Is The Golden Compass Partly Right?

There has been no small deal made about the forthcoming release of the movie The Golden Compass, based on the book written by Phillip Pullman. The book as been called an atheist version of The Chronicles of Narnia. The Golden Compass book, the first in the His Dark Materials series, has an anti-Christian message, and reportedly have the lead characters trying to kill God. Pullman has apparently said himself that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" in a 2001 interview and "My books are about killing God" in 2003¹.

There has also been discussion among Christians about whether or not they should support this movie. There has been a wide range of opinion, some saying the movie is "poisoning the world" and calling for a boycott and others say that the reaction is "over nothing." Personally, I think that pop culture boycotts never work. They tend to create a buzz around the product that tends to make it more successful. In addition, I think these movies can be good conversation starters for parents to allow their kids to think through important issues. But, there is a wide range of opinion, and I am no authoritative source on this issue, but those are my personal feelings.

The reason for this article is to not debate the appropriate response by Christians. It is to ask some interesting, but maybe tough questions about the nature of the book/movie's claims.

Before I go any further, let me make it abundantly clear that I have not read any of the books or seen the movie. I am new to this topic, and have only known about this issue for a couple of weeks. My comments are based on listening to others who have read the books and can pass along information. But, at best, my knowledge of the material is second hand.

One of the characters in the book reportedly says this: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

As we react to this, I want to consider the approach of Tony Campolo in a book he wrote in the 80's called Partly Right. The book looks at some of the harshest opponents of the Church, like Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, seeks to understand their points in context, and considers how their critiques might be a valid indictment of a harsh reality. The first step, as mentioned, is to understand. He says this in his preface(pg ix):

Those who would do battle with these cultured despisers of religion should have some idea as to the nature of their arguments. Too often those of us who rant and rage from our pulpits against the materialism of Karl Marx, the sexual preoccupations of Sigmund Freud, and the God-is-dead philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche know almost nothing about these declared enemies of religion.

The second step is having the humility to listen to our opponents and using their outside eyes to try and get better.

A religious group matures and improves only by correcting its flaws, and usually the enemies of that group can help it to see those flaws better than its friends can. The enemies of middle-class religion who are reviewed in this book have provided some of the most brilliant analysis of the failures and weaknesses of our churches and our theology...I hope that by studying the arguments of our enemies we will recognize our sins, confess them, and work to cleanse ourselves of them.

Now, how can we apply that wisdom to The Golden Compass? Obviously the first step is to comment within our knowledge. It is hard to make sweeping, dogmatic statements about a book you have not read or a movie you have not seen. Sure, we can hear reports, but they are out of context. To do this may require a good deal of work. As I mentioned above, I have not read the books or seen the movie, so I have steered clear of saying things about the books that I don't know. I have kept my comments about this in the areas of the way Christians respond to issues like this, parenting, and the nature of pop culture, rather than the content of the books/movie.

The next step, then, is to ask ourselves if the accusation warrants any truth about our failures as a Church. This, too, requires work. We must think through some hard issues, be transparent, and make ourselves vulnerable. To do this is to mature, to avoid the games that the enemy, and by this I mean Satan, would have us wasting our time and energy on, and be willing to learn from a myriad of sources, to admit that others, who we may think are less holy than ourselves, actually have something to teach us.

With that, let's look at this statement made in the book: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." Please note that this is in the book. I doubt it will be in the movie. I am also not sure even which of the books in the series this appears in or what the context is. I have not done my homework to appropriately evaluate a statement like this. I do think, though, that there are some introspective questions we can ask ourselves in response, even to this isolated statement. It is certainly easy to disagree with and perhaps even get offended by. It is human nature to reactionarily defend a group that you belong to without considering the validity of the attack. But I think that is the wrong approach. Here are some questions we can ask to evaluate ourselves in response to this statement.

1. First, are we guilty of all of our churches being the same? In one sense, churches are very different. They come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. In a general sense, though, there are some threads that are perhaps too common. Almost every church service involves some combination of singing songs, a sermon, prayer, and fellowship. The prayer and fellowship almost have to be present in some form. But would it be too outside the box to explore other worship forms than music and songs? Certainly some churches are doing this, but it is a small minority. And what about sermons? It seems like we could shack things up in the way we communicate. Our imagination is the limit. It just seems like there should be as many different flavors of church as their are people, and the reality is that most churches are pretty generic.

2. Second, is the Church too hung up on controlling, destroying, and obliterating? I'll admit, that when it seems like the Church could do good by focusing on freeing, building up, and repairing, it seems to focus a lot of attention on controlling, destroying, and obliterating. Could we do a better job at this, and does your local church need to?

3. Lastly, does the Church seem to squash good feelings? Do we put the kibosh on fun? Is your local church tightly wound, or free to laugh and have a good time? What would a visitor say if asked that question about your church? I know that I have certainly been guilty of being too serious and failing to relax in the house of God. Why do we do that?

Remember, from an outsider's perspective, perception is reality. If my local church is really coming across as an organisation that controls, destroys, and obliterates good feelings, just like all the others, maybe I need to consider how we can get creative and fix our flaws, that we may be more like the body that is Christ's dream. Perhaps Pullman is partly right.

May we continue to not get defensive, but actually let criticism challenge us to learn and grow. May we look for truth in all forms, and leave or egos and self righteousness behind. And may we always be walking on the path to maturity.

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation Continued

I had blogged previously about conversation and the benefit I thought it could bring to the exchange of ideas in the Christian market, and I wanted to share some follow up.

Here is a thought from Brian McLaren in the book he co-authored with Tony Campolo called Adventures in Missing the Point. He is talking about the Bible, and how we can perhaps change the ways in which we relate to it. He offers 10 suggestions on how to "reclaim the Bible for contemporary readers, so we don't miss the point." Here is what he says:

So how about a Bible study or sermon that is successful not because everyone agrees on the preacher's interpretation, but because, when the sermon is over, everyone can't wait to talk about it and read and ponder and discuss it more, because they have become intrigued and mystified and enthralled? How about a congregation who may not have "captured the meaning" of the text, but a text that captured the imagination and curiosity of the congregation?

pg 84

This is the type of communication that encourages and starts conversation. Truth is seldom simple, and it often needs to be talked about and wrestled with before it is owned. This is a major way that we learn; through conversation.

Another author, scholar and professor Scot McKnight, says this in his book Embracing Grace:

It is my conviction that God designed the gospel to be a source of communion for all Christians and not a source of division among them. But this communion can emerge only if we respect one another enough to listen to what the other is saying, and if we go back to the Bible together to see what the gospel really is.

pg xiii

As I said before, one of the keys to this practice is listening. I will mention 2 others.

Respect. Without respect as an under girding agreement between the parties, it is no conversation (at least no healthy conversation) and the communication is doomed to fail. This does not mean that parties must be ever stoic. On the contrary. Passion, excitement, anger, humor etc., these may all be involved in this type of conversation, but they need not usurp the respect. If simple, common practices like not interrupting, not calling the other person names, looking for the others point rather than twisting their words, etc. are in place, they can all help maintain a level of respect. I feel like this is first grade material. I don't mean to insult your maturity or intelligence, but you would be surprised how many conversations don't follow these simple rules.

Thinking Gray. Steven B. Sample, in his book The Contrarians Guide to Leadership, advocates a practice he calls thinking gray. "The essence of thinking gray is this," he says, "don't form an opinion about an important matter until you've heard all the relevant facts and arguments." pg 8 This is an important tactic in conversation. So often do people make snap judgements. Wise decisions, however, come from listening to all the info and not assuming you know exactly what the other is going to say or the totality of what they believe.

May we continue to become good at conversing in a respectful manner, and may we honor God in our quest for greater learning.

Evolution Conversation, Part 6: Conclusion

Here is the final installment of the conversation Chip (the Christian) and Mark (the atheist) had about Evolution. This is a compilation of a few exchanges that are shorter as we wrapped it up and decided to close.

I decided to post 5 and 6 back to back, because I have other topics I'd like to get to. I hope you have enjoyed seeing these guys trad thoughts as much as I have!

No need to add this bit to the debate since Mark deserves to have the last word.

I just want to point out that I stand by my statement that evolution is counterintuitive. If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it, and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life. I realize that a theory of gravity is also not very old (in terms of human culture), but as Mark pointed out, everyone directly experiences gravity. No one directly experiences evolution.

One other thing. It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that "evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image." What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes? I can separate the science from the metaphysics, but apparently it is not only Christians who have a problem doing so.

I have to say this has been interesting. I've always been ambivalent about evolution because the science seems so unassailable and yet the objections to it seem also serious. In truth I've actually written on both sides of the issue, trying, I suppose, to justify the arguments of Christians to evolutionists and vice versa. As I said a few posts back, "I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation." I mean that. I find evolution to be an acceptable explanation for the diversity of life. Having said that, though, I still find it troubling. If I did not, I don't think I could consider myself a thoughtful Christian.

By the way, just because arguments are repeated, does not mean there is anything wrong with them. The arguments I've raised are reasonable. That doesn't mean that they're unassailable. In fact, it would be very strange if I raised arguments no one has thought of before, and with the long history this debate has enjoyed, it's little wonder the arguments have now been tagged, cataloged, and laid out on a Bingo grid. But that does not mean they've all been "soundly debunked."

Thanks for a great conversation! It's rare to hear intelligent argument from anyone instead of name-calling and invective, especially online.



___________________________


"If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it..."

Chip, it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere.

"...and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life."

This is irrelevant to the intuitiveness of scientific theories. Continental drift "plate tectonics" is very recent theory and very intuitive. Just look at an atlas and chart where volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur and you get an outline of where the tectonic plates collide. This wasn't theorized until 1915 and not accepted till the 1950's. It's common knowledge today.

"No one directly experiences evolution."

I don't directly experience your love of Jesus either but I know it's there and is an undeniable fact, right? I know this because there is evidence for it. Same goes for evolution.

What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes?

What about them? What do their personal God beliefs have to do with facts like evolution or gravity? You're committing the guilt by association fallacy here, Chip.

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort f "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.

Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

"...and with the long history this debate has enjoyed..."

Well, there's really no debate. There hasn't been any for 150 years. The only objections to evolution come from Christians. As I pointed out, they only object because of religious reasons, not for scientific reasons. If there was ANY evidence, ANY evidence at all that could falsify evolution, the lucky Christian would win the Nobel Prize. Chip, you've provided no evidence to support your own views in this debate. All you've done is try to poke holes in what I've provided. That's not really what I'd characterize as a frank exchange of views.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry. And in case you didn't notice, I was not claiming that because Carl Sagan, et al. believe evolution, that makes it repugnant. I was claiming that Christians are not the only ones who confuse science and metaphysics. Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics, but complain when Christians reject evolution for that very reason. That's not guilt by association. If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates.

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections. You just keep pointing to the science, which I've already conceded.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry.

But you've just made my point for me. How does, "it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere" contradict "Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry" It's no coincidence that it's only conservative religious people who have trouble accepting common ancestry. Common ancestry is just a fact that they have a tough time accepting because of their religion.

"If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates."

The three scientists you named were atheists and you think "atheism sucks." Hence, when you associate them with evolution it becomes guilt by association. It became obvious when you said, "[Sagan, Dawkins, Harris] use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes." I think "hopeless troglodytes" is an exaggeration.

Why didn't you associate evolution with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a conservative Christian evangelical who is the team leader of the Human Genome Project. He is also an evolutionist. How about Ken Miller, who you saw in the NOVA program? He is a Catholic. Their religious views should demonstrate to you that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Certainly Sagan, Dawkins, Harris, et al, have just as much right to claim there is no God as Collins has a right to claim there is. Chip just remember this, the God claims of both groups have nothing to do with the fact that species share genetic traits, common ancestry.

Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics...

I say evolution has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. It's like claiming atheist scientists use the theory of gravity to support their own metaphysics. Atheist scientists believe in gravity as a manifestation of space /time therefore the theory of "intelligent falling" (The theory that God makes things fall) is false? Ridiculous!

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections.

Fair enough. When you consider the fact I don't believe in the Christian God, provide an example of how you'd want me to answer, instead of pointing to the science. I'll follow your lead.

And with that, it pretty much ended. Mark later told me: "I enjoyed [the] conversation very much and that I hope we can do it again. I had fun doing this." You saw a similar comment by Chip above. As I said at the beginning, the goal was not to come to an agreement and convert the other, but to have a fair, respectful exchange of ideas. I think we have done that. It has given us ample information to check out and think deeply about.

I want to thank Chip and Mark again for participating and for being gentlemen.

So, as we wrap up, any comments on the conversation?

Evolution conversation, Part 5: Morally Neutral Evolution

Part 5 of 6, enjoy!

You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience for everyone and ignorance of it is perilous. But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation. And who was ever harmed by ignorance (or denial) of evolution? If you deny the operation of gravity, you could die. If you deny the operation of evolution (particularly common ancestry), you might be ostracized by biologists, but you're not likely to come to any harm. In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand. Evolution is much harder. In fact, evolution is counterintuitive.

"I can understand a position of agnosticism in regard to natural selection but common decent [sic] is a fact that can't be reasonably denied."

Are you claiming better evidence and support for common descent than for natural selection? I find this surprising. Natural selection can be tested and observed. Can common descent? Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?

I am not interested in a "god of the gaps." Such a god is not worthy of worship. It's fine with me if science vigorously pursues the question of the origin of life and discovers a naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for it. I don't want science to posit a god for the questions it can't answer. What good is such a god? Every advance of science diminishes his domain. Besides, how can science continue to
advance if it stops short whenever it comes up against god's territory? The God I worship is a lot bigger than this "god of the gaps."

The existence of everything in our experience is contingent. It is caused by something else. There are only two rational possibilities: there is an infinite regress of contingencies, which can be explained by universes that explode, expand, and collapse only to do it all again, or there is something that exists outside our experience that is not contingent. It is not rational to suppose that everything came from nothing.


_______________________________________

Do we quit when we start repeating ourselves?

Repetition is inevitable in creationist vs. evolution "debates" because creationists can't accept the facts presented by evolutionists. We've heard Chips arguments over and over again, from others. They've all been soundly debunked. For example, I've been playing "ID/Creationist Bingo." I've checked off the arguments used by Chip so far...

- Irreducible Complexity
- "Watch" "Mousetrap" or "Mt. Rushmore"
- Darwinism responsible for Hitler/Nazis
- Random/Chance
- Confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis
- No morality without God
- We haven't observed evolution

A few more replies from Chip and I'll have, creationist BINGO!

Here is the problem. Christians seem to be under the misconception that accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. I'd like to assure them that evolution itself does not preclude Jesus and Christianity. You can be a good Christian and an evolutionist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive! When Christians like Chip say things like, "It [evolution] is almost always part of a broader world view that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs" it's as if they believe accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. It needlessly puts them between an existential rock and hard place. That's why the only people who have trouble accepting common ancestry are theists. Evolution is accepted by the rest of the world. Once the evidence is presented, open minded people can see the truth of evolution immediately. But because accepting evolution entails naturalism in the minds of religious people, Christians can't regard evolution without bias. That's sad!

Evolution, like all solid scientific theories, is morally neutral. Evolution simply explains common ancestry. Christians believe evolution is "evil" only because science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with, common descent. Chip, this is the reason you are an "Evolution agnostic." It's not because there is not enough evidence for you to decide if evolution is true or not. It's because you've created this false dichotomy for yourself of evolution vs. God. I just want you to realize that evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image. So, when you say, "They [Christians] wish to assert that humans are more [than animals]", it rings hollow. Why? Because, evolution says nothing about man as the spiritual image of God. But genetically, not spiritually, there is no denying, we share a common ancestry with animals. When Christians deny this, they are using their faith to suppress the logical conclusion the facts would have normally lead them to otherwise.

The fact is, I feel I have failed you, and Nick, and the other creationists reading my words as if they mean nothing. I have failed to explain evolution well enough to convince you that it is how life really works. I spend so much time and effort trying to convince fundamentalist Christians because I honestly feel truth can change their lives for the better, give them a wider view of the world and in the process, make them a little wiser. This is the goal of all teachers. But, I feel like Don Quixote. I do battle with the windmills of ignorance, not knowing or not accepting the fact that it's a futile endeavor. Yet I fight on. The fact of the matter is, if your mind is already made up about evolution, I can't change it. Only you can.

With that hope, I'm going to debunk more of your anti-evolution arguments now.

"But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation."

"Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution." - Mark I. Vuletic

"You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience..."

The experience of gravity is easy to understand. The theory itself, a manifestation of space and time... not so much. You are equivocating BADLY between the effects of gravity and the actual theory.

"In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand."

You mean the effects of gravity, not the theory itself. I think the theory of evolution itself is much more intuitive than the theory of gravity. Nick, this is for you and all other fair minded readers curious about...

How Evolution REALLY Works (in less than 10 minutes)


See? Evolution is very intuitive when explained correctly! Chip, to download the code for the simulation go to: http://files-upload.com/files/621209/Evolution%20Functions.zip

"In fact, evolution is counterintuitive."

Not to anyone else but American Christians, it seems.

"Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?"

Not true. As one example, in 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992) The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has completely disavowed this argument.

"I can't imagine the world without God."

From Chip's post, "Atheism Sucks". Chip, "Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them." - Scout, "To Kill A Mockingbird"

I'd like to finish where I began. Here is a picture showing some shared genetic traits between two species.

Two Peas in a Pod

It's a fact there is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. What is the explanation of the shared genes evident in this picture? Common ancestry, of course. If there is an alternative scientific theory that explains HOW species share the same genetic traits, the world hasn't heard it yet. It's an undeniable fact that evolution, like gravity, happens. The theories of gravity and evolution explain how. One sees the effect of gravity when they observe the tide changing. One sees the effect of macroevolution when they observe the genetic similarities between different species.

Creationist's who believe only in microevolution fail to take evolution to it's logical conclusion: that if animals evolve within the Species level, then they also evolve in the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus levels as well. It only makes sense.

Evolution Conversation, Part 4: Evolutionary Agnosticism

Here is part 4 of the conversation. It is lengthy, but that is only because it takes a lot of space to adequately dialogue about these issues. Here we go.

I would not describe myself as a theistic evolutionist. I'm more of an evolution agnostic: I'm not convinced that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is right. From a scientific standpoint evolution seems to me eminently reasonable. But the history of science is littered with theories once widely believed and now discarded. Moreover, I am not convinced of the supremacy of scientific understanding. Religion has insight into human behavior that science is only beginning to appreciate. Perhaps religion should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, even those of science.

I can't pretend to speak for all Christians or even for evangelical Christians. There are plenty of Christians who are young earth creationists. They deny the claims of evolution altogether. They insist that a worldwide flood occurred in the time of Noah, that God created each species in a separate act of special creation, that dinosaurs were just overgrown lizards contemporaneous with human beings before the flood. They believe that scientists wickedly distort the evidence to support evolution and that there is a vast conspiracy in science and academia to suppress the truth of God found in the Bible. As for me, I'm especially skeptical of vast conspiracies, no matter how well-constructed. I believe that most people, scientists included, prefer uncomfortable truth to comforting delusion. I'm sympathetic to the creationists because I know how absolutely fundamental they consider the truth of God's word to be. The difference between us is that I don't regard the Genesis account as literal. I do regard it as nevertheless true.

I don't have trouble believing that God could have created the first organism, whether through special creation (God spoke and it was so), or by natural processes. I find it odd that if it was by natural processes, then the best efforts of science to duplicate those processes have so far failed. If it was a natural process, how hard can it be? Life apparently presupposes life. Not a problem for a God who is life. But for those who deny the existence of God, the problem of where life comes from remains a serious issue. I think most Christians do not have a problem with regarding humans as a species of animal. Even in Genesis, the first man is formed from the stuff of this world and looks for a companion among the animals. The problem comes from the unscientific assertion that human beings are nothing more than animals. Evolution seems to leave no room for God to breathe into the man the breath of life and make him a living soul. Perhaps, as C. S. Lewis suggests in Mere Christianity, there was a time in history when God visited one or more of our hominid ancestors and made him more than an animal. I do not know (though it would go a long way toward explaining where Cain got his wife). The problem is not that humans have an animal nature; it is that they also have spiritual nature. Christians do not wish to deny the fact that humans are animals (though many vigorously deny common ancestry). They wish to assert that humans are more. They are little gods made in the image of the one God. That image is not a physical image, for God is a spirit. It is a spiritual image. Common ancestry seems to deny this, which is why it is such a sticking point.

It may be unfair to blame evolution for social Darwinism. I don't know. But I can't help noticing that the most strident proponents of evolution are atheists. Why is that? In fact, most scientists are atheists. Why? There is nothing inherently more believable about atheism. It offers no overarching purpose for life. It offers no comfort for the bereaved. It provides no basis for ethics, law, or politics. The only relief I can see in it is that you can do what you want in life without fear of facing judgment afterward. This seems to me a wicked and selfish reason for being an atheist.

Now an atheist might respond that there is no evidence that God exists. Here we get to Paley's argument again. My point has nothing to do with complexity. We know that it requires intelligence to create a simulation of reality. As you pointed out, only people program, write, and paint. Tell me how it is credible that only people can create simulations of reality (programs, books, and paintings), yet the reality they simulate was not created? I do not contend that the complexity of reality implies design; I contend that the existence of anything at all implies a creator. In short, if there were no self-existent God, there would be nothing whatever.

By the way, where do these videos come from? They're very good, and I've never seen them before. Do you really have a video that shows how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved by single protein steps? If so, I'd like to see it. Also if so, is there any evidence for the evolution occurring as shown? In the NOVA special, they seemed to imply that having more steps between the syringe structure and the flagellum made it somehow more certain that it had evolved. That's ridiculous. The greater the number of intermediate steps, the longer it will take, but the greater the complexity of intermediate steps the less likely that they could ever happen at all. If going from syringe to flagellum requires 20 single protein steps that preserve some kind of utility for the organism, then that's believable evolution. If it requires one step involving 20 proteins, then that's impossible (or close enough to be considered miraculous).

The music was okay. I didn't really listen to it because I was engaged in reading the words, but it sounded like MXPX or POD, which are bands by kids have listened to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

An evolution agnostic? Like a gravity agnostic? I'd like to ask for clarification. Are you agnostic regarding common descent or are you agnostic in regard to the mechanism of evolution, natural selection? I can understand a position of agnosticism in regard to natural selection but common decent is a fact that can't be reasonably denied. It's equally as difficult to be reasonably agnostic toward common descent. It's like being agnostic about the Earth orbiting the Sun.

"Perhaps religion should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, even those of science"

It would be like "The Lottery" from Shirley Jackson's short story. Not a good idea.

"But for those who deny the existence of God, the problem of where life comes remains a serious issue."

You say, "the history of science is littered with theories once widely believed and now discarded" as if that were a negative. There are many things that are unknown to science, including the origin of life. What science doesn't do is posit a God for what it can't explain; the proverbial "god of the gaps" if you will. Religions answer to the question of life's origin with, "God did it." So even if religion does have an answer where science does not, it's worthless from a "how?" standpoint because it explains nothing. Religion pretends to have the answers to this fundamental question where science doesn't. I think science takes the more humble stance. Ann Druyan makes this point much better than I do. (4 and a half minutes)


"The problem comes from the unscientific assertion that human beings are nothing more than animals."

The genetic evidence supporting common ancestry is certainly scientific and it's not an assertion, it's a fact. When you look at this picture, are you saying that the shared genetic traits aren't obvious? There is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. That's common ancestry. If you believe that humans have a divine soul that other animals lack, I have no problem with that. I don't think other evolutionists do either. I hope this might ease the "God's image" sticking point you mentioned. From a psychological standpoint, I too believe that humans are different from animals. But physically, there is no point denying, we are animals.

"But I can't help noticing that the most strident proponents of evolution are atheists. Why is that? In fact, most scientists are atheists. Why? There is nothing inherently more believable about atheism. It offers no overarching purpose for life. It offers no comfort for the bereaved. It provides no basis for ethics, law, or politics. The only relief I can see in it is that you can do what you want in life without fear of facing judgment afterward. This seems to me a wicked and selfish reason for being an atheist."

Is this your personal opinion of atheism? To me, this sounds just like rhetoric I've heard a million times before. I'll address this if it bothers you. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

"I do not contend that the complexity of reality implies design; I contend that the existence of anything at all implies a creator."

This is also an old argument. Usually it goes, the big bang theory says the universe came from nothing and it's impossible for something to come from nothing. This is a conundrum of causation. Simply put, "Which came first? The Chicken? Or, the egg?" Until science is able to formulate a unified theory of gravity that reconciles general relativity with quantum theory, science can't explain. You mentioned that you read Stephen Hawking's, "A brief History of Time?" Paging through my copy, the quest of a unified theory of gravity is the overarching theme of his book. But again, religion posits "God did it" for what it can't explain. The God of the gaps lives again.

"By the way, where do these videos come from?"

I was trying to explain to creationists that the Earth is older than 6000 years when I stumbled upon this gem. It's so elegant and simple. (5 minutes)


You can find the rest of cdk007's videos here. The flagellum video is there too.

I liked that last video, but be careful! The song will get in your head and not leave!

Your thoughts on the conversation so far?

Evolution Conversation Update

A quick update: The NOVA special that was referred to in the last post and that will be refernced again can be viewed in its entirety here. Thanks to Mark for pointing this out.

Evolution Conversation, Part 3: The Nature of Humanity

Here is part 3 of this conversation. The conversation picks up assuming you have wathced the video from part 2, so be sure to catch up before you read this one. My comments follow the entries.

I'm afraid I may be a bit of a disappointment for you. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think young earth creationism squares at all well with observable facts. Even if you doubt radiometric dating (which I do not), you can go to Greenland and dig up ice cores from the glaciers there where snow has been falling for thousands of years. The snow forms annual layers in the ice, something like the rings of a tree. You can see the layers with the naked eye. and, if you have enough patience, you can count the layers going back 50,000 years. If the earth was created only 6-10 thousand years ago, then God must have made it with a history (much as a novelist gives a backstory to his characters). Such a position is not and cannot be scientific. It supposes that God made the world 6,000 years ago but gave us no evidence that allows us to verify it. Without evidence there is nothing for science to work on. I think the earth is about 5 billion years old. That squares well with the evidence.

By faith I understand that the universe and everything in it was created by God. I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation. I do not understand Genesis literally any more than I understand Psalm 139:13 as a literal knitting together. David speaks of having been created despite knowing that he was born through natural processes. In the same way, I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes. Science may describe these processes in great detail but cannot provide a clue to their purpose. In a sense, therefore, I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process. It may be the means by which God chooses to create living things.

However, evolution is rarely presented in this pure form. It is almost always part of a broader worldview that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs. It is in this context, I think, that Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians, find themselves opposed to evolution. If evolutionists want to persuade Christians instead of marginalizing and alienating them, then they need to lay aside their own antireligious biases and show respect for the Christian beliefs that are NOT in conflict with evolution. Here are some of the problems:

1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative. And pushing the problem to another planet is not a solution.

2. The uniqueness of humans. Christian doctrine sees human beings as unique in many respects. They are made in the image of God, meaning that they have a spiritual component that outlasts their physical life. They are capable of good and evil and have fallen from their original innocence, so that their nature is fundamentally flawed. They are incapable of perfection and in need of redemption. Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds.

3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Though I generally hate arguments that play the Nazi card---want to vilify your opponent? Call him a Nazi, or show that he is associated with Nazis---the fact is that the Nazi concept of the master race owes much of its credibility to social Darwinism. Though social Darwinism has fallen into disrepute, I don't think any positive good ever came of it. (Of course, the notion that we can somehow help evolution along presupposes a goal for evolution that coincides with our own goals).

I found the evolving clocks in the linked video very entertaining. I have a couple of comments. One of the arguments often advanced in favor of evolution is that it works in computer simulations like this one. Years ago I even wrote an evolutionary simulation myself. However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks. The programmer also had to decide what accuracy could mean in the early stages of the evolution when the 'clocks' were too rudimentary to keep time. These constraints are all imposed from outside the system. Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator.

I noted, however, that the transitions from one clock 'species' to another were quite sudden. This I found interesting because it may help explain the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. I'm not saying I find the demonstration convincing, but it is compelling.

Mark responds, and his way of responding is to quote Chip and respond directly to what Chip said. I have italicized his quotes of Chip, but left them in tact for clarity. They follow the color scheme that Chip has had throughout.


I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes... I have no problem with evolution considered purely as a natural process."

I'd say your beliefs are similar to those of theistic evolutionists. This is so refreshing! I'm used to dealing with outright denial. In response I'll say, I have no problem with the belief of evolution as a process that's guided by God. Science is concerned with the natural not the supernatural. Where I tend to balk is when I encounter people who use their faith to suppress sound scientific results while making public policy. Global warming, stem cell research, abstinence only AIDS prevention, for example. In such cases, science should be used to inform policy and put to question ALL assumptions, religion's included.

"1. The question of origins. While I agree that abiogenesis is not essential to evolution, it almost always accompanies it. If natural processes are all there are (i. e., God did not purposely create life), then life must have arisen from non-living matter. There simply is no alternative."

Well, when you say, "I believe every human being is uniquely created by God by means of natural processes" is it really that great a leap to believe that God created the first microscopic life form through natural processes as well? I guess I still don't see the connection between evolution and abiogenesis. In "The Origin of Species," Darwin hypothesized that all living organisms originated from one or a few common ancestors. I may be mistaken, but I don't recall Darwin ever speculating on how or why this common ancestor came into being. Maybe evolution is getting a bad rap from abiogenesis as you claim, but I think the core objection theists have resides with common ancestry, which is your second point, not abiogenesis.

"2. ...Evolution, by contrast, sees human beings as descended from animal ancestors. They are not unique except in terms of their greater capabilities to reason and express complex ideas, build complex structures, and wonder about their own purpose. In a purely natural universe, good and evil have no meaning, and human beings are no more fallen than hummingbirds."

In fact, evolution views humans as another species of animal; ape to be precise. I don't think there is anything that can be done about alienating Christians when it comes to this. Personally, I have to acknowledge this as a fact. A fact is a fact. It's not that science and evolution have an "anti-religious bias." It's that science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with. Though dealing with the fact that humans are animals is difficult, I don't think it's possible to reasonably deny it. It's not reasonable to deny any fact. If one does, it's denying reality which is the definition of delusion. I'll try to offer some comfort in this quote from British Prime Minister William E. Gladstone (1809-1898)...

"...if pride causes us to deem it an indignity that our race should have proceeded by propagation from an ascending scale of inferior organisms, why should it be a more repulsive idea to have sprung immediately from something less than man in brain and body, than to have been fashioned according to the expression in Genesis (Chap. II., v. 7), "out of the dust of the ground?" There are halls and galleries of introduction in a palace, but none in a cottage; and this arrival of the creative work at its climax through an ever aspiring preparatory series, rather than by transition at a step from the inanimate mold of the earth, may tend to magnify than to lower the creation of man on its physical side."

"3. Social Darwinism. The impact of Darwinism quickly moved far beyond biological science. It became the justification for repugnant social policies, including racial and ethnic cleansing and eugenics."

Much like I don't think it's fair to blame all the misuses of religion upon religion as a whole, I don't think it's fair to blame evolution for it's corruptions either. Evolution, like all solid scientific theories is morally neutral. Evolution explains common ancestry. Atomic theory explains fusion within stars. Is it fair to blame atomic theory itself, or Niels Bohr, for applications like the A-bomb? I'd also point out that eugenics is an ancient concept practiced by the Spartans who would throw any sickly babies off a cliff, the Apothetae, if they didn't meet the Spartan ideal. Life unworthy of life was practiced 2300 years before the Nazis, yet Christians blame Darwin?

"The abandonment of sick, puny and misshapen children by the Spartans was more humanitarian and, in reality, a thousand times more humane than the pitiful madness of our present time where the most sickly subjects are preserved at any price only to be followed by the breeding of a race from degenerates burdened with disease." - Adolf Hitler

"Put another way, the existence of a program implies a programmer. I could go on: the existence of a book implies an author; the existence of a painting implies an artist; the existence of a universe implies a creator."

Again, this is William Paley's old argument rehashed with programs, paintings, and books instead of watches.

The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
The video went to great pains to show that this does not necessarily follow. It explicitly stated why this analogy is a straw man. Unlike living things, clocks, programs, books, and paintings, don't reproduce, don't mutate, and aren't subject to natural selection. We know that the existence of a program implies a programmer, the existence of a book implies an author, the existence of a painting implies a painter because WE KNOW only people program, write, and paint (exception: elephants can paint like Jackson Pollack and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference). We DON'T KNOW that the complexity of life implies a supernatural designer. It's just been demonstrated that even something as complex as life happened through evolution. "You may argue that life is more complex than a clock. Any biologist will agree. But remember, you thought the clock [program, book, painting] was complex enough to construct this straw man in the first place. You can't have it both ways."

"However, such arguments tend to ignore a basic fact: the entire process is designed to produce a particular outcome. In the case of the evolving clocks, the criterion for survival imposed by the programmer was accuracy in keeping time. So, of course, the solutions converged on accurate clocks."

In the wild, instead of evolving clocks we'd have evolving organisms. The criterion for survival would be imposed by nature instead of imposed by the programmer. The solutions would converge on things like ability to avoid predators, ability to mate, finding food, etc. instead of solutions that converge on accurate clocks.

I need to interject. At this point, Mark begins referring to an episode of NOVA about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution that was on a few weeks ago and that all three of us watched. The main conversation followeing the video revolved around the arguement of Irreducable Complexity. Mark is responding to the Irreducible Complexity arguement here.

At this point Chip, I wanted to talk about your email regarding the NOVA program, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial." There is a reason Judge John Jones ruled Intelligent Design to be unscientific. In an effort to keep this email at a reasonable length, I beg your indulgence in watching another video which I think directly addresses your comments, and in fact, turns your assertion, "The concept of irreducible complexity is an important one and played a role in criticisms of evolution long before ID" completely on it's head.

The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity (6 minutes)


P.S. I apologize for the music. It's my style but maybe not yours. :)

We are really rolling now, and we have perhaps gotten to our first irreconcilable difference between Chip and Mark: the nature of humanity. Are we more evolved apes? Are we special in a significant way, beyong our resoning capabilities?

Your thoughts?

Evolution Conversation, Part 2: Evolution Like Gravity?

Below is the start of the meat of this conversation. We let Chip go first, since he is older, and you will find his opening statement below. Mark then responds with his own opening statement.

I confess I have not read anything by Darwin, but I have a pretty good grasp of the three elements claimed to be necessary for evolution to occur. They are:
1) Natural selection, which simply says that organisms better suited for survival tend to live and pass on their genetic material to later generations while those ill-suited for survival tend not to pass on theirs.
2) Genetic mutation, which means that new characteristics can appear unpredictably in the "family tree" of an organism.
3) Lots of time, which is required for an essentially random processes to generate changes that might actually give an organism a survival advantage. Of these three, I think the first is noncontroversial. Most everyone seems to agree that natural selection occurs. We have observed it in all kinds of organisms from the famous
peppered moths to the parasite that causes malaria.

Many Christians take issue with the third element, claiming that the earth is nowhere near as old as scientists make it out to be. Some even adhere to a strict interpretation of Genesis that puts the creation about 6,000 years ago. This is despite overwhelming evidence that the earth is far older. For example, many Christians love to point to some instances in which material taken from living trees was declared by carbon-14 dating to be hundreds of years old. They seem to think that this discredits all the evidence from radiometric dating. But radiometric dating has been shown to be highly reliable, and the amount and proportions of various radioactive materials present in the earth's crust are consistent with an earth that is at least 5 billion years old. If God created the earth 6,000 years ago, he gave it a great backstory, which scientists have been trying to piece together. My only quarrel with the way Darwinist's make use of time is that they don't have nearly enough of it. If the universe were 100 times as old as it is generally believed to be (about 15 billion years), it would still not be nearly enough time for all the random changes needed to produce the astounding variety and complexity of life on earth.

However, the biggest problem for Darwinism is what we know about genetic mutation. We know that small mutations are rarely significant. We know that big mutations are always catastrophic and usually produce sterile offspring. The problem is that small mutations cannot account for the complex structures that suddenly emerge in the fossil record, and big mutations can't produce any evidence of viability.

Another problem for Darwinism is the inadequacy of its explanations for how living things began in the first place. All attempts to produce the most basic self-replicating organisms in the laboratory from inorganic material have failed. About the only thing they have shown is that life could not have arisen from nonliving antecedents. It begins to look more and more as if the first living things must have been intentionally designed to be complex, self-replicating structures.

Mark offers his opening statement in response to Chip.

I'll start off by stating that there is no debate in the scientific community in regard to macro evolution. Like gravity, macro evolution happens, there is no doubt about either. It's a fact. What is not established fact are the mechanisms for macro evolution. What scientists debate is not if gravity and evolution happen, but how.

The "controversy" about evolution is generated by those who do not understand or do not accept the fact of evolution. I'll say that I'm not keen on debating the fact of evolution. To me, it's as pointless as debating whether the Earth is round or flat.

Here is a picture showing some shared genetic traits between two species. Scientists consider this genetic evidence "overwhelming."

Two Peas in a Pod
It's a fact there is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. A creationist would say that God created these species as is. There is no science to support this. So then, what is the scientific explanation of the shared genes evident in this picture? Common ancestry, of course. If there is an alternative scientific theory that explains HOW species share the same genetic traits, the world hasn't heard it yet.

Just to clarify, I'd like to ask Chip, what position are you advocating? Do you take Genesis literally? You don't believe the Earth is 6k-10k old rather, 4.5 billion years old? Are you a theistic evolutionist? If it's the latter, I'll grant you that God could have created the very first micro organism and used evolution from then on in a "guided" process through natural selection. If nature selects which traits survive, it's certainly not a random process at all. If evolution were a true random process like a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters to produce Shakespeare, then 4.5 billion years wouldn't be enough time. Here is an experiment that debunks notion evolution is a random process and demonstrates the effectiveness of mutation coupled with natural selection ...

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker (It's less than 10 minutes long)


Another point mentioned is that evolution can't explain the origin of life. This is off topic. Evolution posits nothing about life's origin. You're actually speaking about abiogenesis.

The issue I'm most interested in exploring in the course of our conversation is what motivates Christians to attack evolution, probably one of the most established scientific theories since Galileo and the scientific method 400 years ago. The only people who have trouble accepting common ancestry are theists. To me, this indicates that their objections are largely religious in nature, not scientific. Why for example, don't theists advocate "intelligent falling" instead of the theory of gravity? Scientists don't even know what gravity is. It's a huge "gap" in gravitational theory. Perhaps God is responsible for gravity.

In the end, those who take the Bible literally cannot accept the fact of evolution because it contradicts Genesis. It would topple their world view. So, fundamentalist Christians (using the term only to indicate biblical literalism) are forced to deny that which is obvious to the rest of the world. Isn't it strange that secular peoples all over the world have no scientific objection to common ancestry? Most opposition to evolution seems to be localized to Christian fundamentalists in the United States, for religious reasons and not scientific objections.

You said,"I also agree with Nick that science has limits. In particular, it is very good at answering "how" questions and very poor at answering "why""

If science is very good at answering "how?" and religion is good at answering "why?" then why is religion attempting to answer "how?" specifically, in regard to evolution? Science answers "how?" with evolution. Religions answer with different "truths." Not surprising really, since religion is geared to answering "why" and not "how."

"Whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing. It would, of course, be absurd to speak of “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra.” And there is no such thing as Iraqi or Japanese -- as distinct from American -- science. Reasonable people really do have a monopoly on the truth." - Sam Harris

I find it interesting how they take different approaches early on. Chip has referred to some of the classic problems with Evolution. Rather than to go on the defensive right away, Mark focuses on the "overwealming evidence" for Evolution. In addition, Mark makes a great point about who it is that actually has a problem with Evolution, saying "Most opposition to evolution seems to be localized to Christian fundamentalists in the United States." A very interesting point.

How would you respond to this?

Evolution Conversation, Part 1: Introduction

The next series of articles I will be posting will be the results of a conversation I initiated and moderated while two friends of mine had a conversation about Evolution. I call it a conversation for a reason, and as I have written before, I think that is a very important practice that needs to happen in order to challenge our thinking, stretch our minds, and weed out our faulty notions. A conversation has give and take, humility, respect, and does not include certain elements that are so prevalent in the constant bickering that goes on in the blogosphere, particularly the Christian blogosphere, things like name-calling, and worse, offering "trump card arguments" like, "the Bible says it, and that is all the truth I need!" Whether or not that is true, we as Christians have the burden to be able to back up our claims with well reasoned dialogue and reasons that can hold up under scrutiny.

This state of affairs seems particularly true when matters of science are brought to the forefront. Christians seem to be hesitant to talk about scientific matters. So, in order to fight against this stereotype, in this first conversation (of many?) I moderated this conversation about Evolution. Evolution is quite a hot topic in the world today and in the continuing dialogue between the growing team of outspoken atheists and Christians. Before I tell you about the people in the conversation, let me share with you the rules that we layed out before the conversation started.

1. I am calling this a conversation for a reason, because a debate tends to sound angry and hostile.I what there to b give and take, respect, and grace given to each other. Obviously there should be no name calling or personal attacks.

They followed this one fine. There were some condescending tones, but they were certainly towards arguments and ideas rather than people.

2. Please try and respond in a timely manner (within 48 hours).

3. Please be sure to click "reply all" to keep me in the loop.

4. Try to keep all references to outside info contained in the conversation as much as possible. For example, if you reference a site/book and link to it, summarize your point so we are not left having to read a 15 page article with no commentary from the poster.

This one too was followed for the most part. Mark did link to videos and pictures that took some time to view, but it was never a burden. It flowed well with the conversation.

With that I will tell you a bit about how I know each of the participants. Chip has been a friend of mine for several years. He and I attended the same church and we have had many conversations about a myriad of issues regarding faith, science, math etc. He is very wise a a good thinker. He also loves Jesus and does all he can to live for him. Here is the bio he wrote for himself at the beginning of the conversation.

My name is Chip Burkitt. I am over 50, which I think is accurate enough for our purposes, and I've been married 23 years. I have six children all of whom are highly intelligent, remarkably good-looking, and impressively talented. I agree with Nick that Christians are usually abysmally ignorant of science, and too willing to discredit science that does not agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible despite overwhelming evidence. But I have to say that the nonChristians I have known are equally ignorant and prejudiced, and, lest I sound too elitist, I confess that I have sometimes said stupid things, too.

I also agree with Nick that science has limits. In particular, it is very good at answering "how" questions and very poor at answering "why" questions. I am not a scientist myself, nor do I have a background in science. My background is in English literature (especially 18th century British) and desktop computing. Nevertheless, I believe I can understand any rational explanations commonly offered in defense of most scientific theories. I have read and understood Einstein's Relativity and most of Hawking's Brief History of Time.

Mark, who refers to himself as Cineaste, I have never known face to face, but I have read and dialogued with him for some time in the blogosphere, most often at www.timellsworth.com, where you can always find him stirring the pot and making people angry by his arguments. I immediately took a liking to his disciplined thinking and how he did not put up with bad logic and bad answers by Christians. He is an aggressive debater, but he seems to be always good humored. Here is how Mark introduces himself.

Name: Mark
Age: 36
Occupation: Consultant
Status: Single, in a relationship
Residence: Chicago, IL
Favorite Film: Ikiru directed by, Akira Kurosawa
School: Virginia Military Institute
Religion: None, though agnostic in regard to Spinoza's God

Guiding Philosophy: Existentialism - A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Countries visited: Canada, Mexico, Philippines, Japan, New Zealand, England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and many other European countries. I'd like to visit Greece next.

My conversation style: I reference videos, articles, cartoons to help make my points.

With Chip and Mark now introduced, I want to make a few comments about what this is and what this is not. First of all, this is a chance for us all to stretch our minds and challenge what we think. Jesus said that we should love the Lord our God with all our minds. Christians seldom do that. I also believe the old cliche that "all truth is God's truth." Our goal in this conversation is that we are looking for truth, and I think if we take that attitude, we will all be better off.

Secondly, this is not an attempt to convert Mark to Christianity or Chip to Darwinism (or anything else). Conversations are for learning and growing, not to "take another prisoner into our camp." You will see that the conversation does not yield much practical good. They did not solve the abiogenesis problem, for example. But they do make us think.

Lastly, this is not a time to get angry. I would ask you to lay down your right to get angry or offended. In these contexts, getting angry does not help. It only middies the waters.

Also, as a practical note, I have left Chip and Mark's comments in tact as much as possible. On the occasions where editing is needed, I have done my best to get their original point across. Both Chip and Mark will be following along with us, so if I get what they say wrong, you can be sure that they will correct me :)

I will close part one with the questioned that I offered them at the start, to guide their thinking. Think of how you would respond to this.

What are the facts about Evolution and what are the holes, does/can God fit into Evolution and, if so how, and does Creation make more sense?

In part 2, we will hear there opening statements and get into the conversation.

Reaction to Tragedies

Tony Campolo has a reputation for, among other things, his reactions to disasters and trajedies. Naturally, whenever a trajedy happens or a natural disaster occurs, you will hear talk about "Why did God let this happen?" Campolo is right in asserting that there are some very bad answers to this question, including statements like "God is punishing America" and others. But how does he respond?

There are three examples that I will point to of reactions by Campolo about disasters. The first is from an article written in 2006 shortly after hurrican Katrina pounded the Louisianna coast. Campolo says this:

Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious. That is why we can sing in the Hallelujah Chorus, "the kingdoms of this world [will] become the Kingdom of our Lord."

He also says that when the hurricane hit, that God was "the first one who wept."

Campolo would also argue that saying "all suffering is part of God's plan" is also wrong. He would argue that God is not the author of evil.

This takes us to the second example of Campolo's response to another trajedy. This response comes from Campolo's podcast where he is duiscussing the Virginia Tech shootings that happened earlier this year.

I say things that get incredible uproars because people don't think, and it's as simple as this: God is not in control of everything. I know that is going to sound like heresy because we love to say in the midst of everything that's going on "Oh, God's in control, God's in control, God's in control." Well that is absolutely absurd. God did not bring about Auschwitz. God does not bring about these horrible events on this planet. They are the doings of human beings in most instances.

May I say this: It is obvious that God is not in control by God's own choice. When God created Adam and Eve he gave them freedom. Now, you can't give your children freedom and still say you're in control of them....If you're a father or a mother and you say I'm going to give my children freedom to make their own decisions. Great, but when you do that have you not relenquished control over them? Have you not said "I am not going to be in a determining position in their lives"? I'm going to let them make their own mistakes. I'm going to let them screw up their own lives if they want to. I hope they do the right thing but I've done as much for them as I can and now it's time for them to stand on their own two feet so I'm going to give them their freedom." When you give freedom, you relenquish control. God gave the human race freedom. He had power. He relenquished that power. He gave to human beings the freedom to make decisions both negative and positive.

It's important that we recognize that this is essential, because God want something special from all of us. He wants us to love him. Love cannot be coerced. Love cannot take place when you're in a controlled situation....[God says] "I'm gving to each human being the freedom to love me or to reject me."...It is a decision that is made freely without coercion from God. That means that God is not in control of everything that happens.

If god was in control of everything, everybody would be saved, everybody would be a Christian. There we be no sin in the world if God was in control of everything. God has had to give up control in order to make us into free beings; creatures who are cpable of loving him in return and loving each other in return. What we do with that freedom has been horrendous, but it has also been glorius.

The final example I will share also comes from his podcast, and it is referring to the tsunami that hit off the coasts of the Soloman Islands. Here is his response:

One of the things I say that gets me into a great deal of trouble is the fact that, Christians particularly, are not ready to face up to the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden causing the fall...that it not only effected them and the destiny of the human race, but it's quite clear from scripture that all of nature was effected....Nature is fallen. It is not the phisical world that God has inteded for it to be. That is a basic Christian doctrine. And when we talk about salvation, we are talking about salvation not only for we ourselves, if you go to the eighth chapter of Romans, go ahead and read it startng with the 17th verse, not only we ourselves need salvation, but all of creation longs for restoration, longs for being saved from its present state. The fall of humanuty in Adam brought about horrors not only for the human race, but horrors for the whole natural world, the whole physical world. and so it will be that when all of humaity is saved and redeemed upon the second coming of Christ, so will the physical universe be delieverd from its present suffering.

Okay, so there is the information, given to you in context as best I can. How do we respond to this? Some have gone as far as to boldly call Campolo a heretic for his beliefs on this issue, which I think is absolutely rediculous. I will admit if you take a statement or two out of context, like "God is not in control...", it is a bit alarming. However, I think when you see his arguement in context it is much more orthodox than we would like to think at first.

There are several levels to this issue. The second example cited above is nothing more than the age old arguement between Calvinists and Armenians concerning the sovereignty of God versus human free will. If you believe that humans have free will, then Campolo makes a great arguement in the second example that God is not in control of everything.

Where he begins to push the envelope a bit more is when he begins to talk about natural disasters (weather) and creation. I'm not sure what he would say spicifically about this, whether God can and does control weather sometimes, or whether God is not in control of weather at all. Certainly we see in scripture God controlling weather, sending rain etc., so I doubt he would say God cannot control it. Regardless, it seems clear that Campolo believes that nature is fallen and that God is not directly responsible for the evils that come from natural disasters.

Okay, now here is my question: Why is that so contraversial? And, even if you disagree, is it enough to call him a heretic? Perhaps it is simply a discomfort we feel when we hear someone say that God is not in complete control. We want to know we are safe, defended, protected. In response I would say that we are forced to accept one uncomfortable believe: either God is in complete control and cause/allows things to happen, or he is not in complete control of everything. so, again I ask 2 questions: 1) What is so wrong with what Campolo is saying?, and 2) Where do you come down on this centuries old disagreement?

Update:
Someone asked where they can find more info about this stuff. Here are a couple links.
Tony Campolo's website
The link to find Campolo's podcast and sermons

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation

There is a new spiritual discipline that is emerging in the world today. Actually, to say that it is emerging is to ignore thousands of years of history where this has taken place. This new discipline that is becoming so popular is conversation. When two people agree (explicitly or unexplicitly) to set aside the destructive habits of name calling, put downs, cop outs etc. and have an actual conversation, where both opinions are valued and listened to, amazing things can happen. Let me dive into this a little deeper by responding to some questions that may arise.

Why Spiritual?

This is a spiritual discipline because I am talking specifically about conversations that have spiritual implications. This discipline can certainly exist outside the bounds of spirituality, as some other spiritual disciplines do (i.e. study, giving etc.), but I am referring to the discussion of issues with spiritual implications.

Why is it a Discipline?

It is a discipline because many people find it very hard to listen these day. In addition, so many people have trouble clearly articulating what it is they think and believe in an honest, rational, clear manner. That takes discipline. To be clear, those are the two essentials to this spiritual discipline: listening and clear, rational communication. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to be humble, consider opinions other than their own, and allow themselves to be stretched. So many Christians only read books they agree with, listen to speakers who think just like them, and surround themselves with people who confirm their presuppositions. this spiritual discipline of conversation is the answer to that dangerous circumstance.

Why is it important?

First an foremost, it is important because it forces us to humble ourselves. tony Campolo says that none of have a perfect theology, and in some sense are all heretics. That is a good place to start: to realize that we don't have it all figured out.

Secondly, it is important because it helps us find truth. In the middle ages, the corrupt Catholic church was unwilling to listen to any voices that challenged it, as it wielded the sword of excommunication or burning at the stake. It took Martin Luther and a hammer to speak out. Note: this was not a conversation, it was an intervention. But, had there been two way communication, perhaps it would not have gotten as corrupt as it did.

In addition, there was a significant time period where the majority of white people, even in the church, believed that the enslavement of African Americans was okay. Luckily, through conversations among churches and followers of Christ, some were led to stand up for their black brothers and sisters and eventually slavery was abolished. Without important questions being asked and important conversations taking place, these changes may never have happened.

Why is it becoming so popular?

Two reasons I can point to. First, the Emergent Church is moving away from dogmatism and towards conversation. They are teaching us this spiritual discipline through humility and the quest for truth.

The second is the rise of the blog, in which millions of people are interacting and sharing ideas much easier than before. There is a lot of weird stuff out there, but there is also a lot of great stuff, good ideas, and well reasoned theology. If you want to stretch yourself, all you have to do is stroll around some of the blogs that are out there and you are forced to think.

One other thing to note: the rise of conversation is not to say that there is no absolute truth. There must be a good balance between listening, thinking, and considering, as well as with understanding biblical truth. however, we would all agree that the Bible is interpreted in a myriad of ways, so often times it is those interpretations and the carrying out of this interpretations that we are conversing about.

I say all this as an introduction to a conversation that I have been moderating as of late. A personal friend of mine, Chip Burkitt, and a blog friend, Mark Cineaste, agreed to participate in an email conversation about Evolution. The former is a Christian man who continually struggles with the balance of science and religion, and would argue that these are not in tension. The latter is an Existentialist agnostic who believes both micro and macro-evolution as fact. Both are great thinkers. Both are very wise. Both are great at this spiritual discipline of conversation.

My next series of posts will be sharing this conversation. I was the initiator and moderator, but they are the minds and the voices. Allow their conversation to stretch what you believe and even what you know to be true. Be sure to stay tuned!

"Live in Peace With All Men"

"Make every effort to live in peace with all men..." Hebrews 12:14a

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matthew 5:11

I don't about you, but these verses seem to be at least the slightest bit in conflict. I mean, that second example does not seem to me to be loving at peace with all men, considering the lying, insults and persecutions that are going on. I had always heard this cute little saying popping around Christianity that says "If you are at peace with God, you will be at peace with the people around you."

And that is when I read something that got me thinking. I am reading the cutting edge book by Craig Gross, the founder of XXXChurch, a leading ministry in tackling pornography and providing services to help people get free, and J.R. Mahon called Starving Jesus. In it, J.R. makes this interesting statement:

Please not that: I'm at peace with God. That's important to know because while I'm at peace with him, I am not completely peaceful with all the human beings around me, and some of them I don't even know. Starving Jesus pg 4

I started thinking about how offensive this radical message of Jesus can be, asking people to surrender all and lay down there lives. And, how the darkness hates the light. and, what Jesus saud above about persecution and insults and all that and it seems that the cute little saying breaks down when we investiagate it more closely.

So, it appears that, as thew writer of Hebrews says, we should "make every effort to live in peace" with everyone, both Christians and non-Christians alike. We should be as shrewd as snakes but as innocent as doves. As I have said before, the gospel is offensive enough without us adding offense to it. At the same time, though, may we understood that there will be times when we are lied about, insulted, even hated.

May we continue to love, even in the face of evil and hatred. May the Spirit even give us the words to speak at times like that. Lord, help us to love like you loved.

Jesus: The Opponent of the American Way

I was listening to a great sermon from Greg Boyd of Woodland Hills Church here in St. Paul and it inspired some interesting thoughts. I am stealing from him the outline (framework), but the title, thoughts, and analysis are mine.

I think we would all agree that Jesus was radical. If you disagree with that, you probably don't know Him. We embrace the radical Jesus when it comes to him talking of the status quo of his day: the hand washing rituals of the Pharisees, capital punishment, authority. But we tend to be less intuitive when it comes to applying these critiques to our present day. What would Jesus say to us, middle class Americans, about out status quo? What would Jesus critique?

Perhaps we should start, as Boyd does, with the essence of what it is to be American. We need to ask some very serious questions about what we see as our role as "a good American" and whether that clashes with our life as a Christian. So here is the framework Boyd used as a critique, the triple pointed basic rights that we owe to all in America and all owe to us. How does this fit with Jesus?

Life

We believe, politically, that we have the right to live, to seek life, to safety, to not be killed. Others are not free to infringe on my right to be alive. this is perhaps the most basic of all human rights. It makes a great deal of political sense.

Jesus, however, asks that we lay down this right. He asks us to take up our cross, certainly a symbol for death, and follow him. We are not even allowed to follow Jesus unless we are willing to die! Certainly this has been the literal reality for many people throughout history, from the Twelve who followed Jesus to out present day faithful ones who are laying down their lives every day. We, as followers of Christ no longer have this basic right to life. Radical, and a bit scary.

Liberty

We also affirm the right to liberty, that I have the right to live my life however I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others. In addition, I have the right to vote and have a say in who governs me. This, too, makes a great deal of political sense. This is perhaps the most fundamental thing that is somewhat unique to America of these three. It is a form of government that we have both died and killed for en masse.

If we are followers of Jesus, however, we have also given up the right to live however we want. Jesus defines for us certain way in which we have to live. I no longer have a choice on whether I should help the poor, Jesus has declared that I must. i no longer have the option of hating or holding a grudge against my neighbor. Jesus says I must love and forgive. I can't even spend my money however I want. Jesus tells stories that show how all that I have belongs to God, and I am required to be a good steward with what he gives me. Once again, very radical, and uncomfortable.

(The Pursuit of) Happiness

Lastly, we see the right to pursue happiness as a fundamental right. Whatever you want to strive to be as an American you can, you have that right. You can buy what you want, make your own decisions on how to live, what gives you pleasure, and with whom you spend your time. Happiness becomes your goal.

We again find that being a follower of Jesus conflicts with this American dream. Happiness is not our goal if we are disciples of Jesus: we would never strive for something so shallow. We realize that happiness is often a byproduct of our journey towards God as we live out his call to love him, love people, and build community, but it is not the goal. Joy and contentment with what we have are preferred over the empty pit of happiness and pleasure. In fact, we are called to revolt against materialism and endless consumption in our culture and fight for the joy and happiness of all. It is no longer the individual's or the family's quest for happiness, but the communal striving towards the needs being met of everyone, that we might all have enough, and in our enough, find contentment and joy. Quite radical, and even offensive.

Perhaps this picture of Jesus does not sit quite right with you. Good. The message of Jesus is never meant to go down easy. It is revolutionary and uncomfortable. It is radical and offensive. It is a hard journey. But, it is also a full life that leads to true joy. A life that offers grace and salvation. May we resist the urge to make Jesus palatable, but also the temptation to add our intricacies to him. The gospel is offensive enough without us adding to it. May our identity be as followers of Jesus before it is as Americans. And may we live out Christ's dream of the Church rather than the American dream.

Around the Blogosphere

Here are a few interesting posts that I have come across recently that you may enjoy reading.

1. Ben Witherington offers some good advice as we prepare for the presidantial election a year from now.

2. Witherington also offers great insight on the 6 "Prosperity Gospel" Ministries that are being audited

3. My frind Chip offers a good analysis of the Lawsuit against Westboro Baptist church

4. Lastly, Tim Ellsworth posted about abortion being a theological issue, which led to some serious discussion