Well, last December I finally forced myself to watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein's movie on Intelligent Design. For those who thought it was the greatest, I'm sorry.
Having read plenty about it beforehand, watching Expelled confirmed my suspicion: The subtitle is an appropriate Freudian slip. "No intelligence allowed" is a pretty good description of the movie, not the scientific community that it pretends to expose. My second thought was, if this is the best that the Intelligent Design community can come up with, they'd better just pack it up and go home. Its substantial collection of logical fallacies and anti-scientific rhetoric is an insult to the intelligence of its audience, not to mention mocking and accusing scientists and the scientific community in general.
The movie brings false accusation against scientists by its constant reference to Hitler, concentration camps, and other threatening and murderous images. This constant ad hominem argument is not only wearisome, it is slanderous. The truth is, Hitler used Darwinian ideas in his writings to justify killing the Jews, but he also used Christianity in the same way ("the Jews killed Christ", etc.). Does Hitler's use of Christianity prove that Christianity is dangerous and destructive? Or does it prove that Hitler was a madman who could use any rhetorical argument to his advantage, no matter how illogical?
The movie mocks the scientists by taking their arguments out of context and presenting them in a manner calculated to make them look stupid. One of the best illustrations of this is the comment that life might have begun "on the backs of crystals", then he switches to a fortune teller with a crystal ball. If someone doesn't know the difference between a crystal structure and a crystal ball, he should not pretend he's doing any favors to science or the truth. This doesn't mean that life began spontaneously on crystals or anywhere else; it does mean that Stein has used such goofy, anti-scientific rhetoric, that it defies belief.
I'm sure that among scientists there is a fair amount of bias against "Intelligent Design". Richard Dawkins and others represent a fringe movement of the scientific community that is increasingly hostile toward the Christian faith. At the same time, there are many practicing scientists who also believe in God as the Creator and designer of the universe, who are not persecuted. Some, like Francis Collins, actually came to belief in God through their scientific work. Many of these Christian scientists reject the arguments of the "Intelligent Design" movement. So what's going on? Why does science generally not accept Intelligent Design as an explanation?
There are several reasons:
a) Intelligent Design provides no positive scientific hypothesis that leads to productive research. It's main thrust is to point out problems with the current scientific paradigm, which can be valuable, but it provides no other beneficial theory that science can use in practice.
b) Many of the scientific evidences proposed for Intelligent Design are seriously in question based on the evidence (for instance, claims that the bacterial flagellum proves supernatural design).
c) Intelligent Design is a good philosophical assertion or religious belief, not a scientific theory.
d) The anti-intellectual and even deceptive practices and arguments of creationists, including those by Ben Stein in Expelled, have provoked a strong anti-religious backlash among scientists who recognize the gross errors employed. I don't want to put the blame for such bias solely on Christians, but with this kind of unintelligent tripe going around, it's difficult to blame the scientific community for wanting to exclude anything that looks like "religion".
I hadn't intended to give a full review of the movie. For some more detailed reviews, showing why it fails historically and scientifically, see links at ASA's response to Expelled and Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Dialog 1.1 - Theology/Philosophy of Creation
What is the doctrine of creation at it’s essence? It is a theology of divine providence. That is, God called into existence the physical world, containing life and various physical laws that govern how things work and why things happen. He continues to sustain and uphold that creation in the present tense.
This doesn’t say anything about “how” God created or caused anything to come into existence. Once we try to answer the questions of “how” the creation came to exist or how it operates, we find there is a need for more than theology. To put it differently, the laws involved in the act of creation and the activities of the created world are primarily questions of “How Things Work”, which are questions of scientific principles and physical laws. The Bible is not a textbook which explains these principles with scientific rigor. And would we expect the Bible to speak with with scientific precision? If so, why? Was that it's purpose, and if it had, would it have made sense to the original audiences?
If we didn’t have any science to deal with, only theology, the answers would always be trivial: “God did it.” I like the illustration in the following story:
A pastor was talking with a group of 7-year-old boys, trying to relate to them, and thought of a neat illustration. He told them, "I'm thinking of an animal that is small, grey, has a bushy tail, jumps from tree to tree, loves to gather nuts, and is very fast. Johnny, what animal am I thinking of?” Johnny squirmed uncomfortably, and finally answered, "Excuse me sir, I know the answer is Jesus, but it sounds like a squirrel to me."
Many religious people, when they think about creation or nature, are tempted in the same way to answer the questions of "how does the world work" and "how did it come to be this way" with "God did it." This may be true, but it doesn't contribute anything to our scientific understandings of the physical world.
We live in a scientific world, and science plays a fundamental part of everything we do, from the plastic spoons we use at picnics, to the cars we drive, to the CD and MP3 players we listen to, even in many ways the food we eat. Most aspects of the technology we enjoy, the medical practices we use to sustain our health, our knowledge of astronomical events, etc., owe their temporal origin to various fields of scientific inquiry. Such a simplistic theological answer undermines the pursuit of scientific knowledge that has given us an understanding and deeper appreciation for how God’s creation actually works.
There's a good cartoon that illustrates this:
(Youth and science page)
It may be true that creation, or various acts of creation, were the result of a "miracle". But are there other physical causes and effects involved? We know that the present world is governed by natural processes, by which things act, grow, adapt, etc. What if any natural processes were involved in creation, or was it purely a supernatural act?
A children's song says, "Jesus made the big round sun, He loves us, He loves us. And He made the flowers each one, He loves us, He loves us..." In the spring, my yard is filled with dandelions. What causes it? Did God come into my yard during the night and create this field of yellow flowers out of nothing? I know that one cause is that my children blow the white seeds everywhere (on purpose, so they can get more dandelions). Another explanation can be found in plant biology, explaining reproduction of a species. This simple question about flowers immediately requires that we jump from the theology of creation to the science of biology.
There are natural explanations for why these dandelions grew. There is a rational biological explanation -- dandelions take in nutrients from the earth, they grow roots under the ground and spreads white fluffy seeds through the air, these seeds and roots grow, and through a process of biological reproduction the flower produces more of its own kind. Then there is a higher cause or explanation -- my children wanted more flowers to grow. And then there is the ultimate cause -- God is the Creator of all things.
In any discussion of creation and science, we need to be clear that science is not the enemy. Science is amoral –- without morals, either good or bad. People may take science to draw philosophical conclusions, but the result is not science. Scientists may be Christians or they may be Muslims, atheists, or whatever, and still come to the same conclusions about the physical causes and effects explained in the realm of science. Many of the early and modern scientists were Christians, but their Christian beliefs didn’t keep them searching for natural descriptions of various phenomena. Not only that, Christianity historically has actually encouraged scientific investigation of the world around us, so that in understanding nature, we can (hopefully) be better stewards over it. A sound theology of creation does not exclude scientific explanations of nature, or so-called "secondary causes".
This doesn’t say anything about “how” God created or caused anything to come into existence. Once we try to answer the questions of “how” the creation came to exist or how it operates, we find there is a need for more than theology. To put it differently, the laws involved in the act of creation and the activities of the created world are primarily questions of “How Things Work”, which are questions of scientific principles and physical laws. The Bible is not a textbook which explains these principles with scientific rigor. And would we expect the Bible to speak with with scientific precision? If so, why? Was that it's purpose, and if it had, would it have made sense to the original audiences?
If we didn’t have any science to deal with, only theology, the answers would always be trivial: “God did it.” I like the illustration in the following story:
A pastor was talking with a group of 7-year-old boys, trying to relate to them, and thought of a neat illustration. He told them, "I'm thinking of an animal that is small, grey, has a bushy tail, jumps from tree to tree, loves to gather nuts, and is very fast. Johnny, what animal am I thinking of?” Johnny squirmed uncomfortably, and finally answered, "Excuse me sir, I know the answer is Jesus, but it sounds like a squirrel to me."
Many religious people, when they think about creation or nature, are tempted in the same way to answer the questions of "how does the world work" and "how did it come to be this way" with "God did it." This may be true, but it doesn't contribute anything to our scientific understandings of the physical world.
We live in a scientific world, and science plays a fundamental part of everything we do, from the plastic spoons we use at picnics, to the cars we drive, to the CD and MP3 players we listen to, even in many ways the food we eat. Most aspects of the technology we enjoy, the medical practices we use to sustain our health, our knowledge of astronomical events, etc., owe their temporal origin to various fields of scientific inquiry. Such a simplistic theological answer undermines the pursuit of scientific knowledge that has given us an understanding and deeper appreciation for how God’s creation actually works.
There's a good cartoon that illustrates this:
(Youth and science page)
It may be true that creation, or various acts of creation, were the result of a "miracle". But are there other physical causes and effects involved? We know that the present world is governed by natural processes, by which things act, grow, adapt, etc. What if any natural processes were involved in creation, or was it purely a supernatural act?
A children's song says, "Jesus made the big round sun, He loves us, He loves us. And He made the flowers each one, He loves us, He loves us..." In the spring, my yard is filled with dandelions. What causes it? Did God come into my yard during the night and create this field of yellow flowers out of nothing? I know that one cause is that my children blow the white seeds everywhere (on purpose, so they can get more dandelions). Another explanation can be found in plant biology, explaining reproduction of a species. This simple question about flowers immediately requires that we jump from the theology of creation to the science of biology.
There are natural explanations for why these dandelions grew. There is a rational biological explanation -- dandelions take in nutrients from the earth, they grow roots under the ground and spreads white fluffy seeds through the air, these seeds and roots grow, and through a process of biological reproduction the flower produces more of its own kind. Then there is a higher cause or explanation -- my children wanted more flowers to grow. And then there is the ultimate cause -- God is the Creator of all things.
In any discussion of creation and science, we need to be clear that science is not the enemy. Science is amoral –- without morals, either good or bad. People may take science to draw philosophical conclusions, but the result is not science. Scientists may be Christians or they may be Muslims, atheists, or whatever, and still come to the same conclusions about the physical causes and effects explained in the realm of science. Many of the early and modern scientists were Christians, but their Christian beliefs didn’t keep them searching for natural descriptions of various phenomena. Not only that, Christianity historically has actually encouraged scientific investigation of the world around us, so that in understanding nature, we can (hopefully) be better stewards over it. A sound theology of creation does not exclude scientific explanations of nature, or so-called "secondary causes".
Introduction
I have been drawn to science and faith issues for many years. As an engineer with a science background, I am interested in knowing how the world works. As a Christian, I believe God is ultimately responsible for the origin of the created order, for its design and purpose, and about our place in it. He has revealed himself in the created order, and He has revealed himself to us in scripture.
But how do we reconcile the revelations given to us in the created world and in scripture? Over the years, I have struggled with these questions--there seem to be no easy answers when all the facts are considered. I have been dissatisfied with many of the easy answers and faulty arguments given by the leaders of the "Creation Science" movement. As I study science and the evidence from the physical world, I find that Christians often misunderstand, misrepresent, and selectively employ scientific theories to advance the "cause of Christianity", in ways that seriously compromise their credibility.
It is one thing for the average Christian with limited background in scientific disciplines to repeat a bad scientific argument which they have heard from others. It's quite another for the self-proclaimed "experts" to misrepresent the evidence, when they know (or should know) better. Often they do so because of their strong commitment to "Biblical truth", which commitment is certainly laudable, but I believe that teaching falsehood in the name of Christ can only hurt the cause of the faith. Worse, when our children learn that they have been taught false science as foundational to the Christian faith, will they reject the faith along with the bad science? And if unbelievers see us teaching clearly false things about nature, what would make them think we are teaching the truth about faith issues?
My present concern is to seek the truth, so I may know what to teach my own children about science, and to build their faith on solid ground rather than indefensible assertions. I desire a solid defense of Christian teachings in our scientific world, which may help believers hold onto their faith, and provide at least a plausible answer that will allow unbelievers to consider the message of Christ.
I have titled this blog "Creation and Science" instead of something like "Creation vs. Science", because I am seeking for ways to bring harmony between these two realms of thought. For any who wish to follow this discussion, I intend to pursue several main threads of discussion, which I'll title "Dialog 1.1", etc., to indicate the main flow of thought. Other postings will be inserted with different titles, as I come across scientific discoveries or other random thoughts that may be of interest.
But how do we reconcile the revelations given to us in the created world and in scripture? Over the years, I have struggled with these questions--there seem to be no easy answers when all the facts are considered. I have been dissatisfied with many of the easy answers and faulty arguments given by the leaders of the "Creation Science" movement. As I study science and the evidence from the physical world, I find that Christians often misunderstand, misrepresent, and selectively employ scientific theories to advance the "cause of Christianity", in ways that seriously compromise their credibility.
It is one thing for the average Christian with limited background in scientific disciplines to repeat a bad scientific argument which they have heard from others. It's quite another for the self-proclaimed "experts" to misrepresent the evidence, when they know (or should know) better. Often they do so because of their strong commitment to "Biblical truth", which commitment is certainly laudable, but I believe that teaching falsehood in the name of Christ can only hurt the cause of the faith. Worse, when our children learn that they have been taught false science as foundational to the Christian faith, will they reject the faith along with the bad science? And if unbelievers see us teaching clearly false things about nature, what would make them think we are teaching the truth about faith issues?
My present concern is to seek the truth, so I may know what to teach my own children about science, and to build their faith on solid ground rather than indefensible assertions. I desire a solid defense of Christian teachings in our scientific world, which may help believers hold onto their faith, and provide at least a plausible answer that will allow unbelievers to consider the message of Christ.
I have titled this blog "Creation and Science" instead of something like "Creation vs. Science", because I am seeking for ways to bring harmony between these two realms of thought. For any who wish to follow this discussion, I intend to pursue several main threads of discussion, which I'll title "Dialog 1.1", etc., to indicate the main flow of thought. Other postings will be inserted with different titles, as I come across scientific discoveries or other random thoughts that may be of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
