Darwin, Evolution and His Critics - Part 2 Darwin's Escape from God

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute ^ | Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

[gobucks]

Following, of course, the example of those who wish to introduce religion in biology classes. Fair's fair.

We are glad you are here RWP, and have no interest in encouraging you to leave. Frankly, it is cold out there and we like the company in here.

Besides, if Jesus and his message are not big enough for the likes of someone who has your persistence, then indeed, his sacrifice on a cross is the biggest hoax perpetrated upon mankind in all of history.

[gobucks]

"That is unworthy of a college freshman let alone a PhD."

Now, now. We're in the religion forum. No need to bring over here the bad habits that rub off on us over there. My sense is that we need to just take each piece of whatever at face value HERE.

Im serious too. You'll notice that most of the ping list from PH's posse never shows up here....

[Right Wing Professor]

You'll notice RWP, (PhD) prefers not to attempt a rebuttal but to resort to the sophomoric comparison to Islam

There is no God but (my) God wasn't an accurate paraphrase of what you wrote?

Does he really think "many creator claims, therefore no Creator at all?"

I think 'many creator claims, all based on an ultimate appeal to unreason (faith), no rational way to distinguish them'. And pointing out the commonality of their sometimes highly aggressive claims of exclusivity is IMO a reasonable point.

That is unworthy of a college freshman let alone a PhD.

How fortunate your opinion is of little consequence.

[RightWhale]

The same is true of all fields

String theory can be shown to be of the nature of field theory. But brane theory cannot, although it has topology. Geometry is not in itself necessarily a field no matter how symmetric. Did something precede the Big Bang? Cosmologists think that is very possible; it even seems likely these multiverse days.

[betty boop]

Following, of course, the example of those who wish to introduce religion in biology classes. Fair's fair.

Well jeepers, RWP, I do believe you have managed to "change the subject" here. What gobucks seemed to be saying was that the present thread had managed to attract a diverse audience. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[balrog666]

2nd biggest.

[Heartlander]

Betty,

Thank you for the ping… Interesting article but unfortunately many people are unaware of the political movements of the ‘Young Guard’ and the ‘Xclub’ when they talk about suspected motives from others…

Following, of course, the example of those who wish to introduce religion in biology classes. Fair's fair.

Prof,

Religion comes in many forms as I am sure you are aware…

[Heartlander]

Betty,

I would just like to add to what I said earlier and keep it in historical context:

One hundred and fifty years ago, according to Gillespie (1979), most naturalists accepted the idea of common ancestry, but they differed on how new forms arose. The Establishment at Oxford (Buckland, for instance) evidently thought that God occasionally remodeled an existing form into a perfectly adapted new type (Rupke, 1983). The Radical Materialists such as Grant and Knox followed Lamarck in considering matter itself energized with an intrinsic tendency for unifomm development (Desmond, 1989). The followers of German Naturphilosophie (Richard Owen, for instance) held the theory that autonomous extra-material archetypes shaped lineages progressively into their own images (Desmond, 1982). All the schools (with the exception of Louis Agassis) viewed fossil sequences as demonstrations of common descent. They differed on the nature of the power that shaped biological form, but not on whether things shared common ancestry. One further note: although they differed in their philosophies of nature, each school had both Christian and non-Christian adherents.

According to historian James Moore (1982), however, around 1840 a new movement of young middle-class reformers calling themselves "Naturalists" appeared. This group as young adults typically changed their creed from Christianity (which they felt was morally bankrupt) to one based on "Nature." They were "poets and lawyers, doctors and manufacturers, novelists and naturalists, engineers and politicians." The group included such well-known individuals as George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Francis Galton, J. A. Froude, G. H. Lewes, Charles Bray, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Tyndall, F. W. Newman, A. H. Clough, Harriet Martineau, F. P. Cobbe, and, of course, T. H. Huxley. Moore shows that the central feature of this new creed was the redefinition of human nature, society, order, law, evil, progress, purpose, authority, and nature itself in terms of the Naturalists' particular view of Nature, as opposed to the Christian Scriptures. In fact, they tended to attack the Christian Scriptures as the true source of societal evil. God, if he existed, was to be known only through the Nature which he made. Thus, according to Moore (1982) and Young (1980), "positivism" was not primarily a methodology for science, but a religious movement that sought to replace the cultural dominance of the Established Church.

Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.

The Naturalists succeeded. The "Young Guard" used the trappings of religion to sacralize their "science." Three centuries of cooperation between science and religion were forgotten and their history was rewritten as "warfare." Hymns to nature were sung at popular lectures before the giving of "lay sermons" by a member of Galton's "Scientific Priesthood." Museums were built to resemble cathedrals, and following frantic string-pulling by Lubbock (a member of the "X" club) Charles Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey. The new church was established (Moore, 1982).

If the professionally validated "scientist" is viewed as the only one who can adequately understand nature, and if Nature has replaced Scripture as the source of moral and teleological truth, ipso facto the scientist has replaced the priest. Thus, the "professional" position at stake was as much the pulpit as the lectern.

It is a fact that God is continuously being publicly discussed by very well-known scientists- just read Gould, Dawkins, Hull, Provine, Wilson, Simpson, Futyama, Sagan, Hawking, and others. From a nineteenth century perspective, books like The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins, 1986) and Wonderful Life (Gould, 1989) are simply Bridgewater treatises such as Paley, Owens, and Roget wrote, works in which up-to-date science is used for the task of world-view apologetics.
Evolution as History and the History of Evolution

But let’s fast forward to our modern day and see if ‘religious persecution’ has been eliminated by modern science that loves to say it functions better now that the shackles of ‘religious persecution’ have been thrown off its back. What have our Universities that were founded on ‘Christian principles’ become with this new found belief of no more dogmatic scientific endeavors and a this new found freedom to explore? Well, this comes from another forum from a gentleman who is neither friendly towards ID or neo-darwinism (and I truly apologize for the language from the professors):

Academia has some rather odd standards and I’m not sure they are altogether “academic.” Recently the Chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at my alma mater said, in so many words, that the victims of 911 deserved what they got; comparing them (or at least those who worked in the financial industry) to NAZI’s. Judging by previous experience he’s not likely to face anything other than a few words of impotent indignation. Because just last summer the president of the university said that calling rape victims “c***s” could be considered “flattering” in some contexts. She, i.e., she, is still the president of the university. I expect he will remain chairman of his department.

Calling the victims of 911 “little Eichman’s” or rape victims “c***s”… OK. Saying that maybe the “Cambrian Explosion” occurred too rapidly to be accounted for by existing theory---Kiss your career goodbye!

But why would he say this? Well, as reported by the Wall Street Journal recently, a respected scientist is actually experiencing persecution for overseeing a peer-review process that allowed a paper to be published that was written by Dr. Steven Meyer who has affiliations with the Discovery Institute. The paper questioned many principles of neo-darwinism:

In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.

Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.
The Branding of a Heretic

It should also be noted that they questioned Sternberg’s political beliefs as well as his religious beliefs. Now one might say that it is fair because this had no place in a scientific journal due to its content and ‘whose theme is such a drastic departure from the traditional focus of the journal’. But I would ask you to consider this from another peer-reviewed journal and apply those same standards:

Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003; 4: 143-63. Creationism and intelligent design. by Pennock, RT.

Lyman Briggs School and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48825, USA.

Abstract: Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.

Now, keep in mind that this article was published in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics and had nothing to do with ‘human genetics’ but was merely a hit piece published in a scientific journal that will obviously never allow a rebuttal.

I’d like to quote the gentleman from another forum again :

“Political correctness” is an attack on our fundamental rights. It has proven to be a powerful and sustained attack. It has very powerful advocates—like university presidents and chairmen. They are not merely “advocates.” They are in positions of power. They have the power to enforce—their beliefs… And they do.

People who have studied Huxley know that this is what he detested most about Universities and why he fought so hard to stop it… It is not so much ironic in a historical context as it is sad. It seems that all we have learned from history is… It seems all that we have learned from history is…

So now the big question: “What do we do and how do we find common ground?”

[Right Wing Professor]

Now, keep in mind that this article was published in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics and had nothing to do with ‘human genetics’ but was merely a hit piece published in a scientific journal that will obviously never allow a rebuttal.

It's in a review journal, not a primary journal. Annual Reviews don't publish primary scientific papers, but reviews of the current state of the literature. In contrast, Steinberg edited a primary journal, where the format requires publication of original scientific results.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

String theory can be shown to be of the nature of field theory. But brane theory cannot, although it has topology.

That is a reversal of the point I was making. String theory arises from geometry, as does field theory as does brane theory. How can one conceive of brane with geometry? Branes are geometric per se.

Geometry is not in itself necessarily a field no matter how symmetric.

If you mean "field" as in a discipline in science, then I beg to differ: Geometric Physics

If you meant "field" as something existing in all points of space/time, then of course not! Space/time is the geometry whereby and wherein fields emerge and not vice versa. Space/time is created as the universe expands.

This is the Einstein dream of transmuting the basewood of matter to the pure marble of geometry. In general relativity, gravity is geometric - indentations of space/time (and outdents for negative gravity). The most recent theories suggest gravity is the smallest field by comparison to electromagnetic/strong and weak atomic - because it is inter-dimensional. BTW, negative gravity - or an outdent of space/time - would lead to the acceleration of universe's expansion (which is observed). This could also be interpreted as dark energy (as compared to dark matter and normal matter, e.g. Higgs boson/field).

Did something precede the Big Bang? Cosmologists think that is very possible; it even seems likely these multiverse days.

Hence my mention of the modern (post 1960s) cosmologies: cyclic, imaginary time, multi-verse, ekpyrotic. All of these cosmologies at the root hinge on the geometry, hence all have a beginning. All they accomplish wrt the Big Bang is to move the goalpost to prior physical causation.

The bottom line is that space/time - even in multi-verse theory - is finite not infinite. Any appeal to the anthropic principle for this universe requires an infinite past (the plentitude argument, anything that can happen, has) - which we know cannot be, because there is always a beginning - an uncaused cause - i.e. God.

The only cosmology which is closed (though it also has a beginning) is the Level IV Tegmark radical Platonist cosmology which is also very akin to Scriptures in interpreting physical existents in four dimensions as actually being mathematical structures in higher dimensionality.

[Alamo-Girl]

What gobucks seemed to be saying was that the present thread had managed to attract a diverse audience. What could possibly be wrong with that?

So very true. All of the Christians here should be praising God for the opportunity to witness to others, putting the subject of evolution in the theological context instead of the other way around.

Perhaps this will help the posters to understand one another better?

Thank you for the ping!

[Heartlander]

Betty,

I’m sorry… this post was meant for you…

[Heartlander]

It's in a review journal, not a primary journal. Annual Reviews don't publish primary scientific papers, but reviews of the current state of the literature. In contrast, Steinberg edited a primary journal, where the format requires publication of original scientific results.

So you believe Pennock’s paper is OK?

[Right Wing Professor]

So you believe Pennock’s paper is OK? I haven't read the paper. I don't have access to Ann. Revs at home; I'll check the context in which it was published at work tomorrow.

Ann. Revs usually publish one non-scientific article per issue; usually some distinguished scientist's reflections on The State of Things. it may have been published in that sort of manner. I'll give it a look.

[gobucks]

2nd biggest.

The 1st being...?