Blogs - The President's Desk
June 14, 2011
Christianity, Science, and Evolution
Free Inquiry, the publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, conducted a panel discussion at its 30th anniversary (October 2010) entitled “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” (June/July 2011). Two of the panelists favored accommodation (Eugenie C. Scott and Chris Mooney), and two favored confrontation (P.Z. Myers and Victor J. Stenger).
Some of their observations are right on target: “Science per se is not a worldview; it’s a way of understanding the natural world. Philosophical naturalism is a worldview . . . Science is an equal-opportunity methodology suitable for anyone, no matter from which personal philosophy he or she creates meaning. And yes, many supernaturalists, including Christians, also use science to refine their sense of meaning and purpose” (Eugenie C. Scott).
Other of their observations are loony: “The universe is eternal, and so the question is moot. Something did not have to come from anything. Something always existed. And, if the universe always existed, then there was no creation and consequently no creator. . . . In fact, current cosmological theories suggest that our universe is just one in a ‘multiverse’ of an unlimited number of universes” (Victor J. Stenger).
Of these two, it is obvious that Scott is much more attuned to the normal meaning of “science,” while Stenger, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, is dealing philosophical speculation under the guise of doing science. There is no scientific method to determine “unlimited number of universes.” This is the argument of atheists who need to avoid the implications of the presently known “finely- tuned” universe. (See William Gairdner’s The Book of Absolutes.)
But more interesting to me is the emphasis that all four panelists place on the theory of evolution. All four are convinced that Christians are “anti-science” if they fail to accept Darwinian evolution as scientific fact.
Scott: “Our expert witness John Haught, a Catholic theologian, is fond of saying, ‘Nothing in theology makes sense except in the light of evolution.’”
Mooney: “Nisbet sought a middle way to frame the issue that says ‘There doesn’t need to be a conflict; you can have your religion and eat evolution, too.’”
Myers: “Evolution is a real process built on raw chance driven by the brutal engines of selection.”
Stenger: “Let me begin with creationism, which is much more than simply challenging evolution; it also includes what I will call ‘cosmic creationism [a finely-tuned universe, etc.].’”
P.Z. Myers, a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, defines evolution as follows: “Evolution is a real process built on raw chance driven by the brutal engines of selection. And there is no sign of a loving personal god, just billions of years of pitiless winnowing without any direction, other than short-term survival and reproduction. It’s not pretty, it’s not consoling . . . but it’s got one soaring virtue that trumps all the others: it’s true.”
And these Secular Humanists wonder why most evangelical Christians turn their back on Darwinian evolution! The universe doesn’t appear to be “raw chance.” The heavens we appreciate and study “declare the glory of God.” The “pitiless winnowing without any direction” does not come close to describing the magnificent make-up of the human body (see Stephen Meyer’s Signature of the Cell), and the human mind certainly doesn’t seem to be directionless! And, of course, for Christians the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth 2,000 years ago answers the charge of “no personal, loving God.”
Evangelical Christians read in Scripture that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). Nothing here (or in Genesis 1–3) about evolving males and females. This itself presents a problem for evolutionists — since the female body is more complicated physiologically, it should take longer for her to evolve than the male. And because her parts are evolving “directionless” each part certainly takes hundreds of thousands of years. Question: What does the male do waiting for all her parts to develop?
But Scripture places male and female together at the same time and in the same place, eliminating that argument. I would like to read or hear a Christian evolutionist’s thoughts on this issue. Perhaps someone at the Darrel Falk’s Biologos Foundation could tackle it. Biologos is currently featuring Denis Lamoureux’s work I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution. Perhaps Falk and Lamoureux would like to accept this challenge.
Since Jesus accepted Adam and Eve as historical (Mark 10:6–8), I would like to see how Lamoureux explains their evolutionary process from a first speck of life to fully formed man and woman.
But there is more to this issue. Humanists are heavily involved in promoting the homosexual agenda (Vern L. Bullough was Free Inquiry’s most vocal advocate of the homosexual movement including “consensual pedophilia”), and there is presently an attempt to downplay labels like “male” and “female.” The science of biology seems to be taking second place to the pseudo-science “gender” classifications. Humanists continue to have difficulty justifying evolution’s “survival of the fittest” dogma and homosexual antics. Myers talks of “the brutal engines of selection.” But selection involves “reproduction,” and homosexuals do not reproduce. They may seduce five- and six-year-olds into their camp under the guise of “queering elementary education,” but they are biologically sterile.
The President of the United States put his homosexual friend Kevin Jennings in charge of “queering elementary education,” and Jennings insists the program is going very well although he is leaving his “safe school czar” post. I surmise that his departure has something to do with the upcoming election season. What Obama advocate could effectively defend “queering elementary” children? What Obama advocate could effectively defend Jennings’ now famous statement, “Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay, and bisexual students.” I wonder if Jennings has the same attitude toward ex-drug addicts! But what about the ex-gays with the message detailing the health risks associated with homosexual acts? Jennings has made their public school appearances an impossible occurrence certainly to the detriment of the youth being brainwashed by homosexual propaganda and its message of gay is good, gay is healthy, gay is genetic, gay is normal, gay is politically correct, etc.
Every Secular Humanist knows of Yale’s Larry Kramer and his homosexual exploits, but few are honest enough to admit that his confession to murdering many of his hundreds of “lovers” by infecting them with the AIDS virus should have put a dent in their campaign to harvest elementary children into the homosexual camp.
It is baffling to read in Free Inquiry that Christians are anti-science because they reject, in the main, Darwinian “raw chance” evolution, but Humanists loudly defend homosexuality, an obviously anti-evolutionary lifestyle whose various sexual practices are abnormal, unhealthy, and immoral according to every major religion. The exception, of course, is that the minor religion of Secular Humanism does not condemn the very sexual practices that are a guaranteed biological dead end!