Answers In Genesis: Part IV – Intelligent Design

<–Intelligent Design Landing Page

There are many different religious philosophies that fall under the heading of Creationism. In my previous post, I focused on Young Earth Creationism, since that is the theology I am familiar with. But admittedly I’m foiling at windmills; It is very difficult to receive a higher education and continue to be a YEC. This applies not only to an education at a secular colleges, but also to mainstream Christian seminaries, both Protestant and Catholic.

The larger spectrum of Creationism is like a fractal, the closer you look the more intricate structures you find. But here’s a valid attempt at categorizing Post-Scientific Christian Origin Philosophies:

• Evolutionary
• “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”
• Intelligent Design
• Old Earth
• Young Earth

Different categories of origin beliefs combine with religious belief in G-d and scripture:

• Mysticism
• Deism
• Theism
• Fundamentalism

For example, over at Reasons To Believe they are specifically Old Earth Creationists and Religious Fundamentalists. Speaking in generalities, most Catholics are Evolutionary or Old Earth Creationists and Theists. Mainstream Traditional Protestants tend to be Old Earth Creationists and Theists, Liberal Protestants tend to be Evolutionary Creationists, with many being Deists and many others being Theists. Of course there are many other combinations, exceptions, and contradictions to the categories above; it’s very complicated and everyone faith tradition is a little different.

Intelligent Design, the new kid on the Creationist’s block, is very similar to Evolutionary Creationism, but differs by denying the “randomness” of adaptation. To get technical, evolution theory states that the primary causal agent of adaptation is “genetic survival determined by ecological fitness landscape”. Intelligent Design accepts this causal agent as generally valid, so in this regard it offers no challenge to evolution. But ID further insists that “natural selection” alone could not produce the diversity observed in our biosphere. Instead ID proponents argue that the the best explanation involves an Intelligent Designer of some sort.

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

In many ways, this is a strong improvement over your father’s Creationism. Its does not insist in Theism, Deism, or mysticism, for the ID in question could any of those, or even a powerful but not omnipotent being. It does not insist fundamentalist ideology, like a young earth or a literal reading of Genesis. And although it interprets it differently, It affirms the overwhelming evidence that evolution took place. Most importantly, Instead of scriptural authority it uses logical reasoning, statistics, and empirical evidence to support its position. For these reasons and many others, Intelligent Design would be welcomed by scientists everywhere as a religious philosophy that is more compatible with Science than many previous ones.

“I for one welcome our new alien overlords” Internet Meme

But Intelligent Design proponents are not happy with this new stripped down Creationism being called “theology” or even “philosophy”. The Discovery Institute believes that ID is completely scientific because it is based on empirical observations, statistical mathematics, and logical reasoning. And by removing all culture specific aspects of Creationism, they claim historical and popular support for this hypothesis, even in more educated circles.

This is the part that upsets most people, myself included. All things are not equal in science. On one side you’ve something affirmed by impacting biology, genetics, geology, mathematics, computer science, and countless other arts. And it makes further predictions about phenomena in all these fields. On the other side you’ve got a small handful of peer reviewed articles, plus some Christian Apologetics books supporting the idea. Not really a fair fight, but more on that later. And besides, even if we did find an Intelligent Creator, the most obvious SCIENTIFIC question to come next would be “Who created the creator?” regress ad-infinitum, if ID is the answer.

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.” ID Wedge Strategy

Here’s what most of ID’s detractors (and many supporters) miss; scientific modification of the Modern Synthesis is not Intelligent Design’s primary goal. This part of the Discovery Institutes game is for stirring up controversy and publicity. In th end it’s not important that supernatural events be evoked during the scientific process; that is a means to an end. By their own “Wedge Strategy” the real fight is against is THE PHILOSOPHY of “Naturalism” and the PHILOSOPHY of Moral Relativism. They have a point here, but more on that later.

There are many in the US who think Creationism should be taught in public schools, and I actually agree with them. Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism; all have a valid place in our educational system; under both philosophy and religious studies. Putting this in social sciences classrooms also makes sense, when talking about the different philosophies of science and how they impact culture. But putting ID in a biology classroom is a big mistake, both for science and for religion.

Answers in Genesis: Part III – Creationism (Young Earth)

<–Intelligent Design Landing Page

The basic premise of the monotheistic religion is the existence and pervasiveness of YHWH. “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Using simple deductive reasoning this omnipotent and omniscient being has also credited with being the Creator. This is a cornerstone of faith for a good majority of religious people on the planet, from the hardliners in Saudi Arabia to the gentle Quakers in Pennsylvania, all affirm the presence and necessity of God for the very existence of the universe and life.

Among this larger group of “Creationists”, there is a very vocal and large group of American Christians who claim that their Genesis interpretation is not only good theology, but that it’s also good science. My favorite site is called answersingenesis.org, to whom the title of this blog series pays tongue in cheek homage. They let it all hang out at Answers.

“Creationism — that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” Gallup, 2007. 66% of Americans affirmed this belief.

To quote the site: “Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.” (Ken Ham) Young Earth Creationist makes a scientific claim primarily based on faith in literal scriptural infallibiity. This is at the very core of the motivation behind the Evolution debate.

As a child and young adult I was taught very typical Evangelical religious doctrine. The Genealogies in Genesis 5 were presented as clear evidence that the Bible explicitly states the creation of everything look place around 4,000-10,000 BC. This was regardless of heurmanetics, as no allegory could be claimed for what was so clearly meant to be factual.

“Then God said, ‘Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.” Genesis 1:9

While the Garden of Eden or Seven Days could be interpreted as allegory, accepting its literal truth was important because of the Protestant dogma of original sin. The essentially states that the main reason Jesus came was to die for the sins of Adam and Eve and all their decendants. Only by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection can anyone enter into God’s Kingdom. Only by having a literal creation and Garden of Eden could the original Protestant story make sense.

These are the primary reasons that Young Earth Creationism is still popular today. It is not evidence from the fossil record or genetics, or the lack of evidence supporting Evolution. It is because of religious belief.

Being a willful and curious child, I had many questions about what I was begin taught. Another dogma was that no shred of evidence against unlimited literal infallibility had ever been found. Nothing in science, history, politics, ethics, etc. would contradict properly interpreted scripture.

“the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.” James Hutton, Father of Biology.

What I found was not what I expected. I had been warned that some people would claim that there was evidence that contradicted scripture, but that in the long run the Bible would hold up. It was explicitly stated that the burden of proof was on those who denied scripture, not on those who believed.

In the end, I concluded that no evidence had ever been found against literal scripture Interpretation because of an acute form of Confirmation Bias. For those who have eyes to see, the evidence supporting Higher Criticism is overwhelming. The evidence supporting a historical-grammatical approach to scripture is overwhelming.

Furthermore, there is not a single branch of science that has found evidence of a literal young earth. This is stunning when you consider how almost all scientists originally took the factuality of Genesis for granted. But in the end the evidence was so strong that it overcame this very powerful bias.

Believing in a young Earth today would be like living in 1850 and believing the Earth is the center of the SolarSystem. But what are good orthodox Evangelicals supposed to think about all this? Could they have possibly been wrong?

In my next blog I will talk about Creationism’s reputable step-child, Intelligent Design.

PostScript: Reading over this post, I realized I’d barely touched the surface of Young Earth Creationism. For those looking for more information, I recommend the Wikipedia article on YEC as a good place to start. I would furthermore refer you to the reference material on my “Answers in Genesis” landing page.

Answers in Genesis: Part II – Biblical Infallibility

<–Intelligent Design Landing Page

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Evangelical Theological Society

“He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” Deut. 8:3

In any discussion about Creationism, it is necessary to understand the importance of Biblical infallibility to Conservative Protestant Evangelicals. Although Intelligent Design proponents have removed all Bible specific aspects of Young Earth Creationism from their theory, it would be disingenuous not to recognize that most ID proponents also believe that Christian scripture is infallible.

Infallible:
1 : incapable of error : unerring
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

In its mildest form, this assumption of infallibility only applies to matters of faith and practice (Limited infallibility) . In this form, it is admitted that the Bible makes historical, geographical, and scientific mistakes; it is only in matters of faith and doctrine where it remains unquestioned. This is the form that most Catholics and “liberal” protestants believe, While this belief seems very odd to the non-believer, it generally does not cause very much cognitive dissonance for those who believe. They can rest easy that the Bible got the important things right, and that science has also gotten things right. The two domains remain non-overlapping.

The strong form is called “Biblical inerrancy”, which claims that the Bible is 100% accurate and free from contradiction in all matters, including science and doctrine. This is the dominate belief system for Evangelical supporters of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. This dogma is the primary reason why Evangelicals are so hostile to Evolution.

Both groups find that interpretation of scripture is of utmost importance. This is called “hermeneutics”; the process of interpreting the Bible theologically. Those who believe in Limited Infallibility generally read the Bible using some sort of historical-metaphorical or historical-grammatical heurmanetics. Those who claim the stronger form of infallibility interpret the Bible more literally, only accepting non-factual interpretations when it is explicitly identified by the text or context. When in doubt, they assume the Bible is meant to be understood as factual first, and metaphorical second. For both groups, Biblical infallibility is the very bedrock of their religious world-view.

Questioning or contradicting this belief is considered a direct attack on Christianity.

Why this is the case is not hard to understand, but it’s best to use an analogy. All US law is subservient to the Constitution of the United States. All governmental authority is derived from our Constitution. All federal and local law must not contradict the Constitution, otherwise it is struck down and not considered law. The Constitution must be interpreted, and for all practical purposes the interpretations of the Supreme Court ARE the highest law of the land. Similarly, a Christian considers themselves a citizen of God’s Kingdom, and the Bible is their Constitution. All authority is dependent on it. All law is subservient to it. The Bible is interpreted by leaders of the different sects, and for all practical purposes these interpretations are the final word in Christian theology.

But there is an important difference between the Bible and the Constitution. The Constitution is a product of a democratic process; while the Bible is the elite witness of early church founders. Because all law is up for a vote in a democracy, it was important that the Constitution did not assume infallibility, and that it contained a process by which it could change itself.

The authority of the Constitution is based on the consensus of the governed. In contrast, the authority of Scripture is based on the belief that was inspired by G-d. While the former requires question and modification, the authority of scripture CANNOT BE QUESTIONED or it looses its absolute authority. To question the Bible is to question all of Christian morality and belief, from the Golden Rule to the Eucharist.

In the next part of this series I wll explore Young Earth Creationism and its latest incarnation, Intelligent Design.

Answers in Genesis: Part I – Introduction

<–Intelligent Design Landing Page

“Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.” answersingenesis

“If you were a true follower of science and religion, you would realize the unmistakable, wide-ranging implications of Darwinism not only because it’s bad science, but because it essentially debases any claim to ultimate morality.” Dr. Dakota, amazon message boards.

(emphasis added)

Ben Stein has stirred the pot with his new movie “Expelled”. There are plenty of blogs about Intelligent Design and Mr. Stein’s documentary, so I’m going to talk about Creationism instead, and about Young Earth Creationism.

In the context of a pre-scientific age, it’s difficult to call “Creationism” a religious belief, it was more like believing in death or taxes, or that the earth stood still. People just assumed that if you had a watch you also had a watchmaker, and they assumed their god(s) were that Creator.

Plato and Aristotle were creationist. Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were Creationists. Newton and John Locke were creationists. In the very definition of irony, Galileo affirmed the literal truth of Genesis while at the same time defending the Copernican Model. (Nova – Galileo’s Battle For The Heavens).

In the Christian West, it was assumed by most that the Jewish account in Genesis was historically as well as metaphorically true. There really was a literal Garden of Eden, as revealed directly to Moses by God. A literal reading was central to the dogma of original sin. Another interesting consequence of these beliefs was that one could use the genealogies to figure out the rough age of the earth, on or around October 23rd, 4004 B.C, at 9:00 in the morning.

As the quotes at the beginning of this blog indicate, this is not a war between competing scientific theories. At the core, the traditional values of Christian theology has come into direct conflict with the values of the secular humanist/democratic worldview incubated during the Enlightenment.

How this became the Science vs Creationism debate is rather lengthy, so I’m breaking it up into sections.

I will explain the traditional concept of biblical infallibility and how this relates to an Evangelical’s moral certainty. Exposing “factual” errors in literal scripture readings is considered a direct attack on Christian moral values.

I will explain the modern conservative Protestant manifestation of Creationism called “Young Earth”, and show how this movement directly led to current debates on Intelligent Design. ID has simply dropped all Bible specific aspects of YEC and substituted the Standard Model of Evolution in its place, only changing “natural selection” to “intelligent designer”

I will highlight the current state of evolutionary theory, its big gaping holes, and how we are using the Scientific Method to fix those holes.

I will discuss the difference sources of moral behavior, and emphasize the importance of parable and myth, story and creed. Without the creative and interpretive spirit we would not even have science. But while personal morality is governed by philosophical beliefs, civil morality is best served by a democracy and not a theocracy.

Buddies Looking for Work

I have some buddies who are looking for a job, so check out their resumes.

Black Google?

Wow, throwback to the “good” old days, eh? Most computers used to be defaulted to light colored text on black, but black text on white is much easier on the eyes.

They did this in support of “earth hour“, although it actually saves no energy.

Jericho Cancelled…Again

 

I am completely bummed. Jericho, one of my favorite TV shows was canceled due to embarrassingly low ratings. More people watched a repeat of “Law & Order: SVU” than watched the season finale. That is pretty sad.

The show had some problems, but it was a gripping story. J & R, a paramilitary corporation, uses nuclear bombs and mercenaries to destroy 23 cities. The show deals with the aftermath of the attack, focusing on a rural Kansas town named Jericho. An EMP is also set of, causing frying all electronics. But it gets interesting when the start fighting with the town next door. And then J & R starts taking over, and some people start fighting back.

It’s a fairly straightforward post apocalyptic story; borrowing from “The Day After”, “The Year of the Wolf” and”Testament”. The POV stays low and personal, although there is a “big picture” subplot involving spies and conspiracies. It also addresses the privatization of our military industrial complex, and addresses issues like our now standard torture tactics, our diminishing civil rights, and the continued rise of corporate sponsored special interest groups.

Of course, who the hell is going to watch it now that it’s been canceled? What kind of world do we live in where 6 million viewers is not enough?

You will be missed, Jericho.

Hillary Clinton is a Big Fat Liar

 

The Democrats need to get a clue and recognize that they only have one electable candidate, and that candidates name doesn’t rhyme with Billary.  While I think McCain will give Obama a run for his money, my money is still on the Dems dark horse. 

Hillary now claims she was “sleep deprived” when she exaggerated the danger she faced in Bosnia.  And of course Carl Bernstein had to say “I told you she lied“.  Youtube is mocking her, and digg is dancing on the grave of her presidential bid.

Speaking of national debt; how sad is it that we live in a time when conservatives rack up more debt than liberals?  Does this mean we are entering a progressive age of fiscal responsibility?  Or bankruptcy…we can take our choice.

Obama, please require responsible national spending habits.  McCain or Hillary won’t if they are elected, you are the last hope.

In other news, invest in gold and oil, get rid of your expensive house and buy a cheaper one at an awesome interest rate.  Another hint, Food prices going up means increased farm production, and the weak dollar adds incentive for onshore manufacturing.

Climate Change: Who Cares Who’s Causing It, Are We Prepared?

Summary.

1. We know that our climate is changing.
2. We don’t know if we are causing it.
3. We don’t know if we can stop it.
4. We are not prepared for it.
5. We’re not even DISCUSSING preparation.

There is a rapidly growing mound of evidence that our climate is changing rapidly. I’m not going to do your research for you, and the issue is admittedly quite complex. But scientists the world over agree that the climate is changing, and it is changing more rapidly than we have ever seen. There is overwhelming consensus about the evidence. And yes, we landed on the moon, too.

The “Big Debate” is whether human activity is causing this. The big bad wolf everybody pays attention to is hydrocarbons. Another possibility of human caused climate change is deforestation. Another is ocean plankton health. There are others.

The strongest scientific support for this comes from the IPCC, who state that there is “new and stronger” evidence that climate change is caused by recent human activities of some sort. “New” implies that studies are ongoing and evidence is still being found, and “stronger” implies that there is more evidence now then there was before. Honestly, the recent climate changes might never be fully understood.

But now we are told that the debate is over, that we need to focus on “Prevention”. I’m sure you’ve seen it; drive a Prius, recycle, and kiss a tree. Only YOU can prevent climate change! Let’s assume that we are causing the problem; does that mean that we can fix it? Let’s say we turned all carbon emissions off tomorrow, stopped polluting, and started planting trees instead of cutting them down. Would this prevent Climate Change? Let’s say we dropped a nuclear bomb into a volcano, causing ash to spread all over the world. What if that might do the the trick? That is preposterous, of course, but how sure would we have to be when risking the entire ecosystem?

I have a better idea.. We know it’s happening without much doubt. We don’t know if we are causing it, or if we can prevent it. So wouldn’t it make sense to GET THE F*@K READY?

Dear Verizon…

I received one of your glossy advertisements in the mail today, asking me to “Come Back To Verizon Wireless BroadbandAccess”. As this flier indicates, I used to subscribe to Verizon’s EVDO service and do not anymore. What this flier does not indicate is that I did not willfully drop this service, you dropped it for me without warning or prior notice. Apparently I was guilty of using going over the bandwidth limit on my unlimited bandwidth account. I’m sure you remember how that ended. Oh yeah I forgot, thanks for that refund check!

Not to rehash old arguments; but the fact that you are trying to get all nicey nicey about this service again really ticks me off. So I decided to send you a letter, and at least opt-out of your junk mail cluttering up my mailbox. (Just so you know, I never opt-in willfully, but I probably missed a TINY little check box with TINY little words next to them, so my bad for not being careful/paranoid)

But instead of providing a convenient email address to contact you at, you forced me to fill out this long webform, and you required that I fill in personal data that I had to look up. And then your crappy Javascript validation puked and crashed the page, forcing me to start over. (perhaps you didn’t test with Firefox? Hmmm…did you test your EVDO with Firefox?) So at that point I decided to write to you in this blog instead.

You know what what would work a lot better than advertisements? Not treating your customer’s like shit…that would work really well. Due to entropy I never bothered to get a new cell phone service, so I am still a monthly custie. I never received an apology for what happened when I called in because me internet had stopped working. Not that I expected one, and I don’t blame your customer service rep; you’re the ones forcing him to claim that a 5 gig a month limit is “unlimited”, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to have a modern internet service that doesn’t allow multimedia.

No apology necessary, but don’t try to sell me your stupid freakin’ internet service. I don’t know why I’d trust you with my internet service anyway, I’m sure you’d love to turn my browsing habits over to Big Brother’s data miners.

Can you hear me now? Go screw yourself.

Your humble servant,

Calvin Lawson