Indeed!
Posted on 01/15/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by xzins
One of the most misleading headlines imaginable recently appeared over an opinion column published in USA Today. Tom Krattenmaker, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, set out to argue that there is no essential conflict between evolution and religious belief because the two are dealing with completely separate modes of knowing. Evolution, he argued, is simply “settled science” that requires no belief. Religion, on the other hand, is a faith system that is based in a totally different way of knowing—a form of knowing that requires belief and faith.
The background to the column is the recent data released by the Pew Research Center indicating that vast millions of Americans still reject evolution. As the Pew research documents, the rejection of evolution has actually increased in certain cohorts of the population. Almost six of ten who identify as Republicans now reject evolution, but so do a third of Democrats. Among evangelical Christians, 64% indicate a rejection of evolution, especially as an explanation for human origins. Krattenmaker is among those who see this as a great national embarrassment—and as a crisis.
In response, Krattenmaker makes this statement:
In a time of great divides over religion and politics, it’s not surprising that we treat evolution the way we do political issues. But here’s the problem: As settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. And by often framing the matter this way, we involved in the news media, Internet debates and everyday conversation do a disservice to science, religion and our prospects for having a scientifically literate country.
So belief in evolution is not something one simply chooses to believe or to disbelieve, “like a religious proposition.” Instead, it is “settled science” that simply compels intellectual assent.
The problems with this argument are legion. In the first place, there is no such thing as “settled science.” There is a state of scientific consensus at any given time, and science surely has its reigning orthodoxies. But to understand the enterprise of science is to know that science is never settled. The very nature of science is to test and retest hypotheses and to push toward new discoveries. No Nobel prizes are awarded for settled science. Instead, those prizes are awarded for discoveries and innovations. Many of those prizes, we should note, were awarded in past years for scientific innovations that were later rejected. Nothing in science is truly settled.
If science is to be settled, when would we declare it settled? In 1500? 1875? 1960? 2013? Mr. Krattenmaker’s own newspaper published several major news articles in just the past year trumpeting “new” discoveries that altered basic understandings of how evolution is supposed to have happened, including a major discovery that was claimed to change the way human development was traced, opening new questions about multiple lines of descent.
But the most significant problem with this argument is the outright assertion that science and religion represent two completely separate modes and bodies of knowledge. The Christian understanding of truth denies this explicitly. Truth is truth. There are not different kinds of truth that operate by different intellectual rules.
Every mode of thinking requires belief in basic presuppositions. Science, in this respect, is no different than theology. Those basic presuppositions are themselves unprovable, but they set the trajectory for every thought that follows. The dominant mode of scientific investigation within the academy is now based in purely naturalistic presuppositions. And to no surprise, the theories and structures of naturalistic science affirm naturalistic assumptions.
“Religion”—to use the word Krattenmaker prefers—also operates on the basis of presuppositions. And those presuppositions are no less determinative. These operate akin to what philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls “properly basic beliefs.”
In any event, both require “belief” in order to function intellectually; and both require something rightly defined as faith. That anyone would deny this about evolution is especially striking, given the infamous gaps in the theory and the lack of any possible experimental verification. One of the unproven and unprovable presuppositions of evolution is uniformitarianism, the belief that time and physical laws have always been constant. That is an unproven and unprovable assumption. Nevertheless, it is an essential presupposition of evolutionary science. It is, we might well say, taken on faith by evolutionists.
For starters, “belief” means something different in a religion conversation than it means when we’re talking about science. In the case of faith, it usually means accepting the moral and spiritual truth of something and giving it your trust and devotion. In talking about evolution, it is more precise to call it “scientifically valid” or “an accurate account of what we observe.” No leaps of faith or life-altering commitments required.
He really does believe that science and theology operate in completely different worlds. The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould believed the same, arguing for science and religion as “non-overlapping magisteria.” But, as both scientists and theologians protested, science and religion overlap all the time.
Krattenmaker argues, “A scientific concept backed by an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence, evolution describes a process by which species change over time. It hazards no speculations about the origins of that process.”
But this is not even remotely accurate. Evolutionary scientists constantly argue for naturalistic theories of the origin of matter, energy, life—and the entire cosmos. The argument that the existence and form of the cosmos is purely accidental and totally without external (divine) agency is indeed central to the dominant model of evolution.
On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility. Theistic evolutionists simply do not present the model of evolution that is supposedly “settled science.”
On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis. Krattenmaker asserts that “it is more than possible to accept the validity of evolution and believe in God’s role in creation at the same time.” Well, that is true with respect to some concept of God and some concept of creation and some version of evolution, but not the dominant theory of evolution and not the God who created the entire cosmos as the theater of his glory, and who created human beings as the distinct creature alone made in his image.
I am confident that Tom Krattenmaker fully intended to clarify the matter and to point to a way through the impasse. But his arguments do not clarify, they confuse. At the same time, his essay is one of the clearest catalysts for thinking about these issues to arrive in recent times in the major media. It represents an opportunity not to be missed.
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.
They fall into two classes:
1. Those that simply don’t “get it.”
2. Those that do get it, but are in it to deceive.
Belief has to have a basis, and that is what they reject.
They created an entire pre-human societal structure from a pig’s tooth, so why not?
There is an argument from Alvin Plantinga, (Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). It is difficult to understand, but I will try to distill it.
The background for this argument is the need to define 'knowledge'. Knowledge can be defined as warranted true belief. We may believe something with all of our hearts, but if it cannot be warranted (guaranteed), then it is not knowledge, because it is not guaranteed to be true.
Now a belief was formed by cognitive faculties which are functioning properly as they ought to operate, if they were designed at obtaining truth.
Warrant is a normative notion, that is, it functions as it was designed to function.
We know the theory of evolution claims to represent change over time by tiny changes over long periods of time and selects for basically the 4 F's, fighting, fleeing, feeding, and reproduction. These qualities are selected for to be adaptive to live. (That is much abbreviated, but basically correct).] It is important to realize that evolution does NOT select for TRUTH. The important thing is to realize that out cognitive faculties, function properly, is a normative function (the way it ought to function).
The normative function is easily understood in terms of artifacts….cars, transmissions, carburetor, etc.)
So knowledge regarding properly functioning cognitive faculties, and proper functioning faculties presuppose a designer.
The naturalist owes us an explanation of what it means to have a properly functioning cognitive faculty, remembering normative function is totally different in concept from statistically probabilities.
How does one give us an explanation of proper function in terms of evolutionary theory and survival value because even if evolution is true, it is a contingent truth (i.e. evolution could be false because, even if true, it is contingent, it ( cognitive function could be true or false even if evolution is true or false.)
Human beings and their parts, according to evolutionary theory, arose by blind, mindless, purposeless processes, and their cognitive faculties arose by a blind, mindless, purposeless processes and such things were selected for solely by virtue of survival value. So if our cognitive faculties arose by selection of survival value, it arose, not selecting for truth, but selecting for behavior.
If evolutionist (physicalists) imply a human being is merely a complex physical object because living organisms are solely the result of physical evolutionary processes operating on solely physical materials, and therefore the products of evolution would be solely physical. Now, mental entities, not physical entities, come into being. Now, belief, a metaphysical, invariant abstraction, cannot be acted upon to be selected for, for survival value. We grasp, affirm, ponder out beliefs.
Evolution could produce beliefs that are effects, but not causes or caused by behavior.
So, evolution cannot account naturalistically, for properly functioning cognitive faculties. So even if evolution is true, there can be no explanation naturalistically for our properly functioning cognitive faculties. Therefore 'WHY DOES A NATURALIST BELIEVE ANYTHING AT ALL?" There is not epistemic warrant to believe anything by the naturalistic. Unless they can provide an explanation they must abandon their position of naturalistic evolutionary selection, or simply acquiesce and tell us that there is no reason to believe anything is true. Since evolution is a belief, why would they believe such a notion. Nature does not, and cannot account for such a belief to be true.
Yeah, but He’s entitled to do that.
I agree up to a point. The only credible answer to the question about how life formed is that we don’t know. Given the progress we’ve made in the last couple of centuries in understanding the natural world, I’m pretty confident we’ll find out eventually.
So if the earth was near the point where the white hole originated, we would’ve seen the heavens stretch out like a curtain, at mindboggling speeds. Billions of years could elapse in space while only a day would’ve elapsed here. Maybe this sort of helps explain why these prophets said what they said.
You might be interested in these threads. Same topic but different comments.
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
I love your posts. They are always well thought out and presented.
But some of them make my brain hurt......
Ooops. One of the links disappeared.
Here it is.....
Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3051495/posts
People from both sides are going to be shocked when they realize the truth about creation.
Where does the Bible suggest the world is flat? Perhaps the Roman church of old made such assertions but the Bible makes no such statement or suggest it.
Your last paragraph aligns with some of what Alamo-girl has written.
Again - the verses are from a letter from Paul dealing with people not plants and animals. I don’t agree with with your interpretation.
All of the above is called advancement using the scientific method. The scientific method stands on observation. Of the six basic concepts of evolution one is only observable and that would be microevolution (subset adaptations). The remaining five concepts must be taken on faith, they are not observable. One can theorize all day, make inferences and offer propositions but in the end it is 'faith' in who is presenting the material.
Given microevolution is observable within 'kinds' does not 'prove' or lend evidence to macroevolution.
Not so fast.
Global Warming.
Even if they were able to produce something, they cheated since the 'dirt' they used belongs to God:) They would have to 'create' their own elements in the first place.
The Shroud of Turin is quite interesting I have to say. Problem is there is so many conflicting ‘reports.’
Hello Mom! Long time-no see. Hope you are doing well. It has been cold down here in Texas. And, Obama….I am not going to say anything. My mother told me if I had nothing good to say about someone, don’t say anything. So, on Obama, my lips are sealed, for the next 60 seconds.
Indeed!
As if God does not supply good warrant (if not scientific certainty) for a step of faith, and as taken and confirmed, consequently more for the next one. You need scholarly references to state otherwise on WP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.