Science Versus God in Tennessee: Has Anything Really Changed? | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
24

Actually Bryan is still much relevant today. If you send your kid to school then chances are you send him or her to hell.

Evolution theory is destroying any and all knowledge about the mechanism of creation, which is choosing. And because subjectivity, expression of emotion with free will, operates based on choosing, subjectivity is thrown out the window also.

There is no subjective acknowledgement of people’s spirit, their emotions, in schools today, because the objective facts about how choosing works have been discarded. Schools are spiritually dead places.

25

Well we agree that “picking and choosing” as a generic criticism, is very often misused. Some people do it, I believe, when they select their particular moral system… such as deciding that lying is wrong but adultery is okay. Or deciding that stealing is wrong but dishonoring parents is okay. That type of thing. The reason it is merely picking and choosing is because there is no connection in their system to what Jesus said about these things; it is merely their preference. When we pick and choose based on our own preferences or our own ideologies, rather than from the perspective given to us by God in his spoken word and in his Living Word, then we are just picking and choosing, rather than rightly discerning the word of truth.

I just responded to the example of King Saul dying, because I had recently wrestled with that. And so I wanted to change your statement which you can now no longer use… that you have never met someone who didn’t pick and choose on that story. Probably you can find a different example… :smile:

26

@TedDavis While the positions taken by Provine & Coyne are a disgrace to science, More disturbing is the fact that the New York Times would print in their Op.Ed. a diatribe by Sam Harris impugning Dr. Collins’ ability to head the NIH because he was an evangelical Christian–that is scary. In my view, that oversteps the limits of ‘freedom of the press.’ Sam has made some good points in his blogs, such as: Religion is a extremely powerful force in human lives, and so an intrinsically good ‘tool’. like Islam, can prove powerfully evil when misapplied. His web site might be more effective if he tried for a balanced view from various authorities, such as achieved by BioLogos.

I appreciated your recounting the Compton vignette. I admit that I stop reciting when I get to the part of the Creed that states "I believe in the resurrection of the body…"
Al Leo

27

In your last full paragraph you state “For us at BioLogos, founded by a world class scientist who also believes in the deity and bodily Resurrection of Jesus that is the bottom line.” I am sorry but I do not care what Francis Collins believes. He is indeed a respected scientist and a Christian but I never read anything of his that argues for anything other than a very board consistency between religion and science. It is logically impossible to find a contradiction between two such large areas of human experience as bits of one or the other can change to accommodate the other (in the case of biologos it is always religion that must change). But it is not just his failure to articulate his views in writing that is the problem, he has lost every debate he has ever been in – even Michael Shermer had little trouble exposing him and biologos still promotes Collins as among the best intellectual Christian-Scientists in the world.

Your article also fails to point out that, it is both taught and believed in America that the popular accounts of the Monkey trial and the Galileo Affair are the true accounts of what happened. In addition many Americans believe the Medieval Church taught that the world was flat and opposed Christopher Columbus for this very reason. The separation of Church and state has also led to children being taught a striped down version of their history as to avoid violating the promotion of “religion in public schools”. I never see pro-religion myths in the media or in academic works.

The popular media still promotes a science verses religion agenda. We saw it in the recent ‘Cosmos’ tv series as well as the Harvard-Smithsonian documentary on ‘The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ in which religious thinker are derided as ‘faith heads’.

Text books in biology often take a very negative stance towards theism for example see a selection here Interesting Quotes From Biology Textbooks – Uncommon Descent

Some of the Books were co-authored by theistic evolutionists like Keith Miller. But somehow biologos does not see this as a problem. Of course since the Kitzmiller v. Dover these types of anti-theistic statements did subside a bit but are beginning to creep back in again.

Most of the authors recommend by biologos are flatly dishonest – how many more times must we hear, from the likes of Miller, Karl Giberson and FRACISCO AYALA that Intelligent Design opposes common descent or claim that the eye is irreducibly complex? The last time Giberson debated Stephen Meyer he used a photo-shopped picture of a baby with a tail for goodness sake. However Ayala is by far the worst has he has been corrected many times over his mistakes and just repeats what he knows is false. After his 2009 debate which William Lane Craig Ayala even said that he was misled over the debate and effectively set up. I am not a proponent of intelligent design but at least they are honest.

Biologos seem far closer to atheist evolutionists than theistic anti-evolutionists. Collins says that he will never debate a proponent of Intelligent Design as he feels that it will legitimize ID. However he is happy to engage with atheists and, as I said earlier, completely legitimizes atheism by always losing.

Biologos censors views that it does not agree with. The number of times posters on uncommon descent have said that their posts have been deleted because they have asked difficult questions is vast. I saw this myself many years ago when a poster on biologos pointed to scientific flaws in an article had all his posts deleted before I could write down the references. Christians learn that they are not allowed to criticize science or scientists but only to obey.

Biologos says nothing about the appealing treatment of say, Guillermo Gonzalez or Michael Reiss. Of course Christian members of the Royal Society said nothing in Rieiss’ defense as well. Which clearly indicates that religious belivers, even if they are at the top of their game are suspect in the scientific world (look at some of the comments about collins when he was promoted). However biologos will rant to the moon if someone is inconvenienced for believing in evolution.

These issues only begin to scratch the surface. Biologos must stop being so dogmatic and arrogant and make an attempt to engage with the larger religious community. Biologos and the science and religion scholarship community seem to many to be at war with anti-evolutionists and always give atheism a free pass. Until this perception is somehow altered nothing will change.

35

I’m trying to delete my post. Is this possible? Apparently only by replacing it with something. Imagine that I told a really great joke.

(EDIT from the ghost moderator: If you want to delete your post, click the three dots under the post and then press the trash can.)

46

@MATT,

Basically, Matt, you fired a shotgun and I’ll mostly duck out of the way. You don’t appear to be looking for a conversation.

Almost nothing of what you said appears to be a direct response to what I wrote here, except your statement than I failed to point out that Americans mostly believe historical myths about Scopes, Galileo, and other stuff. If you were more familiar with my work, both here on BioLogos and elsewhere, then you probably wouldn’t direct such a comment to me. If you want to pursue that particular point further, Matt, then please first take a look at these earlier columns:

http://biologos.org/blog/an-obituary-for-the-warfare-view-of-science-and-religion (please note that I was one of the authors of this collection, a set of writings that directly addresses your concern about historical myths)

http://biologos.org/blog/introducing-ted-davis – and you might enjoy listening to the podcast interview that is linked in the penultimate paragraph. There I say a great deal about the “conflict” myth and how my work is all aimed at debunking it.

Also, tomorrow or Wednesday I have a column directly on the “Warfare Thesis” that will probably interest you.

After you see those columns, Matt, then perhaps you will re-consider the basis for your complaint about my column. I can’t say everything in one place. Or many places, for that matter.

I also reply to this, Matt, though it wasn’t really directed at my column:

“Biologos says nothing about the appealing treatment of say, Guillermo Gonzalez or Michael Reiss. Of course Christian members of the Royal Society said nothing in Rieiss’ defense as well. Which clearly indicates that religious belivers, even if they are at the top of their game are suspect in the scientific world (look at some of the comments about collins when he was promoted). However biologos will rant to the moon if someone is inconvenienced for believing in evolution.”

Matt, it’s well known among ID folks that I wrote two very critical snail letters to the president of Iowa State concerning the witch hunt against Guillermo Gonzelez–the first letter when Hector Avalos circulated his wholly inappropriate petition, and the second after the tenure decision was announced. As I say, this is well known–Guillermo has seen both letters.

As for my friend Michael Reiss (BBC - Will & Testament: Michael Reiss and the Royal Society), I expressed umbrage on some sites where he was being disrespected, though I wrote no letters.

Finally, Matt, I dare say your comment here is entirely misplaced: “Biologos must stop being so dogmatic and arrogant and make an attempt to engage with the larger religious community.” Have you been reading us lately? Have you seen our engagement with Southern Baptist theologians, or our engagement with Discovery, or Deb Haarsma’s sincere offer to have breakfast with Ken Ham?
Have you followed any of my other columns and series? Here’s the list: http://biologos.org/blog/author/davis-ted. Let me offer you a challenge, Matt: show mere where the lump sum of my writing for BioLogos, all together, has even as much dogmatism and arrogance than just one month’s worth of posts from (say) Uncommondescent. I bet you can’t do it. Disagree with us as much as you wish, Matt, but be as fair with us (and my columns) as you want us (and me) to be fair with others.

Please let me know if you take me up on this.

1 Like
47

Dear Ted,
Thank you for your reply but you have entirely missed the gist of my post and you are under the impression that I am attacking you personally. My post concerns two issues; first (1) to the question part of the title of your essay “Has anything really changed”; and second (2) to the sentiments expressed your last paragraph. I also pointed out some of the difficulties some theists have with approach of Biologos and other religion and science writers, like say Christians in Science here in the UK. However I will not go into this here.

  1. I think that things are much worse. The successful court cases to enforce the separation of State and Church that has resulted in a distorted teaching of history and science in many areas of the educational sphere in the United States and has made it difficult for educators to oppose the myths without the accusation of ‘bringing religion into the class room’. (Yes I am aware that you and the Biologos team are aware of the myths and report on them but the myths still a problem and continue to be regurgitated by people or should know better)
    But bringing atheism in the class rooms is accepted and even applauded. For example the article by David Barash http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html was largely praised. The arguments he put forward against religion were Sophomoric at best and easy to refute. But the point stands if you are 18 or 19 and just started University, attitudes like this carry great weight especially if the student needs the grade to get their degree. The student could also have, say, Futuyma’s “Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition” as a textbook and read “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous”. Now can you image a biology textbook stating that “Evolution is the method that God uses to create” being allowed anywhere near a classroom? That is the bias I mention in my post. It is in the academy as well as in popular media (example the recent Cosmos series) and the general culture (medieval flat earth, Galileo et al). In the UK the historical myths are known, largely, as ‘myths’ but the scientific myths (science = atheism) are gaining ground. When I was a university student studying maths and philosophy (with a lot of theoretic physics) at oxford I found no bias, even when I sat in on some classes of biology. However Christian students at my local Church (St. Aldates Oxford) have told me that some lecturers are quite hostile to theistic belief and are not shy about communicating that belief to their students. Coupled with what happened to Michael Reiss (who you admit received no support from any Christian member of the Royal Society) and especially the comments on the affair from Richard Dawkins, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts, many students do feel that science (the scientific establishment in particular) is hostile to faith and may have to choose between them. As for Guillermo Gonzalez his problems continued to follow him with his engagement at Bell State due to his support of cosmological intelligent design; and what about the “potentially evangelical” Martin Gaskell discrimination case at University of Kentucky. Even Francis Collins with his appointment to head the National Institutes of Health was questioned because of his religious beliefs. So something has changed – it has gotten worse and Biologos either ignore or are dishonest about this fact and seem far more content going after Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents rather that combating misinformation and bias.

  2. Francis Collins’ books, as are most of the books recommended by Biologos are either biographies, inspirational reading (look scientists can be Christians) or third rate philosophy. Nothing supports a theistic world view, nothing supports why theism is more likely to be true than metaphysical naturalism. You state “For us at BioLogos, founded by a world class scientist who also believes in the deity and bodily Resurrection of Jesus, that is the bottom line.” This is a vacuous statement he gives no argument as to why the Resurrection is true, or why God exists other than weak, unsupported assertions. He may be a proponent of NOMA but the problem with that approach is that any comment about the Resurrection or the existence of God are merely value statements devoid of factual content. If this is Collins’ Christianity then it is non-realist, not the Christianity practiced by most Christians and he should be honest about it. If Collins is a theological realist, then he is doing a very bad job promoting his faith. In any event he is outmatched intellectually when communicating his ideas to non-followers.
    As for you challenge - I think you were a little angry when you wrote that and I will let it go.

All the best Matt

48

@Matt,

I missed the gist of your post b/c I chose to ignore it as a shotgun blast.

I understand that you weren’t directly attacking me, but you say some things about BioLogos that cannot be applied to my columns, and I write about 13% of those columns. You say that BL needs to stop being dogmatic and arrogant, yet I don’t see this at all when I review (say) the last 100 weeks of material. So, I simply ask, are you reading us regularly? If so, why do you have this perception?

As for the “bottom line” I referred to, it was to emphasize that things have changed dramatically since Scopes: today we have many top scientists who don’t slide down that staircase, whether or not you find Collins himself a decent example. On your side of the pond, a pertinent case would be John Polkinghorne, whose work I’ve blogged here extensively. IMO the criticism you make in your subsequent comment simply don’t apply to him. Would you agree? Polkinghorne is not out-matched by anyone, as far as I can see. He did a splendid debate with Nobel physicist/New Atheist Steven Weinberg in Washington many years ago that I attended.

I won’t prolong this, Matt, but if you read any of my series I hope you will reassess your general claims. My goal in my work for BL is to provide the best stuff there is, relative to Christianity and science, whether or not it has any direct bearing on the origins controversy. Most of the best stuff is simply not available presently on the internet. Perhaps we can achieve the inverse of Gresham’s law: good stuff drives out bad stuff. There’s certainly a lot of the latter.

49

@MATT,

You said, “Michael Reiss (who you admit received no support from any Christian member of the Royal Society)”.

I said only that I myself did not write a snail letter in protest of his sacking. I said nothing whatsoever about anyone else, including any members of the RS. How do you draw such a conclusion? This, and your first post, lead me to think that you decided to come here with your mind made up about what you were going to say, whether or not it has any relationship to what I’ve actually said (either in this column or my others) or what you can find anywhere else on the site, in the 3 1/2 years I’ve written for BL.

I have nothing to add on this, Matt. If you want to continue this exchange, then please pay more careful attention to what I’ve actually said.

51

The only person from the Royal Society who said anything in Reiss’ defence was Lord Winston who commented: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.” No one, not John Polkinghorne, not Simon Conway Morris, said a ■■■■ thing. Now I think we can agree that this was a failure of character on the part of these ‘Christians’. But what make it worse was that no one countered the vile attacks from Richard Dawkins, Sir Harry Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Phil Willis, chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. All of these individuals were quoted in the media and I find it ridiculous that other members could not get themselves heard. I must admit I felt deeply ashamed that my follow Christians were such cowards whose deafening silence could only be interpreted as assent to the sacking.
I could go on but you seem determined not to see the point that I am making - the general perception of the public is that science and religion are at odds. This perception is backed up by numerous examples of sackings, denied tenure, anti-theist comments in standard text books etc. Some of which I have mentioned above. I agree that we should end it here, your refusal to address any of the points I made, make the whole thing futile.

53

You claimed it was ENTIRELY incorrect. Words have meanings, John.

The difference between variation and polymorphism in the context of genetics? No. Why don’t you explain it to me?

And where are the data showing loss of information with speciation?

What does your hypothesis predict WRT lines between species?

Across genera? Across subfamilies?

54

@MATT,

This is blantantly false. Polkinghorne defended Reiss in The Times, as follows: Polkinghorne defends Reiss: Shining a light where science and theology meet | A Blogspotting Anglican Episcopalian.

In a talk at Trinity College a few weeks later, Conway Morris said, “Consider the recent and scandalous activities of atheist fundamentalists in the Royal Society and their witch-hunt against Michael Reiss whose unexceptional comments on the challenge of “Intelligent Design” were deemed to be, well, –verboten.”

Source: http://trinitycollegechapel.com//media/filestore/sermons/ConwayMorris191008.pdf

I’d say you owe both of those gentlemen an apology, Matt. You need to be a great deal more careful–in culture wars, the truth is often one of the first casualties.

2 Likes
55

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.