Faith

This might be my last entry for a while ....probably see you after Christmas....

I have enjoyed this discussion on science, faith, birds, bits, etc. Thanks to all who contributed and join me in thinking through these things. I am a bottom line kind of guy though, so I wanted to get there before I move on to other fascinating topics. And so, to all my gentle readers, I pose another question:

Isn't every position based on faith? The scientist trusts the instruments, his colleagues, the process , etc. The philosopher trusts her arguments, logic, records of what other great thinkers have said (didn't I read somewhere there are no actual originals of Plato's work?), etc. The theist trusts in all those things too and also a spiritual experience, feelings, etc.

I am convinced there are two kinds of faith. Intelligent faith would encompass all of the above. Blind faith would perhaps involve just one approach, e.g. how I feel, or just following one person's thoughts.

I am convinced that faith in Christ,even his coming as a baby in a manger, is an intelligent faith, defensible using all the disciplines mentioned above.

But it is faith. That I freely admit.

And so is everything else.

Have a Merry, Merry Christmas!!!

More on Evolution

For a great discussion on science and it's current bent toward naturalism, read the article by philosopher J.P. Moreland at http://trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000135.cfm.

Also, the folks at Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) have put forth the theory that animal death and ergo, survival of the fittest, always was the case. The Garden was an island of peace and sinlessness and no death. Adam and Eve were kicked out into the rest of the world at the Fall. For more, read their stuff. I don't know if I buy it, but it is interesting.

In response to Dean and computer's bloodthirsty efficiency, I ponder this: If something works, does it make it right or good? After all, abortion of down's syndrome babies does make the gene pool healthier-but is that what God really wants? Is that really the most loving thing? And I suppose we could ask, what would Jesus do?

Genetic Fallacies and other Misdemeanors...

Well, thanks to Alan, the discussion of evolution really took off. Another one is going on in the pages of the campus newspaper (where it began). It's kind of fun, for now. But I find I am in a strange mood-enjoying the Christmas spirit with my family (hearing your kids sing "We Three Kings" as you drive along is one of the simple pleasures of life) and yet feeling the loss of my parents everyday. But that is another entry....

A few observations for those interested in the science/religion thing:

*Go back and read my original response to the prof's letter on campus. I was not trying to disprove the theory of evolution, merely responding to his assertions. Thus, I committed no logical fallacy (genetic or otherwise). My points were (and still are) 1. Science can, in fact, lead you to a belief in God-I listed several examples of famous people have demonstrated just that. 2. You simply cannot rely on so called "scientific facts" all of the time. Many famous evidences of evolution have been shot down over the years. Theories and models constantly change with better instrumentation and thorough research. In many ways, science is relative truth, not absolute (and therefore, some would argue, not truth at all).

*What is a Phd anyway? It stands for a doctorate in philosophy. In the early days of higher education, science was part of the philosophy department. And what does the word "philosphy" mean? What better source for that definition than Plato, who basically defined it as the pursuit of truth. And if it were true that there is a God, even the one described in the Bible, why could not philosophy (including science) help you find out?


*If the Bible is not true, merely ancient stories and myth mixed with good teachings, etc, then I have a question. Why is Genesis so close to what science seems to demonstrate in the fossil record? Consider this:

As was pointed out in some recent comments, every religion and culture has a creation myth. Obviously, they are just that-myth. The Hindu picture of the Earth on a giant turtle in space, the Native American stories of "brother Salmon" needing a river,etc. But in Genesis, the progression of life begins with simple, aquatic forms and progresses to more complex terrestrial forms, climaxing with human beings, just like the fossil record seems to show (granted, birds are out of sequence in the Genesis account, but lately, paleontologists are telling us they are just glorified dinosaurs i.e. reptiles). Now if Genesis is just another myth, how is this possible?

*And now, the Rob Gunn Theory of Evolution/Creation (appluase please):

If Moses did indeed pen Genesis, and God worked with with E=mc2, DNA, mutation, natural selection, etc. to create the Earth and life, how could he possibley explain that to Moses? Or, if he did reveal the complex nature of all this to Moses, how could Moses communicate it to the people wandering in the desert? Is not the essential story that : A. God did it B. He did it over time in a progression C. The pinnacle of it all is man D It is amazing, no matter how you look at it.

Further, the ancient people could understand days, lights, etc. , not millions of years, parsecs, etc. The Bible was written to communicate to people thousands of years ago, not to 21st Century minds.( Which also, explains why it uses terms like "four-footed" to describe insects -we even say "get on all fours" when dad gets on the floor to play with his kids, not implying he has more than two actual feet. It's merely an expression. Also, bats are just flying animals, which if you notice, are at the end of the list of birds in Deut. and Lev., not included in the middle. There may also be punctuation issues in the ancient Hebrew)

Well, now that I have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction, it is time to go home. And no matter where you stand on all of this, may I wish you a....

Merry Chirstmas!

Skies of Death One Sunday Morn....

It was a lazy afternoon, 64 years ago today. My dad, 18 and home from his freshman year of college for Chistmas break, was laying on the living room couch, listening to the radio after coming home from church and having the traditional big Southern suppper. It was cold out there in the small town of McMinneville, Tennessee. The snow was on the ground and thinking of places like Hawaii was the furthest thing from his mind.

Across the country, in another small town in Washington (Walla Walla) my mother, then only 12, went to a movie with friends. The lights had just gone down when suddenly they came back up. The manager climbed up on the stage and looked out at the startled audience. "Ladies and gentleman.." he managed to choke out. "You probably want to return to your homes. The Japanese have just attacked Pearl Harbor. We are told that all of you in uniform should return to your base immdiately..." Amid the sounds of gasps and crying, he stepped down and walked down the aisle, obviously shaken.

At the same moment, my Dad jumped off the couch as he and his family stared at each other in disbelief. As the radio announcer repeated the same news, the tears came. While they sat there by the Christmas tree, digesting Sunday dinner, young Americans his age were being slaughtered in a sneak attack....in Paradise.

The next day, he and many millions of other young men his age, stood in line to enlist. The biggest war in history had begun for America, and would define that generation and those after.

Today, now known as Pearl Harbor day, many young men and women are in the middle east after a similar sneak attack, forever known as 9/11. Let us pray for them and bring them back home soon, after victory. And let us always remember that life can change in the blink of an eye... and none of us knows when that defining moment will be.

Birds of a Feather

One frustration of bloggers is the lack of comments to our entries. Apparantly, the only way to get a lot of response is to be a little controversial. I was hoping evolution/creation would qualify. Thank you, whoever you are,for leaving a comment on Darwin's finches, etc. in regard to my last entry!

Darwin's finches, of Galopagos fame, have been a hallmark of evolution for decades. Just for fun, I looked in the Evolution textbook currently being used on our campus (it's copyright is 2000, which makes it rather out of date by science standards) These well known birds, something I taught about and studied at some length, rated ......a paragraph. Words like "perhaps" and "some suggest" were used. It did have a picture of a large family tree of the different finches on the different islands. This speculative diagram, labeled as such, dated from a 1947 work when I looked up the reference.

In the past decade it has been found that the beak changes and behaviors in the finches, supposedly proof of natural selection and evolution, go back and forth depending on environmental conditions. In other words, the beaks in the same populations of birds get larger, then shrink over a remarkably short time (years) then increase again, depending on rainfall, food sources, etc. Ditto with feeding behaviours. In other words, they were not evolving toward any sort of new species, just adjusting to temporary conditions .(This vilolates on of the cardinal principles of evolution, that it is unidirectional-I've forgotten the technical term) At best, they illustrate microevolution i.e., any genetic change in a population. This is fascinating in itself, but offers no proof for macroevoltion. Many would argue they are not even different species, but merely varities of one.

I believe the story of Darwin's finches was mentioned in the PBS series of a few years ago, Did Darwin Get it Wrong? If you read my last entry, it is one of the examples I mentioned as either a hoax or discredited research. It would seem to fit the latter, which is why it is given only slight mention in modern textbooks, and in some not mentioned at all. Again, I recommend Icons of Evolution, easily found at Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. Regardless of what side you are on, it will fascinate you!

As to the biblical questions, I will get back to you on that. After all, we bloggers never claim omniscience, just a bent for meaningful dialogue. If any one out there wants to respond before I do, please do!

A Response to an Evolutionist

In our campus paper (The Utah Statesman) this week, a professor wrote a letter regarding evolution. Below is my response, which they published yesterday. What do you think?

As a former college biology instructor , I read Prof. McMahon's letter on evolution with great interest. I applaud his encouragement to students to base their opinions on "real evidence", not ignorance. Unfortunately, this basic statement is problematic at best, insulting at worst. The implication is that if you doubt evolution, you are ignorant. This flies in the face of the fact that many working scientists, from MIT to UC Berkely to even USU openly question evolution. In fact, a national survey of university faculty revealed that the most likely discipline to have faculty who espouse belief in God are physicists and chemists, what we often called the "hard sciences". For many, science supports or even leads them to believe in God and even reject evolution (I am one as well) Biochemists like Michael Behe and others are saying recent findings in their fields demonstrate that biological evolution and abiotic origin of life is simply impossible. Rather, the evidence points to a creator. Recently, Antony Flew, well known atheist and campus debater, became a theist, mostly due to recent ideas in intelligent design. These, and many other examples, seem to refute Prof. later statement..."the methods of science...doesn't address whether God exists." Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein would disagree as well.

To further complicate matters, how can we know what the "real evidence " is? In the 1980's I taught my students (as did all my colleagues) such things as the peppered moth study, Darwin's finches, Haekal's embryo's, homologous structures, Miller's experiments in origins of life, etc. All of these have now proven to be hoaxes, or discredited research. As one author put it in the journal Science, it is simply embarassing.

By all means, let us keep studying the issues. May I recommend starting with Icons of Evolution by Yale and UC Berkeley Phd. Jonathan Wells and Reasons.org, an excellent website run by credentialed scientists.