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 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?

Richard Dawkins, Part 3: Dawkins and Allister McGrath

For the 3rd installment of the series on Richard Dawkins, I will be commenting on Dawkins' debate with former Atheist and current Christian Allister McGrath. It is a two part audio file that you can download here.

There are better thoughts than these in the discussion that follows on the link above, but I will make a few of my own comments.

1. I feel like the participants were arguing apples and oranges

It seemed like they were going to be arguing about the existence of God, which is what Dawkins is primarily concerned about. Dawkins even says at one point that he is concerned with what is true. McGrath seesm to be making complete social arguments. Dawkins, in response, at one point states, "All of that may be true, but it doesn't say anything about the existence of God." Thus, I feel like there was some wheels spinning in the debate.

2. I liked McGrath's question: Does science move us toward atheism or toward theism?

I think this is a million dollar question. Complexity. Order. Design. Irreducibly complex systems. These all seem to me to point towards a creator God. Dawkins certainly disagrees. However, I would agree with Erwin McManus who says that if all truth really is God's truth, and we are crazy if we think it is not, than any true quest for knowledge in any discipline will eventually lead back to God. McGrath holds God as the "best explanation" of the world. I think he makes a great point. From my perspective, God makes much more sense that chance plus time plus nothing.

3. Dawkins makes the very interesting claim the religion is "intellectually impoverishing."

This is a fair statement, and not a low blow, in my opinion. It is up to us as followers of Christ to prove to everyone that we are as interested in investigation as anyone else if not more. Dawkins says that religion "cuts off investigation by providing easy, facile answers to deep and troubling questions like the questions that science tackles." May we not fall guilty of this by casting off exploration with a trite, religious statement. Christians do this far too often. May we thirst for truth in all sectors of life.

I could continue, but I will leave it alone at this. I hope this series on Richard Dawkins was helpful and it inspired thought. Let's keep the conversation going.

Richard Dawkins part 2: Dawkins and Paula Zahn

In my second edition of looking into the foremost atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, I take a look at an interview Dawkins did with Paula Zahn. This has a different taste to it, because Zahn is simply interviewing rather than debating (in contrast to the O'Reily interview). You will notice again that Dawkins is a gentleman the entire time. I do have some problems with some things he says, though. My commentary is below.



1. "Not a shred of evidence"

Dawkins claims that he does not believe in the Judeo Christian God because "there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the Judeo Christian God or indeed any other god." I would love to have a chance to sit down and talk with Dawkins, because it would be interesting to hear what he classifies as evidence. I think of Billy Graham's metaphor of the wind, how we cannot see it but we see the effects of it, and wonder of that could be evidence. I wonder if the Bible and the testimony of the first century Christians could be evidence. I suppose it is from a purely scientific standpoint that he rejects these as evidence. It seems weird, though, that he has pretty much written them off without a second thought (though maybe he hasn't). Is that really all there is to it?

Also, he categorizes the Judeo Christian God with Zeus and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It seems that any thinking human being would see an enormous difference between the Judeo Christian God and this group with which he lumps it in. The difference between the Gospels and other works about characters who do miracles are huge. We have apocryphal writings about Jesus and they are night and day different than the Gospels.

2. "remarkably intolerant of atheists"

Here comes that intolerant word again. This goes back to how do you interpret the word intolerant? The currently used definition is "all views are equally valid." A more accurate definition is "All people are valid, but views are not." I think we would agree that the first definition does not work. Some views are stupid. Some are foolish. Some are dangerous (Nazism). We must be able to disagree on our views without being labeled intolerant. So, if Dawkins is suggesting that Christians are intolerant of atheists because they disregard their views and think them incorrect, than all atheists are intolerant as well. If he is using the second definition, he is suggesting that atheists are treated poorly because they are atheists, that is a serious charge, and sadly, true in some circles. We need to be careful as Christians to treat all people with love, as Christ did.

3. "historic misunderstanding of what atheism is"

I think this is true. The word "atheist" has a negative connotation in Christian circles. I think it sounds angry and hostile. Rather, most atheists are like Dawkins, peaceful people who simply disagree. By the way, the way to win atheists like this for the Lord is not to brow beat and be prejudiced towards them. If they were to experience the transforming love of Christ acted out by a humble believer, it would go a long way (in my opinion).

4. "What's there to be frightened of?"

Joining the last point, I think he makes a true statement here as well. gain, most atheists are nice people who choose not to believe in God. Why should we be scared of dialogue about the things he mentions, the origin of the universe, the cosmos, etc.? We as Christians should welcome conversation like these, and we should be educated enough to entertain these discussions.

On the other hand, though, I do think these ideas, this worldview, can be dangerous. Living as if there is no God, no ultimate code of right and wrong, no ultimate benefit to right living or morality is dangerous. A generation living this way is scary. It is not the atheists that scare me, or even their ideas, it is the results of their ideas played out practically on a generation who takes them to their logical end. There are no consequences for my actions? Okay, I will do whatever I want. There is no right or wrong, only relative codes of conduct? Okay, then why does it matter what I do or don't do? these are the ideas that are scary, not the people or the discussions.

5. "you don't live this life to the full"

Wow. I believe the exact opposite of what he is saying. What is more negative, a funeral where the dead person and his whole family believe that the person in the casket is no more, they are worm food, never to live again, or that they lived a great long life but are now in heaven where there is no more pain or suffering? It is an eye opener to hear that one of the same reasons we claim religion is better than atheism is the same reason they claim atheism is better. Very interesting.

In conclusion, if there is one thing Dawkins does, it is make us think about some tough questions and concepts. I believe that he is seeking truth, and it is always interesting to get another perspective.

Richard Dawkins part 1: Dawkins and O'Reilly

I have been having some fun reading over at the
Naked Pastor Blog, which is where I saw this video (below). I am very intrigued by Richard Dawkins and how he thinks. Dawkins is the leading atheist thinker in the world today and wrote the bestselling book The God Delusion. I disagree with much of what he says, including and primarily his world view, which is evolutionary and naturalistic, but he is challenging Christians to think much more deeply than most have and to abandon their pad answers for legitimate, well researched and logical answers.

That being said, I m starting a series of posts inspired by videos of Richard Dawkins to which I will be responding. This first one shows Dawkins being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor.



Hoping that you have just seen the video, I am now going to make some comments (time will tell if a theme runs through this series of posts). First, I will discuss O'Reilly. I thought he did a very poor job of representing Christianity in the interview. Here is why.

1. First of all, O'Reilly seemed pampas and condescending. This is seen in a lot of ways, I think, like tone of voice, and how he interrupts Dawkins several times. He uses phrases like "you guys" several times. I think as Christians we need to have respect for everyone and give those with whom we are debating the right to be heard. We certainly expect the same. There is a certain quality that the majority of Christians (perhaps all people) lack, and that is the ability to disagree and debate respectfully. Why does disagreement make us so uncomfortable? Anyway, back to the original point, O'Reilly does not come off well in his demeanor, and it is a stark contrast to Dawkins' demeanor, which is very respectful and humble, willing to answer questions and listen.

2. Secondly, after seeming to argue for truth early on (although quite poorly), O'Reilly seems to take a relativistic standpoint towards the end of the interview. He even uses the phrase "it's true for me." Dawkins rightly comes back and states that truth is truth and what is true for one person is true for everyone. does it strike anyone else as odd that the Christian is the relativist and the atheist is the truth guy?

3. Thirdly, and I'll end on a good note about O'Reilly, I think he had a firm grasp of the founding fathers and their beliefs. He mentions how they wanted faith in Christ and all that comes with it to be the "moderating influence" that will make the country great. I think this is a pretty good argument against Dawkins' theory that Religion is a bane to civilization, though it certainly doesn't settle the issue.

Now, let's examine Dawkins.

1. I completely disagree with what he said about atheists not needing faith. I think that is one of the great mistakes that atheists and secularists make is thinking that they do not have faith. Everyone has faith in something, whether it is evolution or God or Zeus or a Totem Pole etc. It is absurd that he asserts that he doesn't have faith.

2. Dawkins also makes a statement about proof of evolution and the explanations of the mysteries of the universe, saying "We're working on it," presuming that the answers are in the (near?) future. First off, isn't that having faith in science, which negates his statement above? Secondly, after over a century of digging and scientific exploration, we still have not found any transitional fossils, which Darwin himself said we should find millions of if evolution were true, nor have we come any closer to answering the questions of abiogenesis and entropy. Scientists are quick to reference Copernicus and Galileo as examples of this, but I seem to think that these two comparisons are apples and oranges. I think time works more as the enemy of science in this aspect rather than the friend, because the longer we dig and find nothing, the more glaring the evidence against evolution seems to be.

3. Lastly, as alluded to above, it seems as though Dawkins ignores the very reason the founding father started this country, which was religious freedom. I am simply pulling from one line he stated about this, so I may be reaching, in addition to the fact that he is not American, but he seems to have a cloudy view of early American history.

That's all I got. Again, I am thankful for thinkers like Richard Dawkins who force us as Christians to think and figure these issues out for ourselves, rather than sticking to the Sunday School pad answers or retreating to relativism. May we (continue to) be thinkers. May we love Jesus enough to turn over every stone, research well, and do all we can to represent Christ well in the public academic arena. May we not shy away from disagreements, because it is there that we learn and grow.