm saying. Pretend I'm a forensic scientist called in to investigate a murder scene. I see a skeleton that crumbles when I touch it. After doing whatever observations and tests those scientists do, I conclude that the evidence shows that the death occurred about 40 years ago. Someone comes along and says, "But couldn't it have been 10 minutes ago? Isn't it POSSIBLE that it was 10 minutes ago? How can we really KNOW that it wasn't 10 minutes ago? Isn't it possible that everything you know about how decay happens is based on faulty assumptions? After all you weren't actually there to witness it were you?" To which a good scientist would reply, "You're right but you miss the point."

I hope I've addressed some of what you were saying there. And I wish you Cliff, and all of the Spectrum readers a very blessed Thanksgiving.

[Daneen Akers]

This has been such a fascinating discussion to follow. I've really enjoyed this conversation (and its respectful tone).

I know Alex just posted a note about the new, combined Spectrum blog/magazine website, and I wanted to give ya'll a head's up that there's a great review of The Language of God by Francis Collins on the new site, written by a doctor who has struggled with these exact questions discussed here. (The new site allows comments on all of the content, essentially acting like a large blog.)

Here's the new site:
http://spectrummagazine.org/

[Glen Davidson]

I wrote a parting post at the PBS forum on Judgment Day, which I think supports Beth's telling comments with respect to the science side of things. So it's reproduced below (it's partly in response to a post which brought up abiogenesis):

DLH wrote: Evolution has to have something that reproduces and can be "selected".

Yes, once you have life (even if it were due to a creator), you have those necessary conditions.

DLH wrote: If you have no intelligent causation for self reproducing life, then you are left with abiogenesis and its astronomically small probabilities.

Either way you're left with abiogenesis in the broader definition, since "intelligent design" is itself a story of life coming from non-life. How did the supposedly small probabilities for abiogenesis (sans God) become improved when you added in a purported entity for which there are no probabilities at all?

And just what would be the problem with intelligent causation of first life for MET anyhow? Like I said, there are no probabilities for something lacking in evidence altogether, but evolution is important to biology not because it gets rid of some no-probability God, but because it explains what we see (hint, we see evolution and its results, while abiogenesis issues are difficult to observe as yet). Darwin himself suggested a Creator for the first life--perhaps something of a cop-out--but it was a convenient way of disposing with something that has no bearing on the theoretical value of evolution for dealing with all subsequent life.

Quote: That requires greater faith than to accept the apparent design in nature.

What's the evidence for that theistic claim?

And of course the main issue is that all you are doing is apologetics, while we're defending science as a whole, and the value of actual explanation in biology. Believe or don't believe in your God, it means almost nothing to me. Just don't come along and tell me that life is the way it is because of "design", because that is an entirely meaningless claim due to the fact that this supposed "design" has no discernable relationship with what the word "design" means (that is, as it is used in human discourse with respect to the observed world). As such, it is completely useless for explaining any of the details of biology.

MET [modern evolutionary theory], on the other hand, explains why males fight each other for mating rights, predicts and explains why the "poor design" happens to be due to constraints coming from heredity, it is what actually allows us even to identify transitional forms (like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx) thanks to its predictions, and it tells us why prokaryotic patterns of evolution (which do not involve speciation as understood in eukaryotes--unless one considers genes to be species) differ from the species branchings found in eukaryotic evolution. It is useful in the mundane world, which is generally the case in science, and it is being faulted for not being religion (though it is often accused of same).

Meanwhile, ID comes up with absolutely no evidence of design (like novelty, lateral borrowing in vertebrates, evident purpose, and above all, actual rational planning of anything in life outside of our sporadic attempts to impose rationality on life) either in evolution or in the abiogenetic production of life. Yet the false dichotomy that their religion gives them suggests that the default is their own religious explanation, hence their disdain for science and its purposes.

This is why it ends up being a clash of science against superstition, for although most of us care little about whether or not DLH and others cling to their beliefs, they do not refrain from attacking science for doing its job, which is coming up with proximal explanations for the phenomena that we see. They have no proximal causes themselves for anything at all (they always invoke a distant "Intelligent Cause", rather than dealing with known causes), yet they fault us for filling in the total lacuna that they leave behind with their preferred religious explanation.

We do not generally complain about the total lack of explanatory value of religion, and yet they disparage our success at coming up with explanations that actually fit with the evidence, usually without any real knowledge of those explanations or reasonable criticisms of them. It's a fight between knowledge and ignorance, and I only wish that knowledge had greater advantages than it does in our society.

...

Source at PBS

Glen Davidson