Winston Ewert is a computer scientist and leading proponent of intelligent design who brings rigorous technical expertise to the discussion of origins and biological complexity. Trained in computer engineering with a PhD in computer science from Baylor University, Ewert has contributed significantly to developing formal models that challenge Darwinian explanations of life’s diversity. His best-known work applies software engineering concepts to biology, showing that the hierarchical, dependency-based patterns we find in genomes resemble designed computer systems far more than they resemble the tree-like patterns predicted by standard evolutionary theory. Through his research, writings, and presentations, he has emerged as a compelling advocate for the idea that life bears the hallmarks of design, combining careful analysis with a commitment to advancing the scientific case for intelligent design.
I first came to know Winston when he was an undergraduate. A professor of his in Canada put us in touch, lauding Winston as a formidable programmer. Winston quickly proved his mettle to me by analyzing evolutionary algorithms meant to show that blind evolutionary processes can create novel information, demonstrating instead that they can do nothing of the sort. He subsequently came to work with Robert Marks at Baylor and did fundamental theoretical work on the informational challenges facing evolutionary processes. Hired by Google straight out of Baylor, he got bored helping sell ads and instead has since worked as a software engineer for various startups while leaving himself time to pursue his research on intelligent design.
A wide-ranging thinker, with interests in theology and history, he wrote the book that is the subject of this interview: The Heavens, the Waters, and the Partridge. This book examines the faith-science dialogue as it existed before the rise of modern science. Science, traditionally known as “natural philosophy,” has existed since antiquity. But most contemporary work in the history and philosophy of science focuses on science after Copernicus, and that is true especially of the faith-science dialogue as it exists today. This book, by contrast, breaks new ground by showing how the church fathers, the medieval theologians, and early reformation thinkers made sense of their faith in light of the science of their day. Winston’s book is a fascinating study, which covers scientific themes that remain of intense current interest as well as others that these days have largely fallen to the wayside.
Personal and Educational Background
1. Let’s start with some background about yourself. Where and when were you born? What are some things that stand out about your family life? Were you raised in a religious home and what impact, if any, did your religious or non-religious background have on you?
I grew up near Vancouver, BC. However, I was born in 1986 near Grove City College, where my father was studying economics. I’m the second oldest of five, all born within six years of each other. I think we all kept our parents busy and often provoked comment when others saw our family.
We were raised in a Christian home. For much of that time my father was an elder in our local church. He and my mother both sought to instill the Christian faith in us. My father was passionate about applying the word of God to every area of life. He had studied economics with the goal of working to promote a Biblical worldview in the area, although he ended up running a business instead. Obviously that background plays a large role in me taking an interest in questions of intelligent design. Without it, I would probably never have taken an interest in such questions.
2. Tell us about your primary and secondary education. What were the high points of it? What were the lows? What were some of the questions that most stimulated you during this time? When did you realize you loved programming, and what were some of the early things you did to fulfill that love?
I, along with my siblings, was homeschooled all the way through grade 12. My parents were not dogmatic homeschoolers but did not think the available traditional schooling options were adequate. I was a fairly typical student in the early years of that education. But I excelled as I reached subjects like algebra and science, which many others found difficult. By the time I graduated, people thought of me as being exceptionally intelligent.
The most challenging subject I recall studying was poetry. I was reduced to tears trying to understand the distinction between stressed and unstressed syllables. To this day, I am unable to tell them apart. Poetry, I feel, would be best all collected and dumped into Mount Doom.
An obsession with computers developed fairly early. When we went to bed, we were allowed to bring a book to read. One night, I selected the MS-DOS manual. This seemed to me a perfectly sensible choice of reading material but left quite the impression on my parents. From that manual I learned my first bits of programming. From then until graduation, I learned and practiced my programming skills.
Following in my father’s footsteps, I was interested at the time in the study of economics and was a passionate defender of the free market. I was also interested in Christian eschatology and a keen devotee of the orthodox preterist interpretation of Christian eschatology. I had not, yet, taken an interest in intelligent design or topics of faith and science.
3. Let’s turn to your college and university days. Describe the course of your study and what ideas most excited you during those years. What prompted you to pursue a doctorate in computer engineering and what did you hope to accomplish with this degree? Describe the role of intelligent design in your higher education.
Given my already established programming skills, there really was no question; it was obvious that I should study computer programming. I ended up studying computer science at Trinity Western University. I pursued my studies with the intention of becoming a software engineer.
My life took a turn when somebody told me that I should read Richard Dawkins’s book The Blind Watchmaker. They thought the book would dispel my Christian belief in a creator. I had been exposed enough to intelligent design materials, such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, not to find Dawkins’ arguments persuasive. But I did find very interesting a section of his book where he presents a computer simulation that evolves the phrase “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
This led to a keen interest in such simulations, eventually leading me to start working on an article critiquing the simulations from the perspective of intelligent design. I shared a copy of what I’d written with Paul Brown, a professor at Trinity Western University. He then told them that he’d sent it to you, a prospect I found quite terrifying.
Shortly after that, I got an email from Robert Marks at Baylor University, who was working with you at the time. He asked me to come to Baylor and be his research assistant. At the time, I had no intention of continuing past my bachelor’s degree. To tell you the truth, I was initially resistant to the idea. But eventually I agreed and went to Baylor.
Initially I went to Baylor to get a master’s degree but ended up staying for the PhD. While there I did intelligent design-related research. I began with papers that studied the workings of computer simulations of evolution. But I also wrote a number of papers related to specified complexity. As a result, I can claim, depending on how you define your terms, to be the first person to get a Ph.D. while explicitly doing intelligent design research.
Motivation and Purpose of the Book
1. As someone trained in computer science rather than theology or history, what unique perspective do you think you bring to this topic, and how did that shape the way you approached your research?
As a computer scientist, I think that computer science is the best science. I think all other fields could be improved by applying insights from computer science. But perhaps I’m a little biased on that point.
Coming from my background, I approached this book project primarily as a data collection task. I began by collecting data on how historical Christians interacted with different scientific questions. I went so far as to build a small search engine to help locate discussions of various subjects in historical Christian works. This book is essentially the synthesis of collecting everything I could find about how historical Christians interacted with the scientific ideas of their day.
As a software engineer, I’m often being a detective, trying to figure out why something doesn’t fit or work the way it should. You really learn to pay attention to anything that is not quite right, as it might be a clue to help diagnose a problem. I used those skills throughout writing this book. These skills applied when trying to discern the meaning of both Biblical passages and the writings of various historical Christian authors.
2. Why does the history of science, especially the history of pre-modern science, matter?
It is tempting to think when it comes to science, history does not matter. After all, we try to evaluate scientific theories based on scientific evidence, not historical pedigree. But scientific debates always take place in a historical context. Even though we might like to think of ourselves as objective evaluators of the merits of scientific theories, that context matters. As such, understanding the history of a scientific debate is necessary for a well-informed evaluation of that debate.
But does this extend even to pre-modern science? It does because modern science has its roots in the scientific ideas of the pre-modern age. For example, even though we may think of the rise of heliocentrism as a scientific revolution, in many ways it was simply a natural development of astronomical ideas that had been developing since the classical period.
The interaction of science and faith holds special importance. The Church has dealt with scientific questions since its founding. We are not the first to have to deal with scientific objections to biblical claims. Studying the history of those questions can better inform how we deal with modern questions.
3. How much work in this area has been done? How is your book different from others that explore this area?
Lots has been said about the history of the interaction of science and faith. But the discussion tends to begin with modern science, typically with the Copernican revolution. Discussion of earlier periods tends to be much shorter or absent. When people do look at historical Christians, they are often most concerned with what they believed on issues of interest to modern Christians. For example, there has been considerable debate about whether Christians interpreted the Genesis creation account in the same way as modern young-earth creationists. Others have taken a more general approach, looking at the attitude that different authors had towards what we would think of as science.
There are two key things that make my book different from other books on the subject. Firstly, I look at the pre-modern time period. Enough ink has been spilled discussing Galileo. Secondly, I present a series of topics, each of which was discussed by various historical Christian authors. I am not looking at general stated attitudes towards science or issues of modern interest, but trying to see what were the issues that animated historical Christians, and what did they say about them?
4. In your preface, you mention a passage from Augustine expressing his concern about Christians speaking nonsense on scientific matters. Please elaborate on how that passage set you on the path to write the entire book.
This quote from Augustine, which warns about Christians “talking nonsense on these topics” is widely quoted by those who think that Christians should be more accepting of modern scientific theories. The implication is usually that we need to stop criticizing these “well-supported” theories.
What prompted me to start investigating the subject was wondering what was Augustine talking about? The debates that I was familiar with were still a millennium away. I realized that I had no clue whatsoever what he could have been talking about in context. So I read his book to find out the context. I was greatly surprised to find out that he was oddly preoccupied with how scientific questions interacted with the Genesis creation account. I further discovered that he was not alone; others had written on similar subjects.
I began thus to collect writings on different subjects, making notes on what different authors had said, and eventually organized those notes together to produce the book I’ve just published.
5. What did you hope to accomplish with this book — both for the academic community and for Christians believers who might be wrestling with questions of science and faith today?
I hope that people find the subject interesting. There is a fascinating variety of scientific questions that Christians have grappled with through the history of the Church. I also hope that it helps people have a better understanding of the context of modern debates. Understanding this history helps dismantle various simplistic understandings of the history of the interaction of faith and science. It also provides insights that we can draw on as we consider modern debates. Ultimately, I also hope that it brings more interest and attention to the pre-modern history of this interaction.
6. If you imagine the ideal reader finishing your book, what insights or changes in perspective would you hope they walk away with?
There are a lot of different people who might benefit from the book and take quite different things away from it. For example, someone who is sympathetic to the modern flat-earth movement could benefit by seeing the historical handling of that idea; it was considered and rejected. Others who feel overwhelmed by modern scientific challenges to Christianity may have their faith strengthened by realizing that we are not the first to face such challenges. Many Christians can take encouragement from how well the church has handled many scientific issues. People who accepted simplistic narratives about the history of science and faith can also come up with a more nuanced picture.
Intended Audience and Positioning
1. Who did you have in mind when writing this book? What sort of responses were you hoping to elicit from historians of science, theologians, lay Christians, or skeptics of religion?
I primarily had a lay audience in mind. I thought this history is simply very useful and interesting for lay Christians to understand and appreciate. But I hope that historians of science may find the subject interesting as well. Perhaps it will prompt some of them to look further into such questions themselves. I think that theologians who might read some of these historical authors without understanding the full context of the scientific issues could be helped as well.
2. Your book covers 28 different points of intersection between Christian faith and pre-Copernican science. Did you intend it as a comprehensive survey, as a set of case studies, as a narrative with overarching lessons, or as something else? Please elaborate.
I was attempting to be comprehensive, but ultimately one has to pick and choose which subjects to cover. Primarily, I decided on the basis of whether I had enough content for a chapter. The way I looked at it was that I was collecting data about how Christians interacted with scientific issues of their day. To do that correctly, I need to try and be systematic, not just pick a few issues that happened to interest me or where they handled it the way I thought they should.
3. How would you position your approach with other well-known approaches to science and religion, such as the conflict, complementarian, or concordance models?
As a Christian and a scientist, I have little choice but to adopt some form of a concordance model. Under the conflict model, I would have to choose between my faith and science. But I do not think that’s a choice I have to make. A complementarian model tries to avoid the conflict but this is not feasible because there are clearly Biblical claims at odds with certain scientific claims.
As a Christian, I hold that the scientific data, properly understood, agrees with the Biblical text, properly interpreted. If there is an apparent conflict between the two, there is an error either in my interpretation of the Bible or my interpretation of the scientific data. I should not jump to conclusions about which is in error. I should never tolerate bad exegesis to accommodate a scientific theory, or bad scientific method to accommodate a biblical interpretation. If Christianity is true, it should accord with scientific evidence, although sometimes it takes a little work to see that.
Exploring the Book’s Content
1. Many people assume pre-modern Christians were simply flat-earthers or anti-science. From your research, how accurate is this picture, and why do these misconceptions persist?
No, this myth is certainly not true. There were some flat-earthers but they were a definite minority and were unable to persuade the Church to accept their views. Rather, the Church generally adhered to the classic geocentric cosmology. What we see through all of the subjects I cover is a belief in the importance of making sense of the biblical text scientifically. The early church theologians certainly were not anti-science.
Why does this misconception persist? A significant factor is that many people were taught this in school. Many people grew up being told that Columbus proved that the earth was round. This was in textbooks at least until the 1980s. More modern textbooks have corrected this, but it remains very prevalent in the culture.
2. Did these Christians just accept the science of their day wholesale, or were they more discerning in how they engaged with it? Was there also an impulse among some to reject the science of the day, and if so why?
Certainly there was variety in how they engaged with it. For example, Aristotle claimed that the heavens were made of immutable material and thus could not change. Some Christians argued that this was false and contrary to Scripture. But Aquinas accepted it and tried to fit it with Scripture. Most accepted the common cosmology of the day, but there were a few who rejected it.
The general picture is one of accepting the science of the day except when it clearly contradicted Scriptural claims. For example, the Bible clearly indicated that God had created the world and thus the world could not be eternal.
However, there was a stream that rejected that cosmology of the day in favor of what we would think of as a flat earth. They were a minority and their view was not accepted. But why did they take that view? It does not really appear to have been on the basis of Scripture. They would sometimes make Scriptural arguments, but those arguments were never very compelling. Instead, their response seems to stem from skepticism toward the scientific claims and then attempting to read that skepticism into the Biblical text.
3. Which of the 28 questions you examine struck you as the most relevant for today’s debates about science and faith? Why?
To some extent, the questions are deliberately irrelevant to today’s debates. The point of the exercise is not to ask about questions that are relevant to today’s debates. Instead, the goal is to understand how Christians have historically dealt with questions of science and faith. Looking at it that way, every issue, whether it is relevant today or not, has something to tell us.
Some of the questions I discuss relate to the interpretation of the Genesis creation account, such as the identity of the waters above, the source of light before day four, and the identity of four rivers flowing out of Eden. These are still issues that are still discussed and debated today. While there is some interesting history to those questions, I think we learn more from the debates that are no longer active than from those that remain with us.
4. In the different topics you examined in your book, what were some of the arguments or interpretations that most surprised you?
The most surprising thing I discovered was the idea that the ocean was at a higher altitude than the land. This seems to have taken hold during the later Middle Ages and was a common view at the time of the Reformation. Scientific consensus had taken an odd turn, and it was an accepted idea that the ocean was higher than the land but kept from overflowing the land, possibly by God’s power. The reformers even thought they saw references to this idea in the Biblical text.
5. Several chapters explore cosmology before Copernicus — what do you see as the central challenges that pre-Copernican cosmology posed for Christians?
The biggest challenge to Christian theology was the idea of the immutable aether. The idea, endorsed by Aristotle, was that the heavens were made out of immutable material different from the material on earth. This material did not decay, it could not be created, and it could not be destroyed. But this was a problem for Christianity, because it teaches that the heavens were created.
A few other issues do arise. What is the Bible referring to when it speaks of the waters above? Are the various references to the heavens compatible with the idea that it was a rotating sphere? But these issues are all relatively minor compared to the big issue of the eternity of the heavens.
6. What are some ways pre-modern Christians attempted to reconcile biblical teaching with Aristotle’s ideas, and what lessons can we learn from them for reconciling Scripture with today’s scientific consensus?
Aquinas is the figure who most attempts to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with biblical teaching. He affirms that Aristotle was right about the aether but insists that God is able to create the otherwise immutable material. He also argues that there is no way from natural revelation to know that the world is not eternal; we only know that via divine revelation. He disputes any attempt to disprove eternity based on scientific or logical arguments.
Today, Aquinas’ response looks misplaced. Aristotle’s ideas are dead and there is very clear evidence that the universe has a finite age. I think that outcome should certainly give us pause in rushing to reconcile Scripture with modern scientific consensus. After all, modern scientific consensus on many issues is less than a century old. When Aquinas was writing, it had been the consensus for a millennium.
7. Your title references “the partridge” — could you explain that reference and why you chose it as emblematic for the book? How does this reference work with the rest of your title?
There is a passage in Jeremiah that speaks of a partridge that steals the eggs of other birds, or at least it appears that way in many translations. It is the last subject I discuss in my book and I take it as emblematic of some of the random, slightly weird subjects that I look at in my book.
8. If you had to pick one person from the period you were studying who has the most lessons to offer for the present day, who would that be and why?
During the research for this book, I discovered John Philoponus, and he’s now my hero. He was able to offer a devastating critique of Aristotle’s argument for the eternality of the world. He anticipated scientific developments that would not become widespread for a thousand years. At the same time, he was engaged with Christian flat earthers, rejecting their attempts to read their rejection of classical cosmology into the biblical text. I admire him because he’s able to differentiate which scientific ideas needed to be challenged and he challenged it by doing better science than his opponents.
Lessons and Implications
1. What overarching patterns did you notice across the different topics you examined? In how pre-modern Christians engaged with science, what tended to go right and what tended to go wrong?
A crucial theme is that we moderns are not the first people to deal with scientific objections to our faith. The early Church confronted Greek philosophy, which in many ways anticipates the scientistic worldview we see today. In some cases, early Christian thinkers challenged the conclusions of the philosophers.
Another pattern is a consistent acceptance of the authority of the biblical text, even in questions of science. Today, even a young-earth creationist would be pretty cautious in drawing conclusions on cosmology or physics from the biblical text. But historical Christians did not have this caution. They never said that things like “the Bible is not a science textbook.” While they often interpreted the Bible in a way consistent with the scientific ideas of their day, historical Christians did not dismiss the Bible’s ability to speak to scientific issues.
I also found that in many cases, when they pushed back on the science of the day, they turned out to be right. The heavens were not made of an immutable material. Mankind did not have an eternal history. Astrology does not work. Modern science has vindicated, at least partially, many claims by these early Christians.
I also found that when things go wrong, there is often an identifiable reason. In some cases these Christians were misled by faulty translations. Sometimes they engaged in blatantly poor exegesis. Often existing flawed scientific ideas were clearly influencing their understanding of the text. Very often, apparent problems could be solved by going back to the source, asking what the scientific data actually shows and what the Bible actually says.
2. To what degree did problems in the interaction between science and faith arise from “bad science” or “bad biblical understanding” or both? Please elaborate.
There are a number of cases where apparent conflicts between the Bible and faith arose from either incorrect scientific ideas or bad exegesis. For example, it was a prevalent idea in the ancient world that the heavens, humanity, and matter were eternal. This conflicted with the biblical teaching that God had created the world and that God alone was eternal. But in this case it is clear that those scientific ideas were themselves flawed.
In other cases, a flawed understanding of the biblical text was at fault. Most commonly, the Hebrew text was poorly translated into Greek for the Septuagint. This led to the text appearing to make claims about firmaments or partridges, which were not intended by the original author.
Going back to the source, evaluating what the biblical text actually said and evaluating what the scientific data actually demonstrated solved many apparent conflicts.
3. Looking at today’s landscape, which scientific issues — such as evolution, cosmological origins, artificial intelligence, and bioethics — do you see paralleling controversies between science and faith as addressed in your book?
There are obvious parallels with debates over evolution and cosmological origins. There is a biblical account of origins, which appears quite different from the standard scientific account. How are we do make sense of that? Do we reinterpret the biblical text to fit the standard account? Or do we reject the account, trying to develop a better explanation of the scientific data. Both approaches have some historical precedent. But one lesson is clear: nothing is helped by bad exegesis or bad science.
4. If you were to write a sequel or companion volume, what would you want to cover — would you extend the story into the post-Copernican era, or revisit some of these ancient debates in even greater depth?
I’m not very likely to write another volume that simply expands on the present one. At the end of the day, I’m not a historian and will probably continue to focus on my main area of study — computer science. However, I would be most likely to write a prequel, looking at the history of cosmology before classical science.
It is commonly claimed that the biblical writings reflect a particular primitive flat-earth cosmology. But for the post-New Testament time period that I studied, the Christian writers had no knowledge of this alleged cosmology. I suspect that cosmological ideas in earlier biblical times were far more varied and inconsistent than is sometimes proposed. It would be an interesting subject to study in more depth.
Cross-posted at Bill Dembski on Substack.