1. Todd Wood has started a blog, and it's excellent. His slant is unique -- he's a young-earth creationist -- but his writing is superb and his expertise in genetics and genomics is world-class. My favorite entry so far: a commentary on a recent report describing genetic variation among humans. The most recent post deals with the principle of accommodation and one of its Enlightenment defenders, one John Wilkins. Todd hasn't activated comments, so expect a journal and not a conversation. But have a look, and consider the gigantic difference between Todd's work and Mike Behe's. There's just no comparison, and Todd is an example of why one should not grant respect based solely on someone's willingness to accept an ancient universe or universal common descent.
2. Okay, best segue ever. Speaking of John Wilkins, Evolving Thoughts (a blog at ScienceBlogs run by a philosopher of biology) has some very interesting recent posts defending "theistic evolutionists" like me. Back in September, he discussed "Darwin, God and chance" and concluded:
Why does this matter beyond a bit of mental gymnastics, especially since I am not a theist? Well it has one rather significant implication: it means that those who criticise theistic evolutionists (like Asa Gray) for being inconsistent or incoherent are wrong: it is entirely possible to hold that God is not interventionist, and yet hold that God desired the outcomes, or some outcomes, of the world as created. In simpler terms, there's nothing formally wrong with believing the two following things: 1, that God made the world according to a design or desired goal or set of goals; and 2, that everything that occurs, occurs according to the laws of nature (secondary causes). In other words, it suggests that natural selection is quite consistent with theism, solving a problem I discussed earlier.Read the whole post to see how he arrived at this conclusion, and don't miss the work of his collaborator, one Phil Dowe. More recently, Wilkins has summarized the "theistic evolution" position as he sees it, and reiterated his contention that the position is not incoherent. (Well, duh, but there are plenty of axe-grinding nitwits who assert just that.) I'll discuss these ideas in a separate post soon; in the meantime, pay Wilkins a visit.
3. Steve Martin's blog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has become the blogospheric world headquarters for multilateral discussion of evangelical approaches to the theological understanding of evolution. The most recent series tackled questions of evolution and original sin, centered on an article by George Murphy and featuring responses by Terry Gray, Denis Lamoureux and David Congdon. Congdon's blog, The Fire and the Rose, is one of my favorites.
 |  |
| Left, the human eye as sketched by Descartes. Right, the eye of a fruit fly as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Courtesy of Wellcome Images, Creative Commons license. | |
4. The most recent issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is devoted to the evolution of eyes. And it's all free. Includes an introduction by Ryan Gregory, who also points us to an issue of The Lancet that focuses on evolution. Sheesh, is there some kind of anniversary coming up? :-)
5. Illusions of various kinds are something of a hobby of mine. Hence my interest in an online collection of kinetic optical illusions at Scientific American (meaning that the images produce an illusion of movement). Something else that's cool about the collection: some of the illusions were created (or discovered) by Donald MacKay, a Christian neuroscientist who has influenced me and many of my colleagues through his vigorous and uncompromising approach to the relationship between science and Christian faith. (We read part of his Science, Chance and Providence in our randomness reading group.) Make sure you look at the third image -- it's the infamous Enigma illusion.
6. Here's another kind of illusion that is interesting and informative: synesthesia, in which a perception (such as smell or color) becomes associated with a seemingly unrelated experience (a number or a different sensation). V.S. Ramachandran devoted one of his Reith Lectures to this phenomenon, which he described as "mingling of the senses." A new report describes a new version: touch-emotion synesthesia, in which certain textures evoke particular emotions. The proposed explanation for how these peculiarities is worth a look, too.
7. Using bumps in the road to make music. It'll be a clue in National Treasure 3, you just wait. Note that this link comes courtesy of Very Short List, which is a delight.
8. Deb and Loran Haarsma's excellent book Origins got a nice review at the Reports of the NCSE. I'll write one of my own sometime this spring. When the next issue of RNCSE goes online, I hope it will include my review of Gordon Glover's Beyond the Firmament.
9. The most recent (January 2009) issue of Scientific American is all about evolution. Larry Moran has some typically excellent comments over at Sandwalk, addressing pop evolutionary psychology [gag], testing natural selection, and why everyone should learn evolution.
10. Now off to enjoy one of our family's holiday traditions, this time with a mix of Scotch and rum.
11 comments:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for this sampler.
Concerning topic #3: It was great following those posts on evolution and original sin but I was wondering if you know of any evangelical theologians exploring the implications an evolutionary framework might have for salvation? The only one that I know of that comes close is LeRon Shults and his recent work Christology and Science. If anyone comes to mind let me know. Thanks.
Blessings,
Kyle
Well, I'm going to have to add Donald MacKay's book to my wish list.
Happy 2009, Steve!
Steve, I look forward to your analysis. Let me know when you do it and I'll respond if need be on my blog - we can start a blog conversation. [I refuse to use some neologistic contraction like blogversation. Damn, I just did, didn't I?]
Kyle–
The person who immediately comes to mind is Daniel Harrell, who discusses ideas that are Moltmann-like. (He cites Moltmann.) Here's an excerpt from Nature's Witness:
"As for God's self-sacrificial generosity in creation, it should not be seen as something God does uncharacteristically or because the situation demanded it. God's love, freedom, generosity, and self-sacrifice is God. God loves because he must; he redeems because he must – God must be God. And thus we expect to see the marks of God on the world as science observes it even if science doesn't acknowledge it. God gives himself in creation and for creation, ultimately dying to redeem it toward new creation. [...] Because God's goodness often comes shaped as a cross (whether in creation or in redemption), it may not always feel good or even look good. Yet because it is cross-shaped, its purposes are for good every time. Death is necessary for life to evolve and death is necessary for life to be redeemed into eternal life. It's the necessity of death in the handiwork of God that so strongly argues for the presence of sacrificial death within the character of God."
John F. – most everything is out of print but MacKay is great.
John W. – you're on! I'll get something posted in the next few days, then I'm a bit incommunicado from 8 to 26 January. Here's why.
I'm an '03 Calvin grad (computer science) who has since rejected theism.
Could you explain precisely why I, in your apparent opinion, deserve the label of "axe-grinding nitwit" for holding the view that, to be coherent, a worldview would need to either fully embrace superstition (i.e. fundamentalism) or fully discard it (i.e. atheism)?
I'm tempted to reply with an insult of my own, perhaps something along the lines of "compartmentalizing semi-rationalist who thinks that science is compatible with the non-evidence-based absurdly-illogical Bronze-Age mythology into which he was most likely indoctrinated as a child"... but I'll hold off for now. :-)
but his writing is superb and his expertise in genetics and genomics is world-class.
Soooo, my expertise in genetics is not world class (or even city-class, maybe just bedroom-class) but it would seem to me the strongest and most irrefutable evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of genetics, including pseduogenes and ERVS we find in species today. Is this addressed on his blog?
Kevin, I don't claim that those who hold TE to be incoherent are nitwits, only that many axe-grinding nitwits assert this. To slosh through such nitwittery, try a certain online cesspool.
OTOH, your simplistic dichotomy looks like a nice illustration for a Politically Incorrect Guide to Fallacious Argumentation. Did you seriously mean to suggest that belief in a supernatural creator rules out second causes?
Pete, I agree with you on the genetic evidence for common descent. If you want to know whether Todd addresses this on his blog, you could try reading it. But I can assure you that he does not deny that common descent is an excellent explanation for the genetic data you cite.
I don't claim that those who hold TE to be incoherent are nitwits, only that many axe-grinding nitwits assert this.
Fair enough, although I still think that your original statement lends itself to the impression that I perceived.
I do, of course, join you in condemning the idiots at UD.
OTOH, your simplistic dichotomy looks like a nice illustration for a Politically Incorrect Guide to Fallacious Argumentation. Did you seriously mean to suggest that belief in a supernatural creator rules out second causes?
Please help me understand how it is fallacious to expect consistency.
Perhaps you interpreted my use of the term "superstition" as an ad hominem insult; for the sake of argument, I'll invite you to replace it with a more neutral term, e.g. "adherence to the Bible".
Modern scientific knowledge rips the biblical creation story to shreds. Genesis 1 and 2 don't even cohere with each other, much less with reality. Since the Bible demands all-or-nothing acceptance of itself, and rationality demands solid evidence which in the case of Christianity is conspicuously absent, how can there be any coherent position anywhere in the middle of the spectrum between young-earth creationism and atheistic evolution?
(Obviously, I am not claiming that YEC is correct, just that it's the only Biblically coherent position.)
I view theistic evolutionism as incoherent because its method of dealing with this incompatibility, declaring the creation stories to be metaphorical, leads to major logical problems.
If the Bible can't be taken at face value, how do you know whether the rest of it is trustworthy? How can a supposedly inerrant book contain error and yet still be a solid foundation for a worldview? Theologians have come up with all sorts of exegetical and hermeneutical dodging and weaving on this subject because, in my opinion, they can't bring themselves to face the idea that the Bible is just a random collection of meaningless stories.
Even if it were reasonable to interpret parts of the Bible metaphorically, one could argue that the creation stories are not eligible for non-literal interpretation due to their place in the overall Christian structure. Without Adam and Eve and the serpent and the garden and all of that nonsense, on what basis can it be claimed that humans are tainted by original sin and need salvation?
To answer your question, no, I don't think that belief in a supernatural creator necessarily rules out secondary causes. Rather, given the broad explanatory power of natural selection and the principle of Occam's Razor, I simply see no reason to postulate a supernatural creator in the first place.
Honestly, which explanation is more parsimonious? (1) Christianity is true, and there's some delicate balance between faith and reason that allows Genesis to be metaphorical, and there is a good explanation behind every apparent contradiction between the Bible and reality; or (2) Christianity is false, there is no god, and theistic evolutionists are compartmentalizing their indoctrinated beliefs away from good science?
Hi Kevin--
Thanks for explaining your position. I don't have much to say, except that I don't share your addiction to the fallacy of the excluded middle. Your skepticism I respect; your fundamentalism-or-atheism option I view with the same intellectual contempt that characterizes your opinion of Christianity.
I agree that you've arrived at a parsimonious explanation, and will even congratulate you on the achievement. Since you're already quite sure that non-fundamentalist Christianity is incoherent, and since your theological reading (extensive, I presume) showed you only "dodging and weaving," I can't imagine you came here for anything other than self-congratulation.
On your way out, think about having a look at the John Wilkins' analysis, if only to get some clues as to why I'm not taking you seriously. I'm leaving tomorrow, back in three weeks, so if you want to take the conversation in a different direction, don't expect a response before Jan. 27. Cheerio.
I can't imagine you came here for anything other than self-congratulation.
I didn't come here to feel superior, nor was I looking for your patronizing congratulation. I posted what I did because I assumed that opposing viewpoints were welcome and would be engaged in discussion.
I've been lurking here for a while (having found my way over from Pharyngula) and while I respect your scientific knowledge and insights, I happen to strongly disagree with your belief that there's a magic man behind the science.
I was hoping to have a conversation about why you feel the need to add faith into your science, and how that can possibly be considered coherent given the rational alternative.
I read Wilkins, and I can't imagine how his thesis relieves the theistic evolutionist of the burden of responding to the questions I posed.
Perhaps my tone isn't always the most cordial, but it's clear that you don't believe in catching flies with honey either. In any case, if you want me gone, so be it; I won't continue to impose.
As a parting observation, it's interesting how every single theist to whom I've presented simple, direct questions has utterly failed to answer them. There's always a dodge, a rationalization, or (in your case) a haughty dismissal.
Steve,
Thanks for your many interesting posts and links to helpful resources. It was thru one of your suggested links that I came across Laurence Moran's blog. Given your commendation of his clear thinking I wonder whether you have attempted (either here or elsewhere) to articulate a response to his short article "Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy
of the Middle Ground"?
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
Crawford.
Post a Comment