I watched this 1 hour documentary today that I ordered and loved it. It was by Brian Flemming and attacked Christian fundamentalism really harshly - largely through attacking the early church and who Jesus was. It's not a movie every Christian could stand watching and I was thinking throughout the movie that perhaps part of my "calling" is to non-Christian intellectuals. Right now I'm very interested in how atheists think and their reasons for rejecting Christianity. I don't get mad at such movies (except from the occasional really stupid idea) but am purely interested - perhaps that's how one determines where God can best use you.
Maybe I could be useful here because I actively seek truth no matter where it is found - whether atheism or Christianity. I am genuinely curious of their arguments because they could be valid. I try to never hold on to a belief so tightly that no evidence or argument could cause me to give it up. I often wonder what the world would be like if everyone had this philosophy. Mormonism would die out fast.
I'll post thoughts on the main ideas of the movie when I think about it more and can watch it again.
UN
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Bill Dembski
In Dembski and Richards' book Unapologetic Apologetics, Bill Dembski writes a few chapters on science/creation and I'd like to comment. First, I think that as a Christian who does not read the creation account as historical narrative, I am one of the few who can look at the issue of creation with an open mind. I view it as a question of the mechanism for design and thus have no vested interest in either side.
He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?
His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.
1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."
First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."
Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.
2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.
I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).
Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.
He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?
His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.
1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."
First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."
Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.
2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.
I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).
Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)