We are still figuring out what has been lost, and what has been found, in the aftermath of Darwin’s and Wallace’s great scientific discovery. Does recognizing that we are closer to nature automatically mean that we are further from God? This question is no more answerable today than it was 150 years ago, of course. But thinking about the men who devised the theory and drew such different conclusions from it restores a certain wholeness to the debate that has lately, with ultra-Darwinian notions of “the God delusion” and equally irresponsible ideas of “intelligent design,” grown nearly as polarized as it was in the mid-19th century when the theory was just floated to a world that still read the Bible as a scientific text.
It is foolish to be arguing about creation vs. evolution in the classroom, given the mountain of evidence for evolution by means of natural selection. But talking about Darwin and Wallace together, and the vastly different conclusions they drew from their theory of evolution, makes a great deal of sense in this fractured and contentious moment. We need them both.
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution but not for natural selection. Natural selection is important to exclude any notion of God. Once God is out of the picture, everything else falls. We no longer believe in the Creator of hearven and earth. Everything is chance and there can be not moral law – except for my favorite cause. Folks, there is alot at stake here.
Rosen says ‘given the mountain of evidence for evolution by means of natural selection’. He’s right. It is through natural selection that evolution occurs. This creates no problems for me as one who studied the biological sciences. Nor does it create any problems for me as a thoroughly orthodox evangelical Anglican priest. The evolutionary process provides us with a very effective model that explains how God’s creation came to be what we see today.
Ross, Your last sentence just defined intellignent design.
Much of what I have seen in the intelligent design camp hasn’t always been that intelligent but I do have sympathies in that direction. I see God as the great artist who uses natural processes to complete what he had originally planned in spite of humanity’s best attempts to thwart his intentions.
“We are still figuring out what has been lost, and what has been found, in the aftermath of Darwin’s and Wallace’s great scientific discovery.”
This is a perpetual false myth. I have read papers published in Princton review from the 1840s that basically debated the same evolution that Darwin “proposed”. I have my theories on how this all came about and perhaps we will never know but something is rotten in accadamia.
Don
I saw Ben Stein on the Glenn Beck Show on CNN Headline News talking about the movie “Expelled”. I haven’t seen it yet, but from what he was saying on the show makes me WANT to see it.
But no rush, I can either wait for it to a) come to the dollar theater or b) to cable.
Jim Elliott <><
DonGander wrote: I have read papers published in Princton review from the 1840s that basically debated the same evolution that Darwin “proposedâ€.
Please give us the references: these are on line somewhere.
7. Eugene:
re:references
A reasonable request but I am unable to do so. I read the documents in a private library and I don’t remember the exact dates but as I remember they were from the Princeton Review during the 1840s. I strongly suspect that there are archived copies around; perhaps Princeton U. has them.
Sorry.
Don
Ok, so once again, I ask: just when did man evolve into the image of God? Or, … did we? Is that an illusion as well, just a foolish human dream?
T
But part of the problem is that science has it own assumptions and presuppositions that can’t be proved. Science simply assumes away that which it can’t measure and deal with.
Evolution assumes (without proof) that there is no God (or at least one that does not intervene in the world.) It than assumes that over a long period of time (too long a period to time to be subjected to scientific experiment) life arose from nothing and somehow simple life became more complex. This complexity arose from purely random forces.
The underlying wordview of science is naturalism and one of the fundamental presuppositions of naturalism is that “Matter exists eternally and that is all their is. God does not exist.” Carl Sagan was famous for saying that: The Cosmos is all there was, is or ever will be.” Folks these are fath statements. For a fuller treatment see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door 4th Ed.
If one saw a watch on the beach you would never say that over time elements came together in a random fashon to evolve into a watch.
The point is that the assumption of the absence of an intelligent designer is just as much of a faith statement as saying that there is one.
You might check out what naturalism says about itself at http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
[blockquote] Tenets of Naturalism
What exists: This version of naturalism asserts that the world is of a piece; everything we are and do is included in the space-time continuum whose most basic elements are those described by physics. We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe, or escapes being shaped by the various processes – physical, biological, psychological, and social – that science describes. On a scientific understanding of ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart from the physical world.
What constitutes knowledge: Naturalism as a worldview is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is best achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition. The knowledge we have of ourselves and our place in nature is the achievement of a collective effort to construct a consistent view of the world that permits prediction and control. This effort proceeds by experiment and rational inquiry, and the knowledge gained is always subject to further testing as understanding matures. Wanting something to be true, or having the intense personal conviction that something is true, are never grounds for supposing that it is true. Scientific empiricism has the necessary consequence of unifying our knowledge of the world, of placing all objects of understanding within an overarching causal context. Under naturalism, there is a single, natural world in which phenomena arise.
The causal view: From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn.
The self: As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body. The self is constituted by more or less consistent sets of personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions; it doesn’t exist apart from those complex physical processes that make up the individual. It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behavior.
Responsibility and morality: From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections (see above). Therefore individuals don’t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn’t have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn’t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.
The source of value: Because naturalism doubts the existence of ultimate purposes either inherent in nature or imposed by a creator, values derive from human needs and desires, not supernatural absolutes. Basic human values are widely shared by virtue of being rooted in our common evolved nature. We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways we’d rather not be treated. Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others and our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community. Naturalism may show the ultimate contingency of some values, in that human nature might have evolved differently and human societies and political arrangements might have turned out otherwise. But, given who and what we are as natural creatures, we necessarily find ourselves with shared basic values which serve as the criteria for assessing moral dilemmas, even if these assessments are sometimes fiercely contested and in some cases never quite resolved.[/blockquote]
Matt, I disagree. It’s not a straw man and it’s what they themselves say. Oh, they might allow God in some sort of diestic way, but the underlying presupposition is that God is not and cannot be active in the process. You yourself state as much when you say: “To wit, if they cannot speak to the existence of God (and they can’t), then they should say nothing about it (at least in their capacity as scientists).” Thus, it falls out of the definition and may be safely ignored.
Matt what I am suggesting is that many scientists are blind to their own assumptions and presuppositions. Science presupposes either no God or an inactive God. That’s how it works and that is as much of a matter of faith as is theism.
There is no way that evolution by natural selection will or can be discounted. It is the only consideration of scientists, who apparently have private views which they can not express in free inquiry.
Ross52 says that, “It is through natural selection that evolution occurs.” Matt says, “there are other forms of evolutionary change” ( other than natural selection). Doesn’t “natural selection” just mean that some life forms cease to reproduce?
Matt 21 As a scientist for over 50 years and a confessing Christian I agree completely. The real problem is the media’s desire to create a fight and the desire of some scientists and Christians to oblige them.
Matt, I would not expect to find the rabbit fossil since I believe in evolution. I do not think that life could survive if it did not have the ability to adapt (evolve). As KJS would say, “it is too bad we can not communicate.” I believe Darwin’s major contribution was to suggest a mechanism to bring about change in life that would exclude a creator. I also believe that much 21st century science is driven by 19th century philosophy which had a bottom to top world view with man on the top. cf. Freud, Marx, etc. If believing in evolution includes all parts of the theory to include its implications, then I do not beleive it. However there seems to middle ground here that no one wants to consider. Intelligent design no more proves the existence of God than does natural selection disproves the existence of God.
Gen 1:1, the first four words: “In the beginning God . . .”. This was the topic of our sermon last Sunday. Many, many other scriptures, but they all say the same thing. Good enough for me. Take care. If you toss out Genesis, you undermine much more than creation vs evolution.
This really is a foundational issue. Was man created in the image of God, or are we simply the product of evolutionary chance? One simply cannot have it both ways ~ one can’t have two opposing truths. I am deadly serious about my question concerning man evolving into the image of God. Where does that fit into the scheme of things? I asked my mother’s rector that question a few weeks ago, as his sermon was centered on the ‘truth’ of evolution and that creationism has no place in the public schools as it was ‘manipulating the truth.’ He couldn’t answer at the moment. I sent him a lengthy email explaining my position and why I found the idea of man “evolving” so difficult in light of Genesis and the teaching from childhood that we were created in His image. I have been ‘disinvited’ as it were, to attend any more. So, again, anyone have a clue? How do we explain ending up in His image? If I can’t believe that, what can I believe?
T
Tikvah you restate the point I was trying to make and maybe Matt can help us out, becasuse I think we were talking past each other.
Matt how do you understand the role of God in evolution? If your answer is that God and God’s actions cannot be meaured or observed by science and thus has no “practical” part of science then science and evolution can proceed on the basis that God either does not exist or does not act so as to have an impact on the natural world. Thus, even if we allow for a private belief in God, when it comes to science (the natural world?) we proceed as if God is absent (either does not exist or does not act or does not act in any we He can be measused).
Now I am not trying to put words in your mouth just simply repeat what I understand you to be saying. I am assuming that you personaly believe in God. But is what I have said an accurate or accurate enough statement of your position so that we may proceed?
Yes, Br. Michael, and thank you.
T
My theory:
If God in actuality ‘guided’ the formation of the Earth into an evolutionary process, then there had to be a point where He intervened by selecting a human being and ‘breathed’ His soul into him, thus setting apart a being called “MAN”, fully human for the first time (Adam).
So even if God allowed evolution to take its course, at some point God stepped into the process Himself and took an active part with the creation of a new species formed into the image of God Himself.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Matt, this does not seem to working because we are not comunicating. I didn’t use the word “can”. I said “does”. And by “act” mean entering into creation to effect outcomes. Acting as opposed a diestic concept in which God creates the universe, sets up natural laws and then retires letting the Universe to go on its way without Him.
It means that He created a closed universe of cause and effect and He remains outside that universe. He does not effect anything in that closed system.
Two things going on here. Creator God, creating man in His image, or creartor God taking a hands-off attitude from then on and let evolution take it course. Both accept God as creator. Here is an interesting essay by Benjamin Franklin on the hands-off question: http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf2/provdnc.htm
And even so, we do not see evolution of one species to another. IMHO, I think a creator God created just what He intended.
However the rub is that teaching Darwin in schools takes the naturalistic or pure diestic approach. Franklin was not a pure diest. Evolution makes a statement about God, as it must, and when it does that it is on the same plain as theism, just in the opposite direction.
Well, Matt we are getting somewhere. I do not believe in a Cartesian, clockwork universe. Far from it. I was trying to figure out where you were coming from. I agree with your last paragraph.
I also agree with your first statement. And that statement is not value free. It makes a theistic statement in the negative. And that brings it into the area of the religious. And that is, it operates as if there is no God. As you say it has to, but this is itself a faith statement.
And when you say “natural selection”, but can God intervene in that selection to direct it, or do we assume that God is not active in it so it is pure, blind random chance as the naturalists say that it is?
The problem is that no matter which way you turn evolution and indeed, science, has to make a faith statement. Even to ignore it is to make a faith statement.