Salon has an interesting article on everyone's favorite topic : creation versus evolution. The article documents an interview with University of Wisconsin historian (and author) Ronald Numbers.
Numbers is a former seventh day adventist who, after attending Berkeley, turned from young earth creationism to fully embracing macroevolution and religious agnosticism. Numbers, however, is a kinder gentler evolutionist. And, unlike most evolutionists, he actually gets a lot of things right as he analyzes those of us who don't share his views on evolution.
Here is where Numbers gets it right.
"Numbers says much of what we think about anti-evolutionism is wrong. For one thing, it's hardly a monolithic movement. There are, in fact, fierce battles between creationists of different stripes. And the "creation scientists" who believe in a literal reading of the Bible have, in turn, little in common with the leaders of intelligent design. "
The anti-evolution camp is nuanced. It is amazing how ignorant evolutionists are about this. There is much disagreement in the anti-evolution camp about a lot of things -- both scientific disagreements and theological disagreements. Further, as Numbers acknowledges in the interview, anti-evolution has grown much larger than just a Christian phenomenon.
Next up,
"Not fundamentally. There is a slight skewing of anti-evolutionists toward lower levels of education. But it's not huge. One recent poll showed that a quarter of college graduates in America reject evolution. So it's not education itself that's doing this. There are really dumb creationists and there are really dumb evolutionists. "
Many in the anti-evolution camp are well educated. The stereotype of anti-evolutionists being stupid hillbillies is false. The reasons for rejecting evolution go beyond a lack of education and beyond a belief in in a young earth.
Next up,
"Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that. So you have these people in the middle saying, "No, no. It's not atheistic for me. I believe in God and maybe in Jesus Christ. And in evolution." Having these loud voices on either side of them really tends to restrict the influence that they might otherwise have."
It is true that Richard Dawkins argues that evolutuion is inherently atheistic. It is true that fundamentalists [note: I think he means conversative evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is true] believe evolution is inherently atheistic. It is true that people in the middle tend to get drowned out by the noise of Dawkins and the critics of Dawkins. However, what Numbers fails to recognize is that the folks in the middle -- the theistic evolutionists -- have yet to make a compelling hermeneutical argument about reinterpreting all of the creation accounts in the Bible as not literal in any sense. Until they do, they look like people who are watering down the Bible so they can cling to evolution.
Next up,
Well, most people who reject evolution do not see themselves as being anti-scientific in any way. They love science. They love what science has produced. It's allowed the conservative Christians to go on the airwaves, to fly to mission fields. They're not against science at all. But they don't believe evolution is real science.
Mostly true. Many [perhaps most] anti-evolutionists actually think science is cool and love it. Their argument, as Numbers says, is whether Darwinism is science or philosophy disguised as science.
Next up,
I was also exposed to critiques of young earth creationism. The thing that stands out in my memory as being decisive was hearing a lecture about the fossil forest of Yellowstone, given by a creationist who'd just been out there to visit. He found that for the 30 successive layers you needed -- assuming the most rapid rates of decomposition of lava into soil and the most rapid rates of growth for the trees that came back in that area -- at least 20,000 to 30,000 years. The only alternative the creationists had to offer was that during the year of Noah's flood, these whole stands of forest trees came floating in, one on top of another, until you had about 30 stacked up. And that truly seemed incredible to me. Just trying to visualize what that had been like during the year of Noah's flood made me smile.
I think Numbers makes an important point. Flimsy attempts at natural explanations turns people off. This explanation of trees floating into Yellowstone and stacking up on one another is silly and amounts to hand waving. It would have been better for this creationist to have said, "I don't honestly know why it looks like 30,000 years of decomposition took place when it had to have been less. That is a good question, and perhaps science will advance to the point where we will be able to figure that out one day. " It seems evolutionists get away with that kind of answer a lot. My suggestion to young earth creationist brothers and sisters in Christ is to use the same strategy.
Next up,
[when asked, Are you an atheist?]
I don't think so. I think that's a belief -- that there's no God. I really wanted to have religious beliefs for a long time. I miss not having the certainty of religious knowledge that I grew up with. But after a number of years of trying to resolve these issues, I decided they're not resolvable. So I think the term "agnostic" would be best for me.
Atheism is a belief in the non-belief of God. That amounts to a theological position. It amounts to religious knowledge ... with some degree of certainty about that. Numbers is spot on to point that out. I don't think the term agnostic is viable though. Agnosticism has an inherent contradiction in it -- a certainty that you can't be certain about religious knowledge. So I think a better term for Numbers would be "religiously lost."
Next up,
[Question: More recently, we've had the intelligent design movement. I know some people just see this as a new version of creationism, stripping away all the talk about God and religion so you can teach it in the schools. Is that true?
Numbers: There's a little bit of evidence to support that. But I think that both demographically and intellectually, it doesn't hold a lot of water. The intelligent design leaders are people, by and large, who do not believe in young earth creationism.
Could Ronald Numbers be the first evolutionist to finally figure this out? Amazing.
Next up,
"Most of the contributors to the so-called scientific revolution were believers. They were theists. They didn't see any inherent conflict between what they were doing and their religious beliefs."
Bingo. Most were Christians, in fact. Many still are. The alleged historical rift between religion and science is a myth.
Next up,
Numbers: Occasionally, there were problems -- for instance, between Galileo and the pope. But Galileo had gone out of his way to insult the pope, who had previously supported him. He put the pope's favorite argument against heliocentricism into the mouth of the character Simplicio -- the simple-minded person.
Salon: So Galileo wasn't really arrested because of his science. It was because he was a lousy diplomat?
Numbers: Yeah, he was a terrible diplomat, thumbing his nose at the most powerful person who critiqued him. Also, Galileo was not as badly treated as many people suggest. When he was summoned down to Rome by the Inquisition, he lived in the Tuscan palace. And then when he was asked to move into the Vatican, to the palace of the Inquisition, one of the officials in the Inquisition vacated his three-room apartment so that the distinguished guest, Galileo, could have a nice apartment. And they allowed him to have his meals catered by the chef at the Tuscan embassy. Ultimately, he was under house arrest in his villa outside of Florence.
Salon: Is the whole notion, then, that Galileo faced possible execution because of his scientific statements just baloney?
Numbers: [It was] highly unlikely [he faced execution]. In fact, I don't know of a single pioneer in science who lost his life for his scientific beliefs.
Finally. The myth of the scientific martyrdom of Galileo exposed for the fraudulent legend that it is. I can't wait till my nephew finishes his thesis on exposing the myth of Galileo's scientific martyrdom. This myth has been foisted on American school children for generations. Time to explode it.
Next up,
Yes. Because in the United States, our public schools are supposed to be religiously neutral. If evolution is in fact inherently atheistic, we probably shouldn't be teaching it in the schools. And that makes it very difficult when you have some prominent people like Dawkins, who's a well-credentialed biologist, saying, "It really is atheistic." He could undercut -- not because he wants to -- but he could undercut the ability of American schools to teach evolution.
Bingo. If evolution is inherently atheistic, then it amounts to a religious philosophy disguised as science. We shouldn't teach it -- or -- we should teach it in a fair and balanced and neutral manner. In other words, present the origins models and their predictions [in regards to future discoveries] and see which model succeeds. Now, I think Richard Dawkins is spot on when he says it really is atheistic. Numbers is wrong in his belief that macroevolution, if true, has no religious implications.
Ok, this post is too long. And I am tired and going back to bed now. Good night.
Now, I think Richard Dawkins is spot on when he says it really is atheistic. Numbers is wrong in his belief that macroevolution, if true, has no religious implications.
Does Numbers believe that macroevolution is not inherently atheistic, or does he believe that it has no religious implications? Those are two very different positions. We can dispose of the first assertion quite easily, and we don't even need to consider Christianity: macroevolution is definitely compatible with various flavors of deism and probably with some forms of pantheism. Deism and pantheism are not atheism, so macroevolution is not inherently atheistic. Dawkins is dead wrong.
Macroevolution may be incompatible with specific religious beliefs or doctrines, but given the tremendous variation in religious doctrines, almost anything that we teach in school is incompatible with some religious belief.
Posted by: Nick | January 04, 2007 at 09:47
Numbers says that Dawkins believes evolution is "inherently atheistic. "
Numbers said,
"I don't know what the figures are right now, but I bet half of the scientists in America believe in some type of God. So I think Dawkins and Dennett are in a minority of evolutionists in saying that evolution is atheistic. I also think it does a terrible disservice to public policy in the United States."
Now, for the record, here is an excerpt from the recent Wired article on the New Atheism.
"Dawkins is openly agreeing with the most stubborn fundamentalists that evolution must lead to atheism. I tell Dawkins what he already knows: He is making life harder for his friends.
He barely shrugs. "Well, it's a cogent point, and I have to face that. My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism."
So ... what Dawkins said was "evolution must lead to atheism".
I believe Dawkins is quite correct. A belief in an unguided random natural process in no way leads to anything supernatural at all. It has to lead to atheism because it leaves no evidence of divine action. God is not required.
The fact that some theists [like Francis Collins] believe in macroevolution and God simultaneously is a different point altogether. They can hold those two views ... but I don't believe evolution led them to a belief in God ... do you?
Therefore, I think Dawkins is quite correct that evolution clearly implies atheism -- it provides a natural explanation for where man comes from. Where is God in the picture?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 04, 2007 at 23:14
Numbers says that Dawkins believes evolution is "inherently atheistic.
That's clear, and I agree that is a correct interpretation of Dawkins beliefs. But, you also wrote that Numbers believes macroevolution has no religious implications. That's very different from Dawkins belief.
So ... what Dawkins said was "evolution must lead to atheism".
I believe Dawkins is quite correct. A belief in an unguided random natural process in no way leads to anything supernatural at all. It has to lead to atheism because it leaves no evidence of divine action. God is not required.
Mendelian genetics, the germ theory of disease, calculus, and any number of other scientific theories do not provide evidence of divine action. That does not mean that they must lead to atheism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, remember?
The fact that some theists [like Francis Collins] believe in macroevolution and God simultaneously is a different point altogether. They can hold those two views ... but I don't believe evolution led them to a belief in God ... do you?
No. Neither did plate tectonics, mendelian genetics, or electromagnetism lead me to belief in God. Why should they?
Therefore, I think Dawkins is quite correct that evolution clearly implies atheism -- it provides a natural explanation for where man comes from. Where is God in the picture?
That's skirting very close to a "God of the Gaps" argument. Do you really believe that whenever scientists come up with a natural explanation for a phenomenon, that removes God from the picture?
God is where he always was as creator and sustainer of the universe and everything in it, including us. That doesn't change whether we believe disease is caused by divine disfavor or natural organisms. God is sovereign over both deterministic processes and "random" events, even if we can't see any evidence of that from our limited perspective within the creation.
I think we have a basic disagreement about the meaning of "implies." I'll agree that Darwinian evolution and most other scientific theories are compatible with atheism. That does not mean that they imply atheism, lead to atheism, or require atheism.
If your position (and Dawkins's) is correct, it applies equally to microevolution and population genetics as well as macroevolution. Does our ability to explain and predict inheritance as a natural phenomenon imply that God had no hand making your family.
Posted by: Nick | January 05, 2007 at 09:17
"But, you also wrote that Numbers believes macroevolution has no religious implications."
Then I put words into his mouth and retract my statement. Numbers believes that Dawkins is wrong in asserting that evolution is inherently atheistic.
I put two and two together and inferred that Numbers' believed that macroevolution had no religious implications. I jumped to that conclusion because he said that only non-religious teaching belongs in the classroom … and he believes macroevolution belongs in the classroom … ergo, he must believe macroevolution is non-religious … and non-religious teaching usually has no religious implications.
But you are correct that I put words into his mouth ... I don't have a quote to back up my statement.
Mendelian genetics, the germ theory of disease, calculus, and any number of other scientific theories do not provide evidence of divine action. That does not mean that they must lead to atheism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, remember?
I agree. Except Evolution is not the absence of evidence. It is positive evidence. If true, Evolution is a powerful defeater for the Judeo Christian worldview on a matter of immense significance. Either the Judeo Christian worldview is true or false. If Evolution is true, then it disproves God's Word about something that it speaks to in some detail.
If you want to contend that disproving Judeo Christian belief does not automatically prove atheism, go right ahead. It doesn't really matter to me. In my own case, either the Bible is true or it isn't. If it isn't, then Dawkins is correct to condemn religion as a cruel hoax.
"Do you really believe that whenever scientists come up with a natural explanation for a phenomenon, that removes God from the picture?"
Of course not. We have drifted off track, in my opinion. The issue here is truth. Either God's Word is true or it isn't. If a neuroscientist claims we are just our brains, and god is a phenomenon explainable by neural wiring in our brains ... then yes, I would argue that God has been removed by a natural explanation. Likewise, God, in His word, claims to have created man in his image in a special and unique way ... apart from the flora and fauna. Either it is true or it isn't.
"God is sovereign over both deterministic processes and "random" events, even if we can't see any evidence of that from our limited perspective within the creation."
True statement. Defining "evidence" is entirely worldview driven anyway ... but that is a different discussion.
"I think we have a basic disagreement about the meaning of "implies." I'll agree that Darwinian evolution and most other scientific theories are compatible with atheism. That does not mean that they imply atheism, lead to atheism, or require atheism."
Except the issue should not be compatibility. The issue should be truth. I am after the big enchilada. I want to believe in the truth. If God's word is wrong, then most likely Dawkins is right ... and God is just 'god' and nothing more than neural wiring in my brain.
Please understand. I am completely happy with God being sovereign over natural phenomenon. The issue for me is truth ... not an aversion to natural explanations.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 05, 2007 at 17:33
Mr D. My understanding is that you don't believe that everything in the Bible is literally true, while at the same time believe that everything in there (except perhaps the lists of X begat Y begat Z!) tells a truth. Is that correct? And if so, why do you believe that the creation story is literally true (breathing life into dust, etc) and not an explanation of a deeper truth (whatever the specific method that caused us to be, it came about because of the direct and overwhelming intervention of God)?
I'd agree that if it is supposed to be literally true then evolution is evidence against (that) God, but if it represents a larger truth then evolution is entirely consistent with Christianity, and a great many other religions.
I'll also agree with something that has already been said - evolution is neither atheistic nor religious, it is just our best accounting of what has happened based on the evidence to hand. Yes, it's a belief, but it's a belief akin to my belief that I have £3.47 in my pocket (i.e. that's probably not exactly right, but it's in the right area) rather than a belief that Christ is Lord or that there is no God but Allah.
Posted by: Paul | January 08, 2007 at 05:03
"My understanding is that you don't believe that everything in the Bible is literally true, while at the same time believe that everything in there (except perhaps the lists of X begat Y begat Z!) tells a truth. Is that correct?"
If a Biblical passage is allegorical, then I don't take it to be literal truth. A good example is the Psalms which speaks of plants clapping their hands in praise of God. I don't go around looking at plants to see if some of them have hands, for instance.
"I'd agree that if it is supposed to be literally true then evolution is evidence against (that) God"
Right. That is my point. Show me that Genesis 1 and 2 are not literally true and explain why. If you make a strong argument, then I will change my mind.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 09, 2007 at 09:55
If true, Evolution is a powerful defeater for the Judeo Christian worldview on a matter of immense significance. Either the Judeo Christian worldview is true or false. If Evolution is true, then it disproves God's Word about something that it speaks to in some detail.
In that case, then I'm afraid that you have bigger problems than Darwinian evolution. All of modern genetics, from Mendel on, is as big a defeater of the worldview you outline as Darwin. Forget the origin of humans in general -- geneticists state that your unique, personal characteristics are the result of impersonal biochemical processes and random chance during meiosis.
Our understanding of genetics is even better than our understanding of evolution, so it seems to me that there are only a couple of possibilities. If your objection to evolution is correct, then it also applies to genetics and Christianity is resoundingly defeated. Bummer. Let's all go and join Dawkins and Harris. Alternatively, we might conclude that our inheritance can truly be both a unique manifestation of God's will and mathematically predictable through Mendelian genetics and its extensions. In that case, there's no reason not to apply the same interpretive structure to evolution and Genesis I.
IMO, people who object to evolution but not genetics are akin to people who object to calling humans "animals" but have no problem calling them "mammals."
Posted by: Nick | January 09, 2007 at 09:58
Nick,
That is a powerful claim. Please explain your Biblical case against genetics. I am not following your argument, and I am profoundly interested.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 09, 2007 at 10:03
That is a powerful claim. Please explain your Biblical case against genetics. I am not following your argument, and I am profoundly interested.
I'll try. As often happens, it seems clear in my head but is more difficult to explain lucidly!
First of all, do you agree that it was God’s will that you, Mr. Dawntreader, were born? Do you agree that your unique talents are gifts from God? I think these are positions that are held by most Christians, but if you think they are unbiblical or extrabiblical, let me know.
Geneticists would argue that your physical characteristics and your unique talents are a combination of your genetic makeup and your environment. Your genetic makeup is the result of the impersonal processes of meiosis, genetic recombination, and the more-or-less random fusion of an egg with one of millions of spermatazoa. Based on these ideas (and completely ignoring the possibility that God might have a hand in the process), geneticists can make mathematical predictions about the inheritance of genetic traits within families and populations. Those predictions closely model what we observe when we look at the human population.
So, where evolutionists use chance and the impersonal forces of natural selection and mutation to explain the creation of new species, geneticists use chance and the impersonal forces of meiosis, recombination, and also mutation to explain the creation of new individuals.
When thinking about why I am who I am, and why you are who you are, is the religious explanation compatible with the naturalistic one? I’d argue that both are true, but the naturalistic one is incomplete. Dawkins would argue that the naturalistic explanation is true and the religious one false. I suppose you could argue that the naturalistic explanation is false, but then it’s a very odd coincidence that God’s will always seems to average out to be the same as the naturalists’ predictions.
So, if you believe that evolution leads to atheism because it removes God from the picture, then I think you must conclude that genetics does the same thing. The two sciences are deeply interrelated, to the point that population genetics could be considered a special case of the more general evolutionary biology. If, you reject evolution because it interferes with a particular interpretation of Genesis, then perhaps there’s a way to finagle genetics, but in your initial post, that didn’t seem to be the reason why you concluded that evolution leads to atheism
Posted by: Nick | January 10, 2007 at 09:37
If a Biblical passage is allegorical, then I don't take it to be literal truth. A good example is the Psalms which speaks of plants clapping their hands in praise of God. I don't go around looking at plants to see if some of them have hands, for instance.
But how do you know the passage is allegorical? I don't think it is from the text itself, but rather from your knowledge of plants outside of Scripture. I assume that you interpret texts that imply a flat earth in the same manner. They must be poetic speech, because we have extra-biblical knowledge that the earth is a globe. When it comes to interpreting Genesis, though, you seem to be rejecting that approach.
Right. That is my point. Show me that Genesis 1 and 2 are not literally true and explain why.
Can we extend it to Chapter 3 as well?
I’m not sure that I’d necessarily characterize the early part of Genesis as allegory, which has a specific definition, but I think there are very good reasons for not reading it as simple history. A few of them, off the top of my head:
1. Genesis 1 has morning and evening before the creation of the sun. Days, including morning and evening are dependent on the sun.
2. Genesis 1:6-9 has “waters” above the sky. In Genesis 1:14-19, the sun and moon are set within the sky, which is below the upper waters. This cosmology is not a very good fit with the structure of our planet and solar system, suggesting that, at a minimum, “waters” is a symbol for something else, or possibly that entire account is couched in poetic non-literal language.
3. The entire scene with the serpent. Most Christians interpret the serpent as Satan, but it is also clearly described in terms that relate to an animal, probably a snake: the serpent is cursed to go on his belly. The woman's offspring will bruise (or crush) his head, and the serpent will bruise (or strike) his heel. I think it is reasonable to conclude that this is allegory in the strict sense with a one-to-one correspondence between the fate of the serpent and the fate of Satan, who it symbolizes.
4. The tree of life in Genesis 3:22-23. God plants the Tree of Life in the Garden in Genesis 2. This tree has the power to reverse one of the major consequences of sin: death. But wait a minute, I thought only Christ’s atoning sacrifice could do that. God is concerned that Adam and Eve might eat the fruit and become immortal like Him, so He drives them out of the garden. Let’s get this straight—the omniscient, omnipotent Lord is concerned about something that might happen? If we read that as straight-forward history, we either have a conflict with the nature of God revealed in the rest of the Bible, or the open theists are right.
Not even the strictest young-earth creationist treats all of the first few chapters of Genesis as 100% literal history, and old-earth creationists interpret even more freely. From the point of view of hermeneutics, it seems better to treat the narrative as a coherent whole, rather than a hodge podge of history, poetry, and allegory. In that case, the burden is on those who want to treat a particular passage literally. Rather than assuming the historical interpretation is the default, they need to show positive argument for their position.
Posted by: Nick | January 10, 2007 at 09:52
I don't imagine I could change your mind on Genesis, though I'm curious about your reply to the mornings and evenings existing before the sun. I'd also love to know the explanation for God making all the plants for us to eat, yet making some of them poisonous.
Anyway, I'm more interested in the flipside of this - why do you reject the idea that the plants clapped their hands in praise of God? I'll readily agree that it's so unlikely that it could hardly be true, but then the central event of Christianity would fall into exactly the same category, and you believe that.
Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2007 at 09:31
Nick,
Thanks. I am afraid I don't see the conflict between believing genes exist and contribute to our chemisty and the truth of God's word.
By contrast, the evolutionary account of man's origin is in clear and direct conflict with the Biblical account of man's origin unless you read Genesis 1 as some kind of poem.
If you could show me where the Bible says God physically creates each person (implying without the genetic contribution of their parents) then I think you would have a strong case.
Short of that, I don't see any conflict.
The conflict you wrote about exists between the philosophy of determinism and man's free will. However, believing in genes doesn't require that I become a determinist and believe we are all genetic robots. In other words, accepting the existence of genes doesn't mean I have to accept the worldview of most modern geneticists.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 12, 2007 at 18:08
Paul and Nick,
You both are asking hermeneutic questions about Genesis. It is a great subject and one that will take time to unpack.
If you want to read some others who have done a lot of thinking about this already, then go to www.reasons.org.
I am going to be repeating a lot of what they said -- whenever I can get around to replying.
I wish a great weekend to you both.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 12, 2007 at 18:10