On the Blind Side

Regular readers know my interest regarding the theology-science interchange. One of the reasons I write about it is that there are some people out there who are truly interested in learning that they don’t have to make a choice, thus they want to know how these two fields can influence us in today’s world.

I know I don’t expect all Christians to agree with me, and realize that viewpoints from non-Christians will vary. However, a slice of Christianity unquestionably does NOT speak for me.

I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and enjoy reading its periodical – The Lutheran. The recent issue had a short article about evolution. The article was purposefully board, but the online comments were a must-read for me because I continue to proclaim that organizations like the ELCA and its member churches do a lousy job at educating their flock.

Comments as these below were the minority viewpoint, but they drive Christian, agnostic, and atheistic evolutionists up a wall, misrepresent the majority of Christians, drive the wedge between evolutionary Christians and non-believing evolutionists, prey on the unknowing, demonstrate a need for education, and reinforce my notion that this issue is a conflict between religions – not between religion and science.

Comments as these also demonstrate this important point: Disagreeing with science does not make science wrong.

Darwinian evolution never happened.

Science is showing that life rapidly evolved by design indicating a creator God.

More and more fossil finds, DNA evidence, Intelligent Design studies, the Institute for Creation Research RATE research, etc. are challenging Darwinism, the old earth and the local Noah’s flood.

Shouldn’t there be massive amounts of fossil evidence of dinosaur evolution and everything else that has evolved since the destruction? Horse and whale evolution stories have been discredited by recent fossil finds.

Evolution has not been observed scientifically.

Bacteria resistance to antibiotics is not “evolution.”

There is no experimental evidence for evolution.

Darwinism is the religion of the secular humanist atheist.

Evolution is not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory, but our education system treats evolution as fact.

Unlike true science, the claims of Darwinian evolution cannot be tested or replicated.

Evolution is an idea that leads to bad consequences.

Evolution pre-supposes the absence or non-existence of a Creator, thus leading to false conclusions.

Evolution explains with the origins of life.

There is no consensus on the subject of evolution. There remains a mystery about how life was established.

Neither Creationism nor Darwinism seems to be supported by natural evidence.

Evolutionism is a stumbling block for biblical belief because it not only conflicts with the book of Genesis it conflicts with the Bible.

Even geologists do not actually find evidence for evolution in the fossil records.

Darwin could not define “species” and even today, there is no consensus on a definition.

Darwin had little proof in the fossil record to support his claim.

No one has evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, so to offer only the deception of evolutionary thought clinging to the belief that life formed by chance random processes continues to be difficult to accept.

Darwin did not have the benefit of DNA. (AFA: This one cracks me up because Darwin was 100+ years before the discovery of DNA. I’ve seen the same rationale used regarding Darwin and Gregor Mendel/genetics, who was also after Darwin. )

The (DNA) evidence is moving in the wrong direction for confirming evolution.

Earth is young.

Overwhelming evidence, much of it recent, from geology, anthropology, DNA studies, computer simulations of weather, etc. confirm the event of Noah’s flood covering the whole planet actually happened.

Creation WAS perfect. Creation WAS all that it was to be. WE, US, HUMANS, ADAM sinned and destroyed creation. Now it is decay, dying, dark, and sad.

Read Full Post »

On a Letter

Long-time readers know about my interest in the religion and science interchange. To newcomers, seeing the Categories > Religion and Science in the sidebar reinforces my point.

Recently, I was purging files from my classroom days. Some of the things I rediscovered were interesting enough to save for possible incorporation into posts – so here is one.

Context: Students had just informally (and individually) answered questions about common misconceptions in science. Next, they discussed answers in a small group, thus free to change any answers. I concluded the activity by leading short discussion of each answer. Two of the 33 questions were about evolution, but this post focuses only on one of them.

Lesson Goal: Misconceptions exist and they come from a variety of sources.

A question: (True/False) Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Answer: False – Research indicates 60 million years separated dinosaurs and humans.

Later that day, this note (below) appeared on my classroom desk.

September 9, 1994

Today you made the statement that there is scientific evidence that dinosaurs and men did not live at the same time. There is none. On the contrary, there is only evidence against it. There is not even any evidence that Earth was around 20 million years ago.

Your argument might be that scientists have dated the footprints of animals in mud, which has turned to stone at billions of year ago. It is virtually impossible to do so unless you compare the footprints to that of a species and have the guess of the time of this species. But there is nothing to date. There is the absence of rock.

As for evolution itself, it cannot stand the question of life in the equation X times Y equals Z. We are trying to find X. Y is filled in with how we interpret physical evidence found. Z is filled with God, so for X, I get from the Bible.

You (Atheists) have decided that you don’t want to follow the Bible, so you fill in Z with your own philosophy. Your X is based on your Y. Your Y is based on your X. Since your equation never equals out, your Y is dynamic.

Unless you repent your sins and become a Christian, you will find out on the Judgement Day that I and right and you are wrong. When God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what will you say? I know what I will say.

Read Full Post »

On a Coin Analogy

Image from Microsoft Office

A coin is an interesting analogy. On one side is a group of Christians who say one cannot believe in evolution and God. In their own mind, this group believes they speak for all Christians.

On the coin’s other side are some agnostics and atheists who profess that all Christians obviously believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation. Others even proclaim science and Christianity as incompatible, thus Christians must reject science.

Interestingly, these two sides of the coin are the polar opposites who publicly launch diatribes at the other while dominating the news on this topic. However, both sides also fail to realize or accept that there is much more to the coin than opposing surfaces – therefore, more to this story.

As the conservative Christians embrace a literal Genesis, I continuously wonder why they give God so little credit. Besides, they are in the minority of Christian thought and don’t realize it. On the other hand, the agnostics and atheists who pigeon-hole all Christians as disciples of a literal Genesis are failing to realize how many (and yes, the majority) Christians appreciate and embrace the role of science in our world, including evolution – therefore missing the connection to our common opponent.

I have encountered literal Christian and the agnostics and atheists who pigeon-hole all Christians. My personal and independent journey of studying the science-theology interchange not only deepened my Christian believes, I also developed a greater understanding and appreciation of the thoughts from agnostics and atheists. For the sake of this post, I categorize this group into three subgroups: the atheists, the worshipping agnostics, and the uninvolved agnostics.

The atheists can be a difficult bunch. Two prominent science writers, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, use scientific reasoning to justify their anti-Christian crusade. While both these passionate scientists are strong voices for evolution, their rational regarding the non-existence of God lies outside of the boundaries of science. (Past post about boundaries) Besides, religion is about faith – a love relationship that involves trust – thus not a belief system grounded in the scientific method. (Past post about faith)

I admit having a difficult time giving these anti-religion crusaders any credence on this issue, which is partially due to their tone of choice. However, I realize not all atheists are as dogmatic as these two scientists are because not all nonbelievers are antagonist to Christians – thus, I find it easier to accept and respect the nonantagonistic atheists and agnostics.

The agnostics are a broad group. Some have never been exposed to theology, thus do not know. Others do not care to know. Others encountered events involving human behaviors as acts of evil and injustice causing them to move away from their prior belief system. Yet, in many cases (if not most) these agnostics are not antagonist to those who are religious.

Carl Sagan is a wonderful example. Although there were times in his life when he challenged religion, he gave religion space during most of his life. There is no question that Sagan marveled the universe. However created, Sagan proudly stood in awe of the universe. Although he did not worship it, he understood the majestic nature of the universe and the role of our Pale Blue Dot. Simply put, his words are an inspiration to anyone with wonder!

Agnostics as Ursula Goodenough and Paul Davies have a different belief system from Sagan. Although not believing in a heavenly god, they see the glories in nature as indicators of the presence of a god in nature – thus the term religious naturalism. Their awe and inspiration are similar to Sagan’s, but they differ from Sagan in their application of god – not a god as a creator, not the God of Abraham, but a god who is present within the complexity, patterns, and mysteries of nature. Like Sagan, their words also inspire.

Prominent writers Michael Ruse and the late Stephen J Gould are examples of another group of agnostics – nonbelievers acknowledging space for theological thought as long as theology does not conflict with the way science works. In his NOMA model, Gould (a self-proclaimed no believer and agnostic) explains religion and science as non-interfering subjects – a similar approach proclaimed by Christians as Augustine, Galileo, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, and many more.

In the end, because of writers as Sagan, Gould, Goodenough, Davies, and others, I have a greater understanding, appreciation, and respect for agnostics and atheists, along with their view of the natural world. Yet, in the end, I hope those on the opposite side of the fence as I not only become more tolerant to the theological who embrace science, but also understand we share a common view against Biblical literalists. After all, the science-theology conflict is between religions – not one between science and theology.

Read Full Post »

On a Speck

Whenever comparing items, we need references as a perspective. A mouse is small to us, but we are small compared to a blue whale, and the mouse is large compared to one of its cells. Yet, that same whale is small compared to Mt. Everest, which is a meager spot on or planet – but Earth is so small compared to Jupiter.

The pattern can continue to the Sun, our solar system, to the Milky Way, all the way to the universe. Oh, the wonders that creation provides.

Wonder continue as we go in the opposite direction by examining our cells, to cell parts, to the molecule, its atoms, the atomic parts, and even to the smaller quarks.

Each microliter of human blood has approximately 5 million red blood cells (RBC). Considering that 1 liter contains 1 million microliters, and humans have 5 liters of blood, the total number of RBCs in each of us is quite large. Toss in the fact that each RBC contains 250 million molecules of hemoglobin that is responsible for transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide through over 60,000 miles of blood vessels – and this is in each of us.

As social beings, each of us know many people – well, we think we do – but compared to the world population, are interactions are limited to a mere few. Encounters of the cyberkind expand our world, but it is still small.

Each of us have countless daily interactions – some positive, others negative, and most have little effect. Sometimes we know when we affect the life of another, but much of the time, we stand in a clueless abyss. After all, we do not know when the effect of that encounter is transferred to others – perhaps even years later.

Toss in the element of time – all the people who passed before me, and all those who lie ahead of my time. People born, people die. A few become notables, most are commoners. Some are giants to societies. Some are giants in their towns, while others are giants in a family – but many are simply everyday people playing a niche in life. Yes, we all have history and in time, forgotten. Of all these people, only a selected few have recognized names of distinction – and only a few of them will make history books.

I am only 1 of over 7 billion people on our planet at this time, and only 1 of about 108 billion humans born to through the ages.

In some way, these thoughts make me feel worthless. On the other hand, science – and yes, my Christian views – allow me to appreciate being a tiny speck living on a particle of dust in the universe that is vast and intricate – thus I impressed and overwhelmed.

From Neil deGrasse Tyson

.
From Symphony of Science

Read Full Post »

On The Faith of Scientists

One day, I happened to go into a Half-Priced Books location to kill some time. Later, I walked out with an interesting book for $8 that sells for $25 on Amazon.

Written by Nancy Frankenberry, Professor of Religion at Dartmouth University, The Faith of Scientists is an anthology of twenty-one scientists through the ages. From early scientists as Galileo, Kepler, and Newton to later scientists as Darwin and Einstein, and eventually to modern-day scientists as Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, and Stephen Hawking, this book offered a peak into the personal views about the interchange between science and religion.

With each scientist isolated into their own chapter, Dr. Frankenberry consistently follows a pattern introducing the scientist in her own words over 3-5 pages followed by selected writing from the scientist.

From Pascal’s Catholicism to Ursula Goodenough’s religious naturalism to the atheism of Richard Dawkins, this book broadened my understanding of the spectrum of thoughts regarding the interchange between science and theology – especially because we live in a society where various factions pit science and faith against one another.

The Faith of Scientists is not a theology book for as the majority of the text is the words from scientists. Nor is it a book about all scientists and all perspectives. Nor is it a book with answers because a consistent vision about the interchange between science and theology does not exist.

However, The Faith of Scientists is a book that stimulates thinking, even though readers will disagree with someone. For me, it helped me understand the range of thought with atheists and agnostics – which I find to be an important aspect of my personal journey. Interestingly, reading this helped broaden my understanding, and at times, appreciation for some views with different views than mine, which allows me to find some common ground with others.

The anthology begins with Galileo and an inauguration of the apparent conflict with his empirically established views regarding the solar system, and the dogma of the Church. From a historical view, it is interesting to watch the shifting patterns of questions and concerns that the writers grapple with.

I suggest reading Nancy Frankenberry’s anthology of writings by 21 notable scientists from the 16th century to the present, as it is both surprising and illuminating. The selections center on faith, their views about God and the place religion holds–or does not hold–in their lives in light of their commitment to science.

The Faith of Scientists is a good read – an enjoyable read – and one that can increase understanding and stimulate discussions. Also, it can be easily read in segments from time to time.

Read Full Post »