Evolution is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief... and so is Christianity

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 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.

“If Christians do not develop their own tools of analysis , then when issues come up that they want to understand, they'll reach over and borrow someone else's tools- whatever concepts are generally accepted in their general field or in the culture at large.

But when they do that, Os Guiness writes, they don't realize that "They are borrowing not an isolated tool, but a whole philosophical toolbox laden with tools which have their own particular bias to every problem." They may even end up absorbing an entire set of alien principles without even realizing it.

In other words, not only do we fail to be salt and light to a lost culture, but we ourselves may end up being shaped by our culture.”
― Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity

What did the leading spokesman for Darwinism have to say?

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”

William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

Here is another quote from the former high priest of Darwinism.

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65

More from Provine, the high priest of Darwinism.

“The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 69

“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.

Here is another quote from the former high priest of Darwinism.

"A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 70

"...but he is referring to Scripture"

Indeed. He also tells us we would do well to take heed of it as a light in a dark place.The darker the days get,the brighter that lamp to our feet appears.

Nothing will smother that light,though it sometimes seems everything wants to!

God vs The Scientist

God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him, “God, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing – in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

“Oh, is that so? Explain…” replies God. “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that’s very interesting… show Me.”

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man. “No, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

- See more at: http://www.funnyandjokes.com/god-vs-the-scientist.html#sthash.gYz74SSR.dpuf

propose to use Science as a weapon with which to attack and destroy Judeo-Christianity

It's always fascinating to consider the attack on Christianity. It's easy to say it's because we proclaim the Truth, and it's so when we bring it up. It is one evidence of the veracity of our claim. But, evidence only in that other religions are no where near similarly attacked.

No one is posturing to debate Rostafarians, Buddhists, Islamics, or Hindus. Why? Because their view of origins or the very origin of their religion is so disposable that no THREAT is seen in them.

FWIW, Christianity has chosen to challenge their brand of so-called science and it angers them, more than that it makes them worry about their mortality. It almost gets to their conscience....but, not quite.

They realize the ease with which one can look at the complexity of Creation and realize there must be a Designer, a Creator.

They also realize the arguments from the empty tomb.

Christianity confronts them, and Christianity not only defends itself. It defends itself well. It has real teeth, and it's not just rolling over.

Notice how much this community has "hated" on the opponents of global warming. They despise those who fight them who have a valid set of weapons. That is just a small illustration of their "fear" of Christianity and of our Christ.

I am pretty sure that if some scruffy, bearded, swarthy student whose first, middle or last name was Mohammed, stood up in Biology class and blurted out that Jews were the descendants of monkeys and pigs, that the professor would not dare to attempt to refute that claim. He would nod in agreement and attempt as quickly as possible to change the subject.

But if a Christian student postulated that the universe was designed in a way that cannot be naturally explained, then he would be ridiculed out of the class.

What is a circle? O

Seriously?

It is a two dimensional flat object. Like a flat pancake.

The earth is actually like a three dimensional sphere though not truly a sphere.

When you read Isaiah over, it is very clear the writer considered the earth to be flat as it talks about the heavens acting as a curtain or cover of a tent that we are in. Like where the heck would Australia be for crying out loud.

You sound like a Jehovah's Witness publisher or elder.

As I said before, faith is fantastic to have but dwelling into science and trying to combine science and faith screws you all up. Keep science separate from faith and you will be fine.

I mostly agree, as well. Except for the last part. We will never know in the sense that you would like, because we cannot go back in time confirm what happened.

So we are left the questions of the ages. How did time begin? How did energy and mass begin? How did the universe get here? How did life begin?

The answers we choose to those questions are not logical because there is no logical answer, at least in terms of human logic and the physical world we know.

Ironic, isn’t it? The physical laws of the universe prove that the universe is impossible.

So we believe what we want to believe.

If you get a chance to view the Ray Comfort video I posted “Evolution vs. God”, he presents this argument clearly and then shows how the ‘evolution ethic’ has permeated our society. He asked a few students about their views of evolution and then after gave them a moral situation. It went like this: if your dog and neighbor next door were drowning in a river and you could only save one, which one would you save? You will be amazed (maybe not) of the answers. Out of about 5 or 6 students only one said the neighbor!

It is a two dimensional flat object. Like a flat pancake.

No, i am absolutely certain he was talking of something more like a ball.

Have you spent so much time with the crazy scientists that you think that even though God created it all that he did not know what it looked like.

There are scientists and there are the crazy ones.

Indeed and an astute observation. Just watch Hannity play Bill Maher show clips.

Sorry. It clearly says circle. A circle is a circle and it is not a ball. It is impossible for a tent to completely cover a ball as the ball has many sides.

Like I said, only Jehovah’s Witnesses who are in the “truth” that try that argument with me. There is lots of stuff on many websites disputing Jehovah’s Witnesses that explain how the JWs attempt to misinterpret things including this section of the Bible.

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.