Jay W. Richards

Whenever the old stream media report on someone who is supposedly “conservative” but who nevertheless agrees with them, you can be pretty sure a snow job is coming.

On January 6, Neela Banerjee reported (in the Seattle Times and elsewhere) about conservative scientists who nevertheless . . . wait for it . . . believe in climate change. Wow! (Of course, “believe in climate change” is the confusing euphemism for believing that we are catastrophically altering the natural climate — which always changes — and that the only solutions involve increasing the power of the federal government and the UN. But never mind that for now.)

Banerjee tells us about scientists, such as “politically conservative” Kerry Emanuel, from MIT, and various evangelical and Mormon scientists who believe that we’re harming the global climate and that a political solution is needed.

Reuter’s Philip Pullella is reporting that Pope Benedict says “God was behind the Big Bang.” Well, what exactly would you expect the Pope to say on the subject — that God was not behind the Big Bang?
The story starts with this:

VATICAN CITY — God’s mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday.

“The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe,” Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

Gallup has just released its most recent poll (conducted annually I believe) describing Americans’ views on the origin of humanity. This year, according to Gallup, the numbers have changed slightly:

PRINCETON, NJ — Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God’s involvement.

So what question did they ask to get these results? Here it is:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your of the development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Since they’ve asked the question this way for years, it makes sense, for statistical accuracy, that they stick with the original wording. But the wording is still problematic, and for an obvious reason–the three options are not jointly exhaustive. Millions of people hold views that are not captured by the three options.

In the New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer reports on the case of astronomer Martin Gaskell, who is suing the University of Kentucky for (alleged) religious discrimination. The article is fair, objective, and descriptively accurate. Perhaps the most interesting detail Oppenheimer reports concerns the “smoking gun” in Gaskell’s case: the text of a 2007 email from UK staffer Sally Shafer to two colleagues: “Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.” To this gem, Gaskell’s attorney, Francis J. Manion, said: “I couldn’t have made up a better quote. ‘We like this Read More ›

In two previous posts, I have discussed Randy Isaac’s essay, “Science and the Question of God,” published at the BioLogos Foundation website. The final section of Isaac’s essay is called “The Two Book Model.” This phrase normally refers to the traditional Christian view that God reveals himself in history and Scripture, which is his “special” revelation, as well as in the created order, which is “general” revelation. So we have two complementary books of revelation: the book of Scripture and the book of nature. Though we can’t learn everything about God from general revelation that we learn from God’s special revelation, we can learn something.

“Creationism”

In my previous post, I discussed Randy Isaac’s distinction of “evolutionism” and “evolution” in his essay “Science and the Question of God,” published at the BioLogos Foundation website. After proffering a distinction between “evolution” and “evolutionism,” Isaac talks about (young earth) creationism. I have some quibbles with what he says on the subject, especially with respect to biblical authority; however, I do share his concern that many young earth creationists appeal to the “tu quoque” argument. That is, many argue (in effect) that since everyone holds arbitrary presuppositions, it’s no problem for Christians to do so. But saying that everybody begs the question is hardly a reasonable rebuttal to the charge that I’m begging the question. This strategy makes the evidential task far too easy, since very quickly, the only question you’re obligated to answer is whether you’re going to hold atheistic assumptions or young earth assumptions. Pushed to its extreme, this view seems like irrationalism and anti-realism to me. But let’s not tarry on this subject, since it is clearly not the central concern of Isaac’s essay. He seems much more interested in critiquing ID, which he sees as more of a threat than creationism.

The BioLogos Foundation recently published a scholarly essay (with several accompanying blog posts) titled “Science and the Question of God” by Randy Isaac. Isaac is a physicist and executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)–a scholarly society of Christian natural scientists. In his essay, Isaac examines, as he puts it, “three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.”

In this and two follow-up posts, I’ll respond to some of the themes of Isaac’s essay.

When I began to read “Science and the Question of God,” I worried that Isaac would define ID as an explicit attempt to prove the existence of God.

But, happily, Isaac doesn’t make that mistake, and provides instead an acceptable definition of ID: “The essential principle of ID,” he says, “is that there are patterns in nature that are best explained by the action of an indeterminate intelligent designer.”

Over at the Huffington Post, that organ of sophisticated theological analysis, Matt Rossano argues: If he were alive today would Aquinas be an evolutionist? His writings suggest a mind already resonating with many evolutionary concepts. My sense is that Aquinas, like Aristotle and Albert before him, was just too curious and too smart not be at the intellectual vanguard wrestling with exciting new knowledge. Limping weakly behind with whiny unimaginative creationists would have been far too boring for a mind such as his. In fact, Rossano actually tries to marshal St. Thomas for the least plausible part of the Darwinian program–evolutionay psychology. Rossano finds some simlarities between Thomas’ thought and the ideas of evolutionary psychology. But any two schools of Read More ›