Drs. Duncan, Ferguson, Lawson, and Mohler participated in a Q&A forum at the end of the mini-conference on John Calvin. I took notes on nine of the submited questions and will split this up into two parts.
1) Why is Calvin important 500 years later? He was the first great biblical exegete of the church. Other theologians contributed greatly, of course, but Calvin had a genius for explaining the Bible. His time in history was key, for the Reformation was the greatest movement forward for Christianity since the beginning. The opportunity for dissemination of ideas through print and movement of people across national and geographical lines was unprecedented. This produced a multiplication effect. Calvin, as we've previously seen, had a tremendous institutional legacy. Calvin did theology with his life at stake [referring to the implied threat if Rome ever got her hands on him]. We face many of the same challenges today, by the way. He prepared able men who took his teachings to many others.
2) Where should laypeople start to learn about Calvin? His sermons are easy to read. The Institutes are very pastoral. Try his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians. Read the dedicatory letter at the start of the Institutes. Ferguson's lecture on Calvin's commentary on Romans and the commentary itself.
3) What is generally not known about Calvin? According to Ferguson, his favorite game was "Keys" [I'd always heard it was a form of ninepins]. The suffering of the man--virtually every day was something to be endured. Illnesses and infirmities. Emotional and relational difficulties. Yet the joyfulness of his piety is readily apparent. The general historical portrayal of the man found in popular writings is often incorrect. He was not the "tyrant of Geneva." He launched a mission movement, very uncharacteristic of Christian teachers and theologians of his day. He had the dedication of his friends. Remarkable for the strenuousness of the opposition and ugliness of the hate directed toward him in his life.
4) What about Servetus? Michael Servetus was a heretic who would have been condemned anywhere in Europe. He was warned not to come to Geneva. Calvin personally tried to dissuade him. He came anyway, was tried and condemned. Calvin tried to obtain a more merciful form of execution--beheading rather than being burned at the stake. In his answer, Mohler tried to put the matter in its historical context. Servetus was guilty of the equivalent of treason. Heresy is a threat to all of society but the government is not the correct agent for dealing with this. At the time, there was near-universal acceptance of the unitary model of church and state; by comparison, we are used to a radical separation model, making it very difficult for us to understand 16th-century thinking on this matter. Calvin was not the prosecutor for the case against Servetus; at the time, he was not even a citizen of Geneva. The men on the consistory were his political enemies and sought to embarrass him. Servetus begged to stay in Geneva because anywhere in France it would have been far worse for him.
Permit me to editorialize and provide some additional facts regarding the Servetus affair: Opinions on what to do about him were solicited from all the major Swiss cities, and the universal consensus was that he be condemned. Other reformers, even those with a mild reputation such as Philip Melancthon, were similarly firm. He already had the death sentence in France; anywhere within Roman Catholic authority he was a dead man. Was this the right way to deal with theological error? No, and it took Christian Europe a long time to come to grips with the fundamental inconsistency. Yet Calvin takes enormous criticism for the lone example of Servetus when far, far worse went on elsewhere. This again raises the issue of why this man was subject to such intense opposition and hostility and I would look to the gospels for the answer.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Three
Dr. Lawson concluded his presentation by expanding upon the idea that Calvin exerted an international influence. Calvin's ideas spread to the world. Geneva was a refuge city; once those refugees were able to return to their homelands they took Calvin's thought with them. Many returned to be martyrs. Translations of Calvin's work were made in several languages. Alistair McGrath refers to "a new type of being--the Calvinist--with a can-do approach to life." By 1556 there were about 2000 Reformed congregations in France; fully one-tenth of the French population was Reformed, at a time when it was required to be Roman Catholic and no one was permitted to emigrate. In Scotland, John Knox preached a complete rebuilding of the church. Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian thought was brought to American shores. The Westminster Standards and the Belgic Confession are both hugely based on Calvin's teaching. Lawson spoke of the Synod of Dort. The Great Awakening and Presbyterian influence on the American Revolution. William Carey and the modern missions movement. Time magazine has just published an edition in which the "new Calvinism" is listed as the number three idea shaping the world.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Two
Dr. Lawson continued: Calvin put forward a Christian worldview, summed up as soli Deo gloria. See Romans 11:36. No man ever had a more profound view of God (per B. B. Warfield). He possessed zeal for the glory of God. A work ethic--all work is a calling from God. Prior to Calvin, a doctrine of vocation was reserved to apply to the clergy. Education--love God with all one's mind. In the Middle Ages, education was a valuable commodity in short supply. Even with the Renaissance education remained for the elite only. Calvin's Reformation changed all that. He established the Geneva Academy, which trained many of the Protestant clergy of the next few generations. A standard of law, order, and justice. Calvin explained the uses of the Law. Punishment must fit the crime. Free market capitalism. At its heart were certain values: Hard work, right of private ownership, investment, honesty and integrity in business, nobility of profit, necessity of caring for the poor out of the profits given by God. He established a Reformed church in Geneva and then spread abroad such ideas such as Scripture as the sole and final authority, the preaching of the Word, church leaders as a plurality of godly men, the regulative principle, and even democratic republicanism. Geneva was the laboratory for Calvin's view of church and state relations. There was limit on power, checks and balances, distinct branches of government. He emphasized divine sovereignty over human sovereignty. All of this to the preservation of individual liberty. Everything above was in the notes for the Geneva Bible, which was one reason James I of England authorized a new translation of the Bible in order to get rid of the influence of those notes. Calvin can be credited with instituting separation of church and state.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part One
Dr. Steve Lawson gave the last of four formal talks on John Calvin during the mini-conference. However, my notes on this presentation are too extensive to type up for one blog post, so I'll split this into three entries.
Dr. Lawson began by observing that Calvin's legacy is difficult to encompass, for he lived the life of twenty men. Virtually no area of life is untouched by his influence. He was the "man of the millennium." Dr. Lawson referred to a theological standard. Calvin was the architect of Reformed theology. Whereas Martyn Lloyd-Jones likened Martin Luther to a volcano that spewed out ideas, Calvin was a systematizer, an organizer who was greatly needed. He credits Calvin as preserving the heritage of the Reformation. The Institutes are the greatest theological work to emerge from the Reformation. He defended the biblical character of Reformation doctrine against the false charge of novelty. His literary output was incredible--commentaries, sermons, pamphlets, and letters. Most importantly, Calvin's work was a ministry of the word of God.
Dr. Lawson began by observing that Calvin's legacy is difficult to encompass, for he lived the life of twenty men. Virtually no area of life is untouched by his influence. He was the "man of the millennium." Dr. Lawson referred to a theological standard. Calvin was the architect of Reformed theology. Whereas Martyn Lloyd-Jones likened Martin Luther to a volcano that spewed out ideas, Calvin was a systematizer, an organizer who was greatly needed. He credits Calvin as preserving the heritage of the Reformation. The Institutes are the greatest theological work to emerge from the Reformation. He defended the biblical character of Reformation doctrine against the false charge of novelty. His literary output was incredible--commentaries, sermons, pamphlets, and letters. Most importantly, Calvin's work was a ministry of the word of God.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Doctrines of Grace
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke on the doctrines of grace as perceived by John Calvin. He took as his text Ephesians 1:3-7, although admitted there were many places he could have gone. Ferguson reiterated the scriptural theme of God going before us in salvation. His focus was on grace in a larger sense, not necessarily in the narrower way we tend to think of it as the famous five points that are so often controverted. He spoke to three principle subjects:
1) The teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared. Medieval theologians majored heavily on grace and how to get it. From the Reformation perspective it wasn't lack of speaking about grace but wrong ideas about grace. The medieval perspective was adulterated, dis-grace. At baptism, grace was (supposedly) granted, even infused. The whole course of the Christian life was to nurture and enhance this grace so that ultimately the individual believer's life was righteous and then God would be able to justify him. "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This idea is rife in western Protestantism today. The most difficult thing for sinners to grasp is undiluted, unassisted (by men) grace. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to teaching of free grace as fear of antinomianism. They also referred to a "legal fiction," claiming that the Reformers stated God pronounces a sinner righteous when he's not, missing the basis of why God could do this. Medieval religion offered no joy, and assurance was impossible. Ferguson quoted Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance of salvation, because the church can't provide assurance through the sacraments and rites/rituals. Calvin's critique was that Rome substituted the pope and magisterium for the Spirit as the vicar of Christ. Rome's doctrine of justification is too fragile--it needs to keep being shored up.
2) The doctrines that Calvin expounded. He gave gospel responses to the rejection of Reformation teaching. Calvin always points to the gracious salvation of God in Jesus Christ. Men are born dead and live dead. We cannot but do and speak wickedness. We are under God's wrath and justly so. We are hopeless without God's sovereignty in salvation. The atonement is effective; unless one is a universalist every Christian maintains a limited atonement. God is never at odds with himself. There is a great sense of the efficacy of Christ's work. He didn't come simply to make salvation possible but actually to save. Irresistable grace--would God have permitted Christ's sacrifice without seeing the matter through?
3) The nature of the grace Calvin preached. Is grace a stuff or a substance we acquire? There is no such "thing" as grace, there is only Jesus Christ. It is not something outside of Christ dispensed by the Spirit like stock dividends. What the Spirit brings is faith in Christ himself, who is all the righteousness we will ever need.
1) The teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared. Medieval theologians majored heavily on grace and how to get it. From the Reformation perspective it wasn't lack of speaking about grace but wrong ideas about grace. The medieval perspective was adulterated, dis-grace. At baptism, grace was (supposedly) granted, even infused. The whole course of the Christian life was to nurture and enhance this grace so that ultimately the individual believer's life was righteous and then God would be able to justify him. "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This idea is rife in western Protestantism today. The most difficult thing for sinners to grasp is undiluted, unassisted (by men) grace. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to teaching of free grace as fear of antinomianism. They also referred to a "legal fiction," claiming that the Reformers stated God pronounces a sinner righteous when he's not, missing the basis of why God could do this. Medieval religion offered no joy, and assurance was impossible. Ferguson quoted Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance of salvation, because the church can't provide assurance through the sacraments and rites/rituals. Calvin's critique was that Rome substituted the pope and magisterium for the Spirit as the vicar of Christ. Rome's doctrine of justification is too fragile--it needs to keep being shored up.
2) The doctrines that Calvin expounded. He gave gospel responses to the rejection of Reformation teaching. Calvin always points to the gracious salvation of God in Jesus Christ. Men are born dead and live dead. We cannot but do and speak wickedness. We are under God's wrath and justly so. We are hopeless without God's sovereignty in salvation. The atonement is effective; unless one is a universalist every Christian maintains a limited atonement. God is never at odds with himself. There is a great sense of the efficacy of Christ's work. He didn't come simply to make salvation possible but actually to save. Irresistable grace--would God have permitted Christ's sacrifice without seeing the matter through?
3) The nature of the grace Calvin preached. Is grace a stuff or a substance we acquire? There is no such "thing" as grace, there is only Jesus Christ. It is not something outside of Christ dispensed by the Spirit like stock dividends. What the Spirit brings is faith in Christ himself, who is all the righteousness we will ever need.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
John Calvin and the Christian Life
The next speaker in the mini-conference on John Calvin was Dr. Ligon Duncan. His text was 1 Timothy 1:3-5--the goal of instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith. The practical fruits of godliness. Not just a head knowledge [compare 1 Corinthians 8:1) but transformed and changed by the truth (Romans 12:1-2). Piety is an important idea in Calvin's teaching. The word comes from the Latin pietas and applies to the whole understanding and practice of the Christian life. An experiential love of God as Father plus a fear and reverence of God as Lord. "Religio"--a heart matter, faith joined to fear and reverence. The pious man honors God as his own Father, yet fears/reverences him as Lord. There is a similar idea in classical Roman thinking reflective of the attitude of children toward parents and citizens toward the state. (By the way, the reason why Roman authorities often charged Christians with impiety and atheism was because they did not appropriately respect the state and they had rejected the Roman pantheon). In the NT, the idea of piety is frequently rendered as "godliness." What were the origins of Calvin's teaching on piety? Unlike the "conversion verses" of Augustine and Martin Luther, the biblical text that the Spirit used to convert Calvin is not known because he wrote so little about himself and did not elaborate much on this event. The Calvin scholar Battles speculated it might have been Romans 1:18-25, especially verse 21, because the central theme of Calvin's teachings was honoring God and being thankful to him. In Institutes III:6, the object of the work God is doing in us is to manifest in our lives harmony and agreement between God's righteousness and our obedience, and to confirm us in our adoption as his children. Two more aspects were that a love of righteousness that is foreign to us needs to be instilled, as against antinomianism; a rule is set forth that does not let us wander. The spirit of the current age is against the guiding use of the Law. Calvin highlights God's holiness as a foundation for our own righteous living, a motivation. When we hear mention of our union with God, recall the bond of holiness. We need to cleave to him, infused with his holiness, and then we can follow him. We come to him to become like him, to be conformed, that we might have fellowship with him. Pursue holiness. God's benefits in salvation are another motivation. Since cleansed by Christ, we will not want to get back in the mud. Keep the body of Christ free of spots and blemishes. Philippians 2:12-13. Piety has negative implications in our contemporary thinking; it's a synonym for hypocrisy in the mind of many. Calvin points out our lives are not characterized by perfection but of growth. A progressive sanctification. God is not done with us yet.
A summary of Institutes III:6-10:
1) Self denial
2) Cross bearing
3) Meditation on the future life; animated by a vital hope
4) The use of the present life; moderation in the enjoyment of temporal benefits, industry, thankfulness, cognizance that God is greater than his gifts
A summary of Institutes III:6-10:
1) Self denial
2) Cross bearing
3) Meditation on the future life; animated by a vital hope
4) The use of the present life; moderation in the enjoyment of temporal benefits, industry, thankfulness, cognizance that God is greater than his gifts
Monday, March 23, 2009
John Calvin--Preacher and Teacher
2009 marks the quincentennial of the birth of John Calvin (later this year--10 July). The traditional Ligonier pre-conference seminar was expanded into Thursday morning in order to accommodate a "mini-conference" on the life and legacy of Calvin, given his importance in the history of Reformed theology.
The series was kicked off by Dr. Al Mohler, who spoke on the theme of Calvin as preacher and teacher. He observed that this was an apt description of Calvin's legacy. God vindicates his own and his truth, reflected in 500 years of influence. Calvin preached 4000 sermons in Geneva in a relatively short time span. He preached through many (not all) books of the Bible and conducted many sermon series. He was very dedicated to his calling as a preacher. The Reformation was mostly within his hearers. William Farel and Martin Bucer exhorted him against his preferences to go to Geneva. He was convinced that preachers needed to be taught; the Institutes in their final form were intended for this purpose. Preachers are to confine themselves to the word of God--don't preach one's own ideas and don't try to be clever. Exposition of the Bible is the preaching of God's word, which is applied by the Spirit in the hearts of the hearers. The preacher is sent and commissioned by God himself and therefore carries authority. A call to the preaching office is necessary. Preaching is revelation--not innovative but in proclamation. Preaching is central to worship. The preacher must be a scholar. Study is required in order to rightly divide the word of truth. Preaching is eminently pastoral. Counseling comes best through preaching the word (Mohler inveighed against the practice of seminarians taking counseling classes and neglecting theology). Any preacher faithful to his calling will face adversity, in the form of hard work, opposition, and suffering; Calvin certainly did. But Calvin understood that the enemies he faced were God's enemies--he himself was not the real focus of their enmity. Thank the God who gave Calvin to the church and spoke through him. Right epistemology: God speaks, you listen.
The series was kicked off by Dr. Al Mohler, who spoke on the theme of Calvin as preacher and teacher. He observed that this was an apt description of Calvin's legacy. God vindicates his own and his truth, reflected in 500 years of influence. Calvin preached 4000 sermons in Geneva in a relatively short time span. He preached through many (not all) books of the Bible and conducted many sermon series. He was very dedicated to his calling as a preacher. The Reformation was mostly within his hearers. William Farel and Martin Bucer exhorted him against his preferences to go to Geneva. He was convinced that preachers needed to be taught; the Institutes in their final form were intended for this purpose. Preachers are to confine themselves to the word of God--don't preach one's own ideas and don't try to be clever. Exposition of the Bible is the preaching of God's word, which is applied by the Spirit in the hearts of the hearers. The preacher is sent and commissioned by God himself and therefore carries authority. A call to the preaching office is necessary. Preaching is revelation--not innovative but in proclamation. Preaching is central to worship. The preacher must be a scholar. Study is required in order to rightly divide the word of truth. Preaching is eminently pastoral. Counseling comes best through preaching the word (Mohler inveighed against the practice of seminarians taking counseling classes and neglecting theology). Any preacher faithful to his calling will face adversity, in the form of hard work, opposition, and suffering; Calvin certainly did. But Calvin understood that the enemies he faced were God's enemies--he himself was not the real focus of their enmity. Thank the God who gave Calvin to the church and spoke through him. Right epistemology: God speaks, you listen.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Ignorance Is Not Bliss
Last week, for the thirteenth consecutive year, I journeyed down to Orlando, Florida, in order to attend the national conference held annually by Ligonier Ministries. Although I had known some of Dr. R. C. Sproul's writings it was not until I was invited by my pastor to join a group of men on a "road trip" in the spring of 1997 to attend this conference. That year the topic happened to be on essential truths of the Christian faith. I was hooked. The content and conduct of the conference was like raw meat to a starving tiger. By the grace and provision of God I have managed to make it back every year since. Two years ago I took the step of becoming a regular supporter of the ministry. As a consequence I now get invited to participate in events held in advance of the actual conference schedule. This year Ligonier held a dinner offsite on Wednesday evening in order to introduce ministry partners to the organization's new capital campaign. Dr. Sproul also give a short message rather than conduct a Q&A session as he usually does for these events. The following are the notes I took while listening to him speak.
His text was Hosea 4:1-6 and his theme was that "the people lack knowledge." Hosea here records a call to a solemn assembly: "Hear the word of the LORD, you children of Israel." This summons was for the purpose of delivering God's indictment against the nation. The Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land. The word translated "charge" can also be read as "controversy," as it is in the KJV. God has a controversy with Israel. God is angry; there is a conflict here. So what's the big deal? There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. How can this be said? Recall Romans 2, where Paul insists on the advantages Israel had because she possessed the oracles of God. Here in Hosea the nation seems to have lost all this.
Dr. Sproul applies this indictment to our contemporary situation. There is a famine for hearing the word of the Lord in the land. We often shy away from controversy and conflict. Truth divides, is the complaint. It also unites like-minded believers. He quoted Francis Schaeffer, who thought that the church had lost all sense of antithesis in his day (and that was around thirty years ago--we certainly haven't regained lost ground since then) and had retreated from naming falsehood and opposing it.
What are the consequences of vacating the knowledge of God? In this passage, Hosea says the restraints are gone and there is unbridled wickedness. The land will mourn. God judges in kind. He blessed America with remarkable prosperity but now he may be removing that blessing. It is always perilous to apply prophetic warnings originally given to national Israel to other nations at other times but God's unchanging character suggests that we as a nation not in possession of a specific covenant with him have no reason to expect exemption from judgment.
"I will destroy your mother." In context, that meant Israel. A fearsome thing. The people perish for lack of knowledge.
His text was Hosea 4:1-6 and his theme was that "the people lack knowledge." Hosea here records a call to a solemn assembly: "Hear the word of the LORD, you children of Israel." This summons was for the purpose of delivering God's indictment against the nation. The Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land. The word translated "charge" can also be read as "controversy," as it is in the KJV. God has a controversy with Israel. God is angry; there is a conflict here. So what's the big deal? There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. How can this be said? Recall Romans 2, where Paul insists on the advantages Israel had because she possessed the oracles of God. Here in Hosea the nation seems to have lost all this.
Dr. Sproul applies this indictment to our contemporary situation. There is a famine for hearing the word of the Lord in the land. We often shy away from controversy and conflict. Truth divides, is the complaint. It also unites like-minded believers. He quoted Francis Schaeffer, who thought that the church had lost all sense of antithesis in his day (and that was around thirty years ago--we certainly haven't regained lost ground since then) and had retreated from naming falsehood and opposing it.
What are the consequences of vacating the knowledge of God? In this passage, Hosea says the restraints are gone and there is unbridled wickedness. The land will mourn. God judges in kind. He blessed America with remarkable prosperity but now he may be removing that blessing. It is always perilous to apply prophetic warnings originally given to national Israel to other nations at other times but God's unchanging character suggests that we as a nation not in possession of a specific covenant with him have no reason to expect exemption from judgment.
"I will destroy your mother." In context, that meant Israel. A fearsome thing. The people perish for lack of knowledge.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Triumph of Truth and Reason
The task seems daunting, recognizing the sway that naturalism and Darwinian evolution have over the thought leaders of biology and considering the influence scientists as a whole hold in this culture. Journalism largely is in thrall to scientism. Yet there is power in ideas, and great power in ideas that are true. Truth has been ground down before but always rises again. Many may pay a great price for confronting the spirit of the age but we are assured that truth will prevail.
This concludes my series on Darwinism and entrenched materialistic naturalism. I will take a short break from blogging to attend this year's national Ligonier conference; upon my return perhaps I'll share some impressions before moving on to my next non-controversial topic, "Jesus and Politics."
This concludes my series on Darwinism and entrenched materialistic naturalism. I will take a short break from blogging to attend this year's national Ligonier conference; upon my return perhaps I'll share some impressions before moving on to my next non-controversial topic, "Jesus and Politics."
Monday, March 16, 2009
Theistic Evolutionists Respond to Phillip Johnson
Theistic evolutionists are generally Christians, some scientists, who have made efforts to reconcile Christian belief with what they accept as the truth of evolutionary biology. Not surprisingly, then, some of them have been unhappy with Johnson's efforts. Criticisms boil down to five issues, remarkably similar to the objections raised by naturalists.
1. It is necessary to distinguish between the scientific theory and the excesses of Darwinist apologists. But some of the more politically incorrect Darwinists are simply taking the claims of the theory to their logical conclusions.
2. The commitment to methodological atheism (naturalism).
3. Avoid the "God of the gaps."
4. Johnson's requirement for proof is too stringent. They blame his legal background for this, insisting that biology doesn't require absolute proof, just superior theories which may themselves be perfect. But Johnson hasn't asked for absolute proof, just sufficient proof.
5. Johnson has no alternative theory to propose. Remember, the only acceptable alternative is a "scientific" (naturalistic) one.
When it comes right down to it, most theistic evolutionists have swallowed the orthodox naturalistic line. They have not examined the underlying presuppositions and drawn out the necessary conclusions.
Some find the blind watchmaker thesis attractive (for more, see the article "Creator or Blind Watchmaker" at the First Things web site). But metaphysics and science are hopelessly entangled in this idea. Johnson observes he has had difficulty getting theistic evolutionists to grapple with it, and rightly says that one cannot serve two intellectual masters. Naturalism always seems to win out whenever someone tries to hold it in tension with theism.
1. It is necessary to distinguish between the scientific theory and the excesses of Darwinist apologists. But some of the more politically incorrect Darwinists are simply taking the claims of the theory to their logical conclusions.
2. The commitment to methodological atheism (naturalism).
3. Avoid the "God of the gaps."
4. Johnson's requirement for proof is too stringent. They blame his legal background for this, insisting that biology doesn't require absolute proof, just superior theories which may themselves be perfect. But Johnson hasn't asked for absolute proof, just sufficient proof.
5. Johnson has no alternative theory to propose. Remember, the only acceptable alternative is a "scientific" (naturalistic) one.
When it comes right down to it, most theistic evolutionists have swallowed the orthodox naturalistic line. They have not examined the underlying presuppositions and drawn out the necessary conclusions.
Some find the blind watchmaker thesis attractive (for more, see the article "Creator or Blind Watchmaker" at the First Things web site). But metaphysics and science are hopelessly entangled in this idea. Johnson observes he has had difficulty getting theistic evolutionists to grapple with it, and rightly says that one cannot serve two intellectual masters. Naturalism always seems to win out whenever someone tries to hold it in tension with theism.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Other Responses to "Darwin on Trial"
We previously mentioned Michael Ruse, the philosopher of science and the most important witness for the opposition to the 1981 Arkansas case we examined a while back (the one over which Judge Overton presided). At the Foundation for Thought and Ethics conference in March 1992 reputable academics from both sides of the evolution controversy gathered. Attention was paid specifically to the metaphysical issues for once. Ruse and Phillip Johnson participated in a debate there over whether theism and Darwinian evolution are compatible. Then at the February 1993 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ruse made some astonishing public admissions. He affirmed the reality of metaphysical assumptions in naturalistic science and urged honesty in dealing with them.
But no good deed goes unpunished. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist who also attended the 1992 meeting, readily affirmed that "there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science," but celebrated the materialistic preference for explaining reality and contrasted it to a primitive viewpoint that essentially ascribes natural phenomena to "the gods." By this Shapiro showed he held an appalling--but all too common--misconception of theism.
The aforementioned William Provine was very harsh in his comments about Johnson's arguments as put forth in Darwin on Trial but admitted that there was one point in common: Both understand the incompatibility of Darwinism and theism and deplore the efforts to cover this up for public relations purposes. Remember, Provine is a very hard core atheist.
But no good deed goes unpunished. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist who also attended the 1992 meeting, readily affirmed that "there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science," but celebrated the materialistic preference for explaining reality and contrasted it to a primitive viewpoint that essentially ascribes natural phenomena to "the gods." By this Shapiro showed he held an appalling--but all too common--misconception of theism.
The aforementioned William Provine was very harsh in his comments about Johnson's arguments as put forth in Darwin on Trial but admitted that there was one point in common: Both understand the incompatibility of Darwinism and theism and deplore the efforts to cover this up for public relations purposes. Remember, Provine is a very hard core atheist.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
We Maintain the Right to Refuse Service
In the early 1990s, University of California-Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson published his book Darwin on Trial, a scathing exposure of contemporary evolutionary biology's refusal to brook any criticism or examination of its axiomatic materialisitic naturalism. Needless to say, the book was not well received by the examinees. At the time, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard was the best-known and (presumably) articulate defender, nay, public educator and promoter of evolutionary biology. Everyone expected that he would offer the definitive and most deflating critique of Johnson's book.
And so it came about that Gould's four-page review of Darwin on Trial appeared in the July 1992 edition of Scientific American. The effort proved to be somewhat hit-and-miss, with several "criticisms" too off the point for further consideration. But here are five of the most important arguments Gould made against Johnson's work:
1. There is no conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief or even atheism. Gould cited the example of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, calling him "a believing Russian Orthodox." The problem is, Dobzhansky was a pantheist who expected Darwinism to provide the basis for a great humanistic religion (somewhat akin to Julian Huxley's hope) and could hardly be considered a faithful Orthodox Christian. That there is no conflict between Darwinism and atheism is readily seen--in fact, Darwinism as a form of materialistic naturalism requires atheism or some form of deism that is practically the same thing. But orthodox theism of any stripe is automatically excluded. Other Darwinists, as we have seen with William Provine, have been much more transparent on this point.
2. Johnson neglected sexual recombination as a method of variation. By this Gould intended to point out that mutation and selection are not the only mechanisms by which variation occurs from generation to generation. True, but this objection is inconsequential to Johnson's critique, because recombination can account only for immediate variation but not genuine genetic innovation, i.e., no new genetic information is gained in the resortment or shuffling and cannot account for the development of new characteristics or functions.
3. Darwinian evolution should be judged successful as a historical science. As we have seen, undoubtedly Darwinism has enormous explanatory power. But the question is actually, "Is it true?" not, "Does it provide a good model of reality?" Ptolemaic astronomy had superior explanatory power when Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric model but that did not make the former true.
4. Johnson gives insufficient credit to positive evidence for macroevolution such as the therapsids. But recall that it is acknowledged by critics that the therapsids are a point in favor of the Darwinists. The objection is that so much is claimed on the basis of single data bits such as this. It is insufficient and actually wrong to consider just the positive evidence and ignore the negative evidence.
5. Johnson's quotes of figures like Simpson and Mayr are out of date and therefore irrelevant to the current issue. In general, one wants to refer to the best, most contemporary sources when dealing with the technical aspects of the issue. But it remains legitimate to consult historically significant and influential thought leaders, including Darwin himself, when considering the claims made on behalf of the theory, expecially when it reaches past explanations of biological phenomena into metaphysics.
How did Johnson respond to this review? Other than the specifics already mentioned, overall he was disappointed by Gould's efforts. He wrote that they actually have a lot in common, but "What divide us are the same metaphysical questions that I have debated with Steven Weinberg and Michael Ruse: Is 'science' by definition simply applied materialistic philosophy? If so, is naturalism simply the same thing as 'reason' or can naturalism itself be questioned on rational grounds?" In essence, the poor quality of Gould's critique reveals the weakness of his arguments, implying that he really had no reponses on the merits of Johnson's criticisms. Gould seemed to be unwilling to engage on the wider, more fundamental questions of truth.
So Johnson's charge is confirmed. Science and non-science (non-sense?) are treated as separate but "equal" and all that entails. Per Gould in his reply to Johnson, "Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality," thus invoking the fact-value divide and relegating religion to the category of subjective opinion and non-rationality. And "separate but equal" here has the same effect as it did in American racial policies of the last century. It is an inherent statement of actual inequality.
And so it came about that Gould's four-page review of Darwin on Trial appeared in the July 1992 edition of Scientific American. The effort proved to be somewhat hit-and-miss, with several "criticisms" too off the point for further consideration. But here are five of the most important arguments Gould made against Johnson's work:
1. There is no conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief or even atheism. Gould cited the example of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, calling him "a believing Russian Orthodox." The problem is, Dobzhansky was a pantheist who expected Darwinism to provide the basis for a great humanistic religion (somewhat akin to Julian Huxley's hope) and could hardly be considered a faithful Orthodox Christian. That there is no conflict between Darwinism and atheism is readily seen--in fact, Darwinism as a form of materialistic naturalism requires atheism or some form of deism that is practically the same thing. But orthodox theism of any stripe is automatically excluded. Other Darwinists, as we have seen with William Provine, have been much more transparent on this point.
2. Johnson neglected sexual recombination as a method of variation. By this Gould intended to point out that mutation and selection are not the only mechanisms by which variation occurs from generation to generation. True, but this objection is inconsequential to Johnson's critique, because recombination can account only for immediate variation but not genuine genetic innovation, i.e., no new genetic information is gained in the resortment or shuffling and cannot account for the development of new characteristics or functions.
3. Darwinian evolution should be judged successful as a historical science. As we have seen, undoubtedly Darwinism has enormous explanatory power. But the question is actually, "Is it true?" not, "Does it provide a good model of reality?" Ptolemaic astronomy had superior explanatory power when Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric model but that did not make the former true.
4. Johnson gives insufficient credit to positive evidence for macroevolution such as the therapsids. But recall that it is acknowledged by critics that the therapsids are a point in favor of the Darwinists. The objection is that so much is claimed on the basis of single data bits such as this. It is insufficient and actually wrong to consider just the positive evidence and ignore the negative evidence.
5. Johnson's quotes of figures like Simpson and Mayr are out of date and therefore irrelevant to the current issue. In general, one wants to refer to the best, most contemporary sources when dealing with the technical aspects of the issue. But it remains legitimate to consult historically significant and influential thought leaders, including Darwin himself, when considering the claims made on behalf of the theory, expecially when it reaches past explanations of biological phenomena into metaphysics.
How did Johnson respond to this review? Other than the specifics already mentioned, overall he was disappointed by Gould's efforts. He wrote that they actually have a lot in common, but "What divide us are the same metaphysical questions that I have debated with Steven Weinberg and Michael Ruse: Is 'science' by definition simply applied materialistic philosophy? If so, is naturalism simply the same thing as 'reason' or can naturalism itself be questioned on rational grounds?" In essence, the poor quality of Gould's critique reveals the weakness of his arguments, implying that he really had no reponses on the merits of Johnson's criticisms. Gould seemed to be unwilling to engage on the wider, more fundamental questions of truth.
So Johnson's charge is confirmed. Science and non-science (non-sense?) are treated as separate but "equal" and all that entails. Per Gould in his reply to Johnson, "Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality," thus invoking the fact-value divide and relegating religion to the category of subjective opinion and non-rationality. And "separate but equal" here has the same effect as it did in American racial policies of the last century. It is an inherent statement of actual inequality.
Friday, March 13, 2009
There Is No Room for God in Naturalism
Stephen Jay Gould, of whom we will speak more tomorrow, once waxed rhapsodic over the legacy of Charles Darwin. Because of Darwin mankind now knows: "[N]o intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."
Well, so much the worse for God, then. I guess the heavens don't declare the glory of God after all, and we have Mr. Gould and Mr. Darwin to thank for this revelation.
Phillip Johnson observed in response, "If Darwinism has such profound anti-theistic implications, and if the crucial Darwinian mechanism for generating complex innovations is having as much trouble as Gould has said [elsewhere], then it would seem to be very reasonable indeed for philosophical theists to question whether Darwinism is true. Is it possible that a dominant group of scientists has been so devoted to philosophical naturalism that it has been too easily satisfied by inadequate evidence for naturalistic mechanisms of creation?"
Maybe. Only no one seems to willing to let the question be asked.
Well, so much the worse for God, then. I guess the heavens don't declare the glory of God after all, and we have Mr. Gould and Mr. Darwin to thank for this revelation.
Phillip Johnson observed in response, "If Darwinism has such profound anti-theistic implications, and if the crucial Darwinian mechanism for generating complex innovations is having as much trouble as Gould has said [elsewhere], then it would seem to be very reasonable indeed for philosophical theists to question whether Darwinism is true. Is it possible that a dominant group of scientists has been so devoted to philosophical naturalism that it has been too easily satisfied by inadequate evidence for naturalistic mechanisms of creation?"
Maybe. Only no one seems to willing to let the question be asked.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Naturalism: The Unexplored Assumption
At its very basis, the controversy over evolution is about metaphysics--worldviews, philosophies, religions, ways of explaining reality. Contemporary western science is steeped in naturalism to the point where it is the very water in which most scientists swim. It is their natural environment. Do they even recognize this? Does a fish even know it's wet?
The goal of this perspective is the best naturalistic explanation possible. We have seen in previous discussions how evolutionary biologists cling to Darwinism because from their point of view there is no acceptable alternative. One model of science insists that one has to have a better theory in order to discard the previous paradigm. And since no naturalistic alternative to Darwinism as come along the theory stands.
This raises a good question: Is Darwinian evolution true, not just "good science?" According to Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, "The only way that any sort of science can proceed is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to see how far one can get with this assumption." That is methodological naturalism, usually insisted upon as the very foundation of the scientific method; otherwise, it is claimed, we can imagine all sorts of alternative explanations for natural processes including magic and "God did it." But this approach begs the question by defining science as that which seeks only naturalistic explanations for reality. If one does not accept the assumption of naturalism, it is reasonable to ask not just whether a particular explanation is "good science" but whether it is actually true. The materialistic naturalist assumes that these are the same thing. Is that a valid assumption? Do the vast majority of evolutionary biologists even ask that greater question?
The goal of this perspective is the best naturalistic explanation possible. We have seen in previous discussions how evolutionary biologists cling to Darwinism because from their point of view there is no acceptable alternative. One model of science insists that one has to have a better theory in order to discard the previous paradigm. And since no naturalistic alternative to Darwinism as come along the theory stands.
This raises a good question: Is Darwinian evolution true, not just "good science?" According to Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, "The only way that any sort of science can proceed is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to see how far one can get with this assumption." That is methodological naturalism, usually insisted upon as the very foundation of the scientific method; otherwise, it is claimed, we can imagine all sorts of alternative explanations for natural processes including magic and "God did it." But this approach begs the question by defining science as that which seeks only naturalistic explanations for reality. If one does not accept the assumption of naturalism, it is reasonable to ask not just whether a particular explanation is "good science" but whether it is actually true. The materialistic naturalist assumes that these are the same thing. Is that a valid assumption? Do the vast majority of evolutionary biologists even ask that greater question?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Darwinian Evolution in a Nutshell
Just a little review before plunging ahead.
The three great principles:
1. Mutability of species.
2. Descent with modification from common ancestor(s).
3. Natural selection as the agent by which variation is conserved and compiled/aggregated.
The three great underlying assumptions:
1. Materialistic naturalism.
2. Uniformitarianism/gradualism.
3. Reductionism.
The great slippery word: Evolution.
The three great principles:
1. Mutability of species.
2. Descent with modification from common ancestor(s).
3. Natural selection as the agent by which variation is conserved and compiled/aggregated.
The three great underlying assumptions:
1. Materialistic naturalism.
2. Uniformitarianism/gradualism.
3. Reductionism.
The great slippery word: Evolution.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Examing Darwinism As Science
Darwinism got off on the wrong footing early on. Darwin himself initiated the habit of explaining away the fossil record and using selective breeding as an example of natural selection at work. The central concept of Darwinism, that of descent with modification, was thus protected almost from its inception from empirical testing. The theory was widely accepted before it was rigorously tested. The "science" embarked upon finding confirmatory evidence and explaining away negative data. Eventually some evolutionists reached the point illustrated in my previous post on the 1959 Centennial celebration--recall the remarks of Julian Huxley, overtly religious in tone and content.
Much has depended upon use of vague definitions and equivocations. The elasticity of the word "evolution" allows it to cover many bases. Natural selection itself can appear and disappear on command, depending on the sophistication of the critic being answered. Many Darwinists apparently see themselves in the front lines of a struggle against "fundamentalism" and "irrationality," and so are devoted to defending the theory rather than evaluating it.
If science is to get back on track, the first thing that must happen is that Darwinists must permit foundational concepts such as common ancestry and descent with modification to undergo rigorous testing. All evidence should be confronted, not just the confirmatory bits, and then only the confirmations obtained from risky predictions should be accepted. "Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation."
Much has depended upon use of vague definitions and equivocations. The elasticity of the word "evolution" allows it to cover many bases. Natural selection itself can appear and disappear on command, depending on the sophistication of the critic being answered. Many Darwinists apparently see themselves in the front lines of a struggle against "fundamentalism" and "irrationality," and so are devoted to defending the theory rather than evaluating it.
If science is to get back on track, the first thing that must happen is that Darwinists must permit foundational concepts such as common ancestry and descent with modification to undergo rigorous testing. All evidence should be confronted, not just the confirmatory bits, and then only the confirmations obtained from risky predictions should be accepted. "Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation."
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Right to Be Wrong
Karl Popper wrote, "The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right." In fact, this is the essential point of his model and it goes to the heart of human experience. Whatever opinion we hold, we naturally believe it to be right (or else we would hold another opinion, one closer to the truth). But more than that, we want our beliefs to be right. We often have a great deal invested in our beliefs; to change them is often traumatic.
Popper upheld the value of metaphysics, which he meant to encompass all ideas that are not empirically verifiable. In contrast to the logical positivists, however, he, did not thereby think that such ideas are nonsensical or irrational. Quite the contrary. Popper credited metaphysics--and even some pseudosciences such as astology and alchemy--with providing the basis out of which science emerged and can be carried on. Metaphysical concepts may not be scientifically verifiable but they are meaningful and (importantly) may be criticized.
So where does falsifiability fit in? The proper use of this tool is not to differentiate natural science from other types of worthwhile intellectual activity but to discipline natural scientists not to be afraid of failure.
Popper upheld the value of metaphysics, which he meant to encompass all ideas that are not empirically verifiable. In contrast to the logical positivists, however, he, did not thereby think that such ideas are nonsensical or irrational. Quite the contrary. Popper credited metaphysics--and even some pseudosciences such as astology and alchemy--with providing the basis out of which science emerged and can be carried on. Metaphysical concepts may not be scientifically verifiable but they are meaningful and (importantly) may be criticized.
So where does falsifiability fit in? The proper use of this tool is not to differentiate natural science from other types of worthwhile intellectual activity but to discipline natural scientists not to be afraid of failure.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Side of Bacon
Karl Popper was a well-known philosopher of science who worked in the middle of the last century. He got in trouble for writing that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation that can account for everything (and therefore is not falsifiable--more on that tomorrow). That he got in trouble for saying this does not necessarily mean he was wrong.
If an idea can be stretched to account for every conceivable event, what is its real power of explanation? It actually doesn't help. According to Popper, the only genuine theory is one which makes risky predictions, i.e., it goes out on a limb to predict something will happen according to this theory, risking being proved wrong if the prediction is incorrect. For example, one of the key predictions Albert Einstein made in his general relativity theory is that light from distant stars would be bent by large gravitational fields. A few years later, other scientists made the observations that confirmed Einstein's prediction.
This follows the Baconian model of science, otherwise known as induction. According to this model, the scientist begins with experimental data and draws conclusions from what he has observed. The theory is then verified by accumulating corroborative evidence. There are admittedly problems with this model, often centered on the reliability of our observations and our ability to discern accurately cause and effect--this was the crux of David Hume's skepticism about causality. The Baconian model also does not reflect what actually transpires. Scientists typically begin with an idea or hypothesis and then carefully design experiments to test the accuracy of the idea, a sort-of artificial mode of observation but one that carries distinct advantages.
The difficulty for Darwinian evolution and for evolutionary biologists is that macroevolution can't be made to fit in this construct, particularly because naturalistic evolution's foundational concepts have been declared true by definition (axioms) and are therefore not subject to testing.
If an idea can be stretched to account for every conceivable event, what is its real power of explanation? It actually doesn't help. According to Popper, the only genuine theory is one which makes risky predictions, i.e., it goes out on a limb to predict something will happen according to this theory, risking being proved wrong if the prediction is incorrect. For example, one of the key predictions Albert Einstein made in his general relativity theory is that light from distant stars would be bent by large gravitational fields. A few years later, other scientists made the observations that confirmed Einstein's prediction.
This follows the Baconian model of science, otherwise known as induction. According to this model, the scientist begins with experimental data and draws conclusions from what he has observed. The theory is then verified by accumulating corroborative evidence. There are admittedly problems with this model, often centered on the reliability of our observations and our ability to discern accurately cause and effect--this was the crux of David Hume's skepticism about causality. The Baconian model also does not reflect what actually transpires. Scientists typically begin with an idea or hypothesis and then carefully design experiments to test the accuracy of the idea, a sort-of artificial mode of observation but one that carries distinct advantages.
The difficulty for Darwinian evolution and for evolutionary biologists is that macroevolution can't be made to fit in this construct, particularly because naturalistic evolution's foundational concepts have been declared true by definition (axioms) and are therefore not subject to testing.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain
Well, after the California State Board of Education policy statement on science education came out, a curriculum guide called the Science Framework, instructions to textbook publishers how they were to proceed if they wanted to sell their products in California, was produced. It clearly emphasized that the purpose of instruction in evolution is to persuade the student of its factuality. Areas of difficulty were ignored or minimized. In places the document is not even internally coherent even though isolated portions of it make good sense:
As Phillip Johnson observes, however, the Framework immediately proceeds to use a dissembling definition of evolution and appeals to the authority of scientific orthodoxy.
The prior commitment to materialistic naturalism that we have seen repeatedly in the course of this series is the Achilles heel of the Darwinists. By insisting that the subject be taught in an unquestioning manner in the public schoosl they are almost asking for a wider debate that will certainly include knowledgeable critics. We have seen that critics have a hard time getting a fair hearing, but this situation cannot last forever. Inevitably, someone with sufficient credibility will succeed in exposing the humbugs.
Students should never be told that "many scientists" think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that "scientists believe." Science is not a matter of belief; rather it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and objective reasoning...Show students that nothing in science is decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or because that is the way it has always been done (tradition).
As Phillip Johnson observes, however, the Framework immediately proceeds to use a dissembling definition of evolution and appeals to the authority of scientific orthodoxy.
The prior commitment to materialistic naturalism that we have seen repeatedly in the course of this series is the Achilles heel of the Darwinists. By insisting that the subject be taught in an unquestioning manner in the public schoosl they are almost asking for a wider debate that will certainly include knowledgeable critics. We have seen that critics have a hard time getting a fair hearing, but this situation cannot last forever. Inevitably, someone with sufficient credibility will succeed in exposing the humbugs.
Friday, March 6, 2009
California Dreamin'
In 1989 the California State Board of Education put out a policy statement that was the result of many years of pressure applied by science educators to establish clear ground rules about how scientific subjects such as evolution were to be approached in the classroom. The statement doesn't actually refer to evolution specifically; the idea was to talk about science education in broader terms. Phillip Johnson wrote:
By now, readers should readily recognize the subtle but emphatic assertion of the fact-value divide made in the Policy Statement. Far from actually being fair, the statement is intended to provide justification for teaching naturalistic evolution as "fact" in an educational system that is ostensibly neutral toward matters of metaphysics. Educators may not compel "beliefs" but may certainly compel "knowledge," for the whole purpose of education is to make people more knowledgable. So long as naturalistic evolution is considered "knowledge" to be imparted without debate resistance to it is deemed to stem from ignorance.
On its face, the Policy Statement is reasonable and broad-minded. It begins by saying that science is concerned with observable facts and testable hypotheses about the natural world, and not with divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes. These non-scientific subjects are relegated to the literature and social studies curricula. The Policy Statement emphasizes that neither science nor anything else should be taught dogmatically, because "Compelling beliefs is inconsistent with the goal of education," which is to encourage understanding. The Policy Statement even repeats this important distinction between believing and understanding: "To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural sciences curriculum, but they have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws."
The Policy Statement goes on to explain that scientific facts, theories, and hypotheses are subject to testing and rejection; this feature distinguishes them from beliefs and dogmas, which do not meet the criterion of testability and are therefore inappropriate for consideration in science class. Science teachers are professionally obligated to stick to science, and should respectfully encourage students to discuss matters outside the domain of science with their families and clergy.
By now, readers should readily recognize the subtle but emphatic assertion of the fact-value divide made in the Policy Statement. Far from actually being fair, the statement is intended to provide justification for teaching naturalistic evolution as "fact" in an educational system that is ostensibly neutral toward matters of metaphysics. Educators may not compel "beliefs" but may certainly compel "knowledge," for the whole purpose of education is to make people more knowledgable. So long as naturalistic evolution is considered "knowledge" to be imparted without debate resistance to it is deemed to stem from ignorance.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Our Three--No, Four Main Weapons...
I promised I'd get back to that comment about Marxism. Apparently biologists are fond of reading into biology their opinions as to socioeconomic theory. Convinced Marxists have found any number of biological illustrations of that philosophy, and committed capitalists likewise look to biology to substantiate their opinions. This probably reveals more about human psychology than anything else--our tendency to see what we want to see, a very important concept to keep in mind as we proceed.
Anyway, by the end of the controvery over the British Museum of Natural History's exhibit on Darwinism the consensus among the leading evolutionary biologists was that museums have no business telling the public about unsettled matters in science. This, it was supposed, would just confuse people. The role of a museum, instead, is to "educate" the nonscientist about prevailing "truth." In other words, a museum should be a propagator of received orthodoxy.
Under the barrage, the museum revamped its exhibit to toe the party line, while still trying to reassure visitors that evolution should not conflict with their religious beliefs. "Darwinists are very resentful if their theory is presented to the impressionable in a manner likely to encourage doubts...To Darwinists, teaching about evolution does not mean encouraging immature minds--or mature ones, for that matter--to think about unacceptable possibilities."
Lest the reader think this was an isolated incident that took place over a quater-century ago, consider the Dover (Pennsylvania) decision against intelligent design, the brouhaha over the creation museum in Kentucky, and the reception accorded the movie "Expelled" and the consequent tarring of the reputation of Ben Stein such that he has become persona non grata on some university campuses. You say you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? Well, no one does, but their fanatical devotion to materialistic naturalism has truly brought out the worst in some behaviors.
Anyway, by the end of the controvery over the British Museum of Natural History's exhibit on Darwinism the consensus among the leading evolutionary biologists was that museums have no business telling the public about unsettled matters in science. This, it was supposed, would just confuse people. The role of a museum, instead, is to "educate" the nonscientist about prevailing "truth." In other words, a museum should be a propagator of received orthodoxy.
Under the barrage, the museum revamped its exhibit to toe the party line, while still trying to reassure visitors that evolution should not conflict with their religious beliefs. "Darwinists are very resentful if their theory is presented to the impressionable in a manner likely to encourage doubts...To Darwinists, teaching about evolution does not mean encouraging immature minds--or mature ones, for that matter--to think about unacceptable possibilities."
Lest the reader think this was an isolated incident that took place over a quater-century ago, consider the Dover (Pennsylvania) decision against intelligent design, the brouhaha over the creation museum in Kentucky, and the reception accorded the movie "Expelled" and the consequent tarring of the reputation of Ben Stein such that he has become persona non grata on some university campuses. You say you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? Well, no one does, but their fanatical devotion to materialistic naturalism has truly brought out the worst in some behaviors.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Orwell Was Off by Three Years
As a centennial celebration in 1981, the British Museum of Natural History opened a new exhibit on Darwinism that was remarkably open-minded as to the established nature of Darwinian evolution. It pointed out that Darwinism is not strictly science because the theory depends on logical deduction rather than direct observation and experimentation. It challenged certain "verities" of evolution such as the inclusion of Homo erectus in modern man's chain of descent. The upshot of the exhibit was to acknowledge the importance of Darwinism while leaving open the matter of its certainty.
In order to understand what happened next, we have to become acquainted with the concept of cladism. This is a theory of biological classification that assumes no species can be identified as the direct ancestor of another species. Obviously, this directly challenges one of the main tenets of Darwinism as usually formulated, that of common ancestry. Even so, the theory caught on in several circles (including museums and textbooks). Critics of the BMNH exhibit accused the organizers of being cladists, complaining that cladist literature is full of derogatory statements about stalwarts of Darwinism such as Mayr, Simpson, and even Darwin himself.
So, it comes as no surprise that once the news got out about the museum's new approach to evolution some leading biologists in the United Kingdom had conniptions. One of the fiercest critics, L. B. Halstead, went so far as to accuse the organizers of being Marxists [hold that thought]. The main bone of contention seems to have been that the museum had aired dirty laundry--it had publicized doubts about Darwinism discussed up until then only in professional circles. The controversy also revealed that scientific opinion on the matter of Darwinism was not by any means uniform. A lengthy argument-by-correspondence ensued in the pages of Britain's premier journal of science, Nature. The editors of Nature also weighed in repeatedly with editorials that attempted to nuance the discussion. One leading article bore the title, "How True Is the Theory of Evolution?" that itself touched off a storm of criticism by implying that Darwinism is actually a metaphysical (philosophical) system sustained partly by faith.
Faith?! Anything but that!
In order to understand what happened next, we have to become acquainted with the concept of cladism. This is a theory of biological classification that assumes no species can be identified as the direct ancestor of another species. Obviously, this directly challenges one of the main tenets of Darwinism as usually formulated, that of common ancestry. Even so, the theory caught on in several circles (including museums and textbooks). Critics of the BMNH exhibit accused the organizers of being cladists, complaining that cladist literature is full of derogatory statements about stalwarts of Darwinism such as Mayr, Simpson, and even Darwin himself.
So, it comes as no surprise that once the news got out about the museum's new approach to evolution some leading biologists in the United Kingdom had conniptions. One of the fiercest critics, L. B. Halstead, went so far as to accuse the organizers of being Marxists [hold that thought]. The main bone of contention seems to have been that the museum had aired dirty laundry--it had publicized doubts about Darwinism discussed up until then only in professional circles. The controversy also revealed that scientific opinion on the matter of Darwinism was not by any means uniform. A lengthy argument-by-correspondence ensued in the pages of Britain's premier journal of science, Nature. The editors of Nature also weighed in repeatedly with editorials that attempted to nuance the discussion. One leading article bore the title, "How True Is the Theory of Evolution?" that itself touched off a storm of criticism by implying that Darwinism is actually a metaphysical (philosophical) system sustained partly by faith.
Faith?! Anything but that!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Praise Charles from Whom All Blessings Flow
In several recent instances, attempting to marry science to some form of philosophy or religion other than biblical Christianity has received cautious support (more enthusiastic in some circles than others). I recall the brief popularity of such books as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, both written by Westerners trying to tie together Eastern mysticism and quantum mechanics. Eastern philosophies in general have been particularly attractive in this regard as they are commonly enountered in the West in the New Age movement. One early proponent of this approach was the heterodox Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He tried to refound or re-establish Christianity on evolution. He called evolution the "light which illumines all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."
When one appreciates that Darwinian evolution represents a worldview to its adherents one can see how readily it becomes a sort of religion, for at basis a religion provides an all-encompassing explanation for reality and man's part in it. All the necessary components are here--Darwinism even has a creation story! Darwinism's great "gospel" is the liberation of mankind from an all-controlling deity to whom we are responsible. Its apostles and evangelists are out to make sure that the public is delivered from all sorts of falsehood and mistaken belief, for it is only science that can lead us into a better future.
When one appreciates that Darwinian evolution represents a worldview to its adherents one can see how readily it becomes a sort of religion, for at basis a religion provides an all-encompassing explanation for reality and man's part in it. All the necessary components are here--Darwinism even has a creation story! Darwinism's great "gospel" is the liberation of mankind from an all-controlling deity to whom we are responsible. Its apostles and evangelists are out to make sure that the public is delivered from all sorts of falsehood and mistaken belief, for it is only science that can lead us into a better future.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Gospel According to Darwin
Dr. Frank Press, at one time president of the National Academy of Sciences, objected to the idea that there is "an irreconcilable conflict between religion and science." He further observed, "A great many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds without relinquishing their belief in religious principles. As stated in a resolution by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1981, however, 'Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.'"
Stephen Jay Gould, late champion of evolutionary biology and its great interpreter to the lay public, thought that there could be no conflict between science and religion because there is no intersection between them, properly conceived. "Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth. Honorable and discerning scientists (most of us, I trust) have always understood that the limits to what science can answer also describe the power of its methods in their proper domain. Darwin himself exclaimed that science couldn't touch the problem of evil and similar moral conundrums: 'A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.'"
Were these men being disingenous, or did they really think they were accurately describing how materialistic naturalists view the respective value of science and religion? After all, as we have clearly seen, the one is equated with rationality and the other with irrationality. William Provine of Cornell University, an historian of science and an avowed atheist, is quite emphatic that the conflict between religion and science is inescapable. He considered Press's statement "politic but intellectually dishonest." In other words, Provine thought Press was telling us poor benighted believers in religion what we want to hear even though Press knew better.
Scientific naturalists do not accord science and religion equal status. The former is objective and based on fact and the latter is subjective and a matter of personal opinion, or so goes the mindset. The two are in separate realms, and to this point Dr. Gould was refreshingly honest. A rational person will, of course, always prefer what is real and objective to what is subjective whenever possible. Therefore there will be no ultimate conflict between science and religion, for science will always win out. What rational person would ever want to be thought irrational?
Stephen Jay Gould, late champion of evolutionary biology and its great interpreter to the lay public, thought that there could be no conflict between science and religion because there is no intersection between them, properly conceived. "Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth. Honorable and discerning scientists (most of us, I trust) have always understood that the limits to what science can answer also describe the power of its methods in their proper domain. Darwin himself exclaimed that science couldn't touch the problem of evil and similar moral conundrums: 'A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.'"
Were these men being disingenous, or did they really think they were accurately describing how materialistic naturalists view the respective value of science and religion? After all, as we have clearly seen, the one is equated with rationality and the other with irrationality. William Provine of Cornell University, an historian of science and an avowed atheist, is quite emphatic that the conflict between religion and science is inescapable. He considered Press's statement "politic but intellectually dishonest." In other words, Provine thought Press was telling us poor benighted believers in religion what we want to hear even though Press knew better.
Scientific naturalists do not accord science and religion equal status. The former is objective and based on fact and the latter is subjective and a matter of personal opinion, or so goes the mindset. The two are in separate realms, and to this point Dr. Gould was refreshingly honest. A rational person will, of course, always prefer what is real and objective to what is subjective whenever possible. Therefore there will be no ultimate conflict between science and religion, for science will always win out. What rational person would ever want to be thought irrational?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
