Posted on 01/15/2014 8:57:46 AM PST by xzins
One of the most misleading headlines imaginable recently appeared over an opinion column published in USA Today. Tom Krattenmaker, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, set out to argue that there is no essential conflict between evolution and religious belief because the two are dealing with completely separate modes of knowing. Evolution, he argued, is simply “settled science” that requires no belief. Religion, on the other hand, is a faith system that is based in a totally different way of knowing—a form of knowing that requires belief and faith.
The background to the column is the recent data released by the Pew Research Center indicating that vast millions of Americans still reject evolution. As the Pew research documents, the rejection of evolution has actually increased in certain cohorts of the population. Almost six of ten who identify as Republicans now reject evolution, but so do a third of Democrats. Among evangelical Christians, 64% indicate a rejection of evolution, especially as an explanation for human origins. Krattenmaker is among those who see this as a great national embarrassment—and as a crisis.
In response, Krattenmaker makes this statement:
In a time of great divides over religion and politics, it’s not surprising that we treat evolution the way we do political issues. But here’s the problem: As settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. And by often framing the matter this way, we involved in the news media, Internet debates and everyday conversation do a disservice to science, religion and our prospects for having a scientifically literate country.
So belief in evolution is not something one simply chooses to believe or to disbelieve, “like a religious proposition.” Instead, it is “settled science” that simply compels intellectual assent.
The problems with this argument are legion. In the first place, there is no such thing as “settled science.” There is a state of scientific consensus at any given time, and science surely has its reigning orthodoxies. But to understand the enterprise of science is to know that science is never settled. The very nature of science is to test and retest hypotheses and to push toward new discoveries. No Nobel prizes are awarded for settled science. Instead, those prizes are awarded for discoveries and innovations. Many of those prizes, we should note, were awarded in past years for scientific innovations that were later rejected. Nothing in science is truly settled.
If science is to be settled, when would we declare it settled? In 1500? 1875? 1960? 2013? Mr. Krattenmaker’s own newspaper published several major news articles in just the past year trumpeting “new” discoveries that altered basic understandings of how evolution is supposed to have happened, including a major discovery that was claimed to change the way human development was traced, opening new questions about multiple lines of descent.
But the most significant problem with this argument is the outright assertion that science and religion represent two completely separate modes and bodies of knowledge. The Christian understanding of truth denies this explicitly. Truth is truth. There are not different kinds of truth that operate by different intellectual rules.
Every mode of thinking requires belief in basic presuppositions. Science, in this respect, is no different than theology. Those basic presuppositions are themselves unprovable, but they set the trajectory for every thought that follows. The dominant mode of scientific investigation within the academy is now based in purely naturalistic presuppositions. And to no surprise, the theories and structures of naturalistic science affirm naturalistic assumptions.
“Religion”—to use the word Krattenmaker prefers—also operates on the basis of presuppositions. And those presuppositions are no less determinative. These operate akin to what philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls “properly basic beliefs.”
In any event, both require “belief” in order to function intellectually; and both require something rightly defined as faith. That anyone would deny this about evolution is especially striking, given the infamous gaps in the theory and the lack of any possible experimental verification. One of the unproven and unprovable presuppositions of evolution is uniformitarianism, the belief that time and physical laws have always been constant. That is an unproven and unprovable assumption. Nevertheless, it is an essential presupposition of evolutionary science. It is, we might well say, taken on faith by evolutionists.
For starters, “belief” means something different in a religion conversation than it means when we’re talking about science. In the case of faith, it usually means accepting the moral and spiritual truth of something and giving it your trust and devotion. In talking about evolution, it is more precise to call it “scientifically valid” or “an accurate account of what we observe.” No leaps of faith or life-altering commitments required.
He really does believe that science and theology operate in completely different worlds. The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould believed the same, arguing for science and religion as “non-overlapping magisteria.” But, as both scientists and theologians protested, science and religion overlap all the time.
Krattenmaker argues, “A scientific concept backed by an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence, evolution describes a process by which species change over time. It hazards no speculations about the origins of that process.”
But this is not even remotely accurate. Evolutionary scientists constantly argue for naturalistic theories of the origin of matter, energy, life—and the entire cosmos. The argument that the existence and form of the cosmos is purely accidental and totally without external (divine) agency is indeed central to the dominant model of evolution.
On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility. Theistic evolutionists simply do not present the model of evolution that is supposedly “settled science.”
On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis. Krattenmaker asserts that “it is more than possible to accept the validity of evolution and believe in God’s role in creation at the same time.” Well, that is true with respect to some concept of God and some concept of creation and some version of evolution, but not the dominant theory of evolution and not the God who created the entire cosmos as the theater of his glory, and who created human beings as the distinct creature alone made in his image.
I am confident that Tom Krattenmaker fully intended to clarify the matter and to point to a way through the impasse. But his arguments do not clarify, they confuse. At the same time, his essay is one of the clearest catalysts for thinking about these issues to arrive in recent times in the major media. It represents an opportunity not to be missed.
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.
The acceptance of evolution has profound social, and in turn, political implications.
The dominant model for evolution consists of “directionless”, “random mutations” which over time are preserved via natural selection for the survival benefit of the species.
Basically it is trial and error, or I should say error and trial, and more importantly, death.
Lots of death.
It is also an embrace of “uncertainty”. This is where it gets political.
There is soo much more.
And Ancient aliens just pushes materialism’s abiogenesis to another planet. Abiogenesis is just as impossible anywhere in the universe.
Sigh .....
I can picture you and many others arguing that the world is flat like a 2 dimensional circle or square back in the 16th century because that is what the bible says and those 16th century scientists who are saying the planet looks like a sphere that, gasp, travels around the sun, should be disfellowshipped and labelled apostates.
If evolution is incorrect, science will prove it out to be incorrect. That is how science works - constantly testing to determine if a theory is correct or not.
Science is why we have located and developed a lot of our resources including oil and gas, established a top notched and improving medical system to keep us living and invented many of the great technologies we now use to communicate and travel.
.
My advice (which you will probably ignore) - Just keep your faith separate from science. Mixing science and faith is not a good combination.
How, exactly does science "test" their evolutionary theory ?
Observation ?
Repetition ?
What is really amazing about those that want their “religion” in all the books want to get rid of the true religion out of schools and the work place and that is the real issue here. It is what they want and that is it. the atheists and the leftists want us to goose step to what the believe.
You’re talking about the Miller-Urey experiments, that were conducted without oxygen (which would’ve broken down what they produced as quickly as they were artificially created). They didn’t even get close to creating life. They didn’t even create a protein. They created a few amino acids of both “left and right-handedness.” Life can only form with “left-handed” amino acids.
Shroud of Turin
Tilma of Juan Diego
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
That’s the one. :)
I remember it being a simple experiment involving amino acids either produced by the electricity after running through some other products or used at the outset and producing congealed amino acids.
Which are just molecules and not life by any stretch of the imagination.
Isn’t Juan Diego actually Zorro or his dad or the mute guy?
(Just kidding....sorry...couldn’t help myself.)
In addition, what would be acceptable as evidence that evolutionary theory is False ?
Scientific theories need to be, by definition: Observable, repeatable and “Falsifiable”.
Evolutionary theory meets NONE of those criteria.
And you call it science ?
A bit of a naïve statement there.
You are postulating perfection for science, and believing in a "science establishment" that always wants the truth.
If you don't think "science" can be corrupted, just study the global warming fiasco, or one of its forerunner hoaxes called Piltdown Man. Any "scientist" with the tiniest bit of common sense knows it's a political game, that you make money by supporting what the cool guys want you to think is true.
Sorry, many (if not most) university scientists have become unglued in this immoral day and age through falsification of results and exaggeration of their theories for money.
Having faith in "science" is not good for your health these days.
Out of curiosity, what about evolution do you think is true? Do you believe in what’s known as “creationism” (young earth theories)?
Some do, some don't. Half-truths are the most seductive lies.
(s)Eratosthenes of Cyrene faked his earth is a sphere measurements in 240 BC!(/s)
(s)farmers using selective breeding is vooodoooo!(/s)
Most of us have no problem with operational science, science that’s observable and repeatable. But many “scientists” try to equate their “origins science” with operational science. That’s where their blind faith is showing.
That’s how gelatinous heme found in the bone of a supposedly 65 million year old t-rex doesn’t cause “origins scientists” to revisit their views on such ages. Instead, they say, “Well, obviously, under certain conditions, gelatinous heme can survive for 65 million years.” There was no, “Wait, that’s impossible!” “Scientists” are just as prone to worldviews and agendas as everybody else, but that’s especially true of origins scientists.
I posted this link earlier and if you haven’t seen this, well I think you will enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9-cyRbFcs
“Death certainly could have existed prior to adam. There are not enough details in Genesis to know for sure.”
If you limit yourself only to reading Genesis, you might be able to get away with that statement. However, if you accept the entire Bible as God’s Word, then you are out of luck:
“12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”
Romans 5:12-13
“I can picture you and many others arguing that the world is flat like a 2 dimensional circle or square back in the 16th century because that is what the bible says and those 16th century scientists who are saying the planet looks like a sphere that, gasp, travels around the sun, should be disfellowshipped and labelled apostates.”
Yeah, except that never happened, it’s a myth. People have known since before Christ that the Earth was round.
Thanks. I’ve been to the Museum in Petersburg, KY. If you haven’t been, I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.