It’s fascinating that the definition of fundamentalism requires “agreement with the statement ‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.’” That’s about like asking, “Which do you depend on more, air or water?” Science and faith do different things. It isn’t that “faith” is wishful thinking contrary to (scientific) evidence. Faith is trust in what we believe. So, a scientist has faith that his particular understanding of science is true. Christians believe God created the world because the Bible tells us so, and that truth makes a whole lot more sense of the world than a random process such as evolution ever could. This planet and this universe are way too well ordered to have just randomly come together.
I’ve had a lifelong fascination with science. My eighth-grade yearbook listed “zoologist” as what I wished to be when I grew up, and my childhood best friend became an entomologist. But a big part of my fascination with the natural world is that it is the handiwork of God.
You speak of morals evolving because they’re useful to society. That’s a huge difference from morals being actually right and wrong. Here is one of my favorite examples. When a male lion takes over an established pride, he kills all the cubs. That allows the lion mothers to go back into estrus so that he can mate with them and the territory he defends will be sheltering his own offspring and not that of other males. Is it morally wrong for the lion to kill those cubs? Would it be morally wrong for a human to do this? I’m not asking whether it feels icky, but is it actually morally wrong in each instance. Any thought at all tells us that it is not wrong for the lion but it would be wrong for the man. Why? Because God gave mankind a moral code in which murder is sin. And God, the One who created us and told us His laws for our behavior, is also the One who gave us the way to deal with our sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in our place. The Bible explains it in much more detail than I can give here.
Great! Let's agree to disagree and co-exist in peace! I'd love to hear from the Evolutionists what existed before the Big Bang and what sits outside our ever expanding Universe? Stunning to see the personal attacks around this subject.
In my simplistic view, we are all scientists--to a point. We gather physical information, apply some sort of logic, and make predictions and decisions, which we might then modify as we get more information. But we avoid this approach when it might challenge our moral beliefs and emotional preferences.
Sure, evolution vs. christian fundamentalism is the classic science vs. religion conflict, at least in the western world. And it does reveal some basic truths about our societal intellect.
But before atheists and liberals get too uppity, they should recognize their own ideological limits to personal science. For example, can they even talk about cognitive differences by gender? Or does the very idea of (subtle) variations between the ways that men, women, and others think and feel strike them as heretical if not evil?
And I appreciate Michael's point #8, and have used the same rhetorical challenge: why should people who support evolutionary market economies prefer creationist biology? But again, I also have used the inverse rhetoric: why should people who embrace (or at least claim to support) evolutionary biology, including academic experts, embrace creationist economics? Along with the graph of support and denial of biological evolution through time, I would like to see a graph of support and denial of free market economics.
Well, Michael, I taught human anatomy & physiology, equine animal science, and emergency medical services at the college level for 30 years. I have also been a Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor for nearly 30 years. I have read quite a bit of your writing here and respectfully disagree with you for so many reasons, both intellectual and theological. I am going to keep it simple here: I have purpose, I am here for a reason, I am not random. All of these are objections to my support of Darwinian evolution. I am, and will remain, irenic and respectful in my living out my calling from God to proclaim the wonder of His creation including me, a sinner who has been redeemed by God becoming a human man in space and time, and carried out the most pressing need of we who have rebelled:He died in my place, and rose again as the first fruits of our restored relationship with God. I look forward to working with you for the purpose of breaking down walls of hatred, misunderstanding, and pride. I can do that with integrity and transparency, and I pray you will work with me as well.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree with the arguments you put forth in this piece. I'm wondering how much credence you think should be given to considering the emotional intensity component of why a particular individual either accepts or rejects the theory of evolution, or one that's been modified through a theistic lens? It seems to me that this concept would be a valid one to pursue in a rigorous scientific study and would yield important results. Emotional attachment or connection could be quantified, and then a cohort could be surveyed to find out to what level their emotions (both positive & negative) are involved in either acceptance or rejection of the theory and various permutations of it.
You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix. It's possible that emotions (both for attraction & acceptance, or repulsion & denial) may ultimately hold sway in how far evolution is accepted by these folks, no matter how perfectly it's presented to their rational minds. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these observations. Q. Richlife
Michael, kudos for a well-done essay, which reflects an understanding of Christian theology and ethics (perhaps informed by your own upbringing?).
I suspect St. Augustine would also appreciate your words: “The universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state, but was gifted with the capacity to transform itself from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of structures and life forms” (quoted by J. N. Wilford). Ditto Pope Francis in 2015: “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
"Why Christians and Conservatives Should "Accept" Evolution"
Mr. Shermer,
Once again you have demonstrated that not only are you a careful and knowledge based observer and thinker but you also demonstrate a clear understanding that the words used to express your conclusions matter. Too often the acceptance of evolution is characterized as a "belief" when discussing the lack of acceptance of evolution by "believers." This is where I think things can and do go wrong in any discussion of any scientific conclusions be they about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of infection. In the actual doing and conclusions of any scientific endeavor belief should be and basically is suspended. The closest thing that a practicing scientist would have to a statement of "belief" is the hypothesis. This, as anyone knowledgable of the scientific method knows, is not the same as a belief because it is held only to be tested for denial or confirmation. I think scientists and writers about science should when speaking or writing publicly, like Mr. Shermer did here, avoid expressing their scientific acceptance, conclusions and promotions of hypothesis' and theories as "beliefs." The question should not be do you "believe" in evolution or climate change. The question should be do you accept evolution or climate change based on the scientifically based evidence available to you. In any discussion this would necessarily keep the focus on the evidence and conclusions from it rather than the natural human proclivity to draw conclusions or assert beliefs from a rather limited personal experience and knowledge base.
Evolution is a fact, but fails to answer some fundamental questions. Scientists know the component cells and atoms of life but have failed to create life. How is it that the earth is just the right distance from its star, tilts in just the right degree. So far scientists have been unable to locate other planets that exhibit these attributes. Perhaps the Webb telescope will solve this mystery. Scientists believe almost universally in the “Big Bang” and if true it proves the universe had a beginning. Which is to say the “Big Bang” “proves” that the universe is finite. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution.
I'm not a believer but during undergrad days took my meals at a boarding club operated by a Lutheran seminary. As a consequence I had a lot of discussions with divinity students. The Lutherans demonstrated a rather practical approach to this subject. When I quizzed them concerning their acceptance of evolutionary theory they responded that the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook and that the narratives found there were intended as lessons in life and faith, composed in such a way as to make a point (when related by a teacher) understandable to people who were mostly illiterate. While these students rejected creationism they did embrace intelligent design although my pointing out the numerous harmful, imperfect aspects of that design confounded them. C. S. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", attempts what I find a convoluted and ultimately circular (and, therefore, unsatisfactory) explanation for the perceived imperfection of "creation" but believers will often refer to this work as the definitive answer to challenges such as mine.
Those are some very high-minded reasons to doubt evolution! I would suggest a more cynical view on the part of the clergy, for if man is just the latest in a chain going back to the primeval ooze, how can he be specially created by God? How can he be liable to sin and be punished when his ancestors weren’t? And how can the church keep him in line with threats of eternal damnation? It all comes back to maintaining the fear of Hell, which I suspect is instrumental in keeping the donations rolling in. It’s difficult to convince a man of something, if his salary depends on not believing it.
That was a wonderful essay. I think a key issue is what of thought processes people use to accept things like scientific theories & results, as well as philosophies, political stances, etc. For example, I have many Mormon relatives who marvel at BYU's extensive dinosaur fossil collection and then ask "What are fossils, _really_?" As if God put fossils there to trick us - like a Latter-Day Loki (and remind me why you'd trust such a god?). I cannot comprehend their thought processes.
Their fall back defense is "God's ways are not man's ways"
Alas, giving up on making sense of it all helps people decide to fly planes into skyscrapers or, since they are Mormon, kill a wagon train of immigrants ... every man, woman and child above a certain age. Rational thought is a gate keeper against extremism - it stops us from committing atrocities in God's name.
I think there is much projection in the 21st Century about Darwin, and about his particular theological stance in light of the new ideas he was generating. From Wiki..."Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated, and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters"
It’s fascinating that the definition of fundamentalism requires “agreement with the statement ‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.’” That’s about like asking, “Which do you depend on more, air or water?” Science and faith do different things. It isn’t that “faith” is wishful thinking contrary to (scientific) evidence. Faith is trust in what we believe. So, a scientist has faith that his particular understanding of science is true. Christians believe God created the world because the Bible tells us so, and that truth makes a whole lot more sense of the world than a random process such as evolution ever could. This planet and this universe are way too well ordered to have just randomly come together.
I’ve had a lifelong fascination with science. My eighth-grade yearbook listed “zoologist” as what I wished to be when I grew up, and my childhood best friend became an entomologist. But a big part of my fascination with the natural world is that it is the handiwork of God.
You speak of morals evolving because they’re useful to society. That’s a huge difference from morals being actually right and wrong. Here is one of my favorite examples. When a male lion takes over an established pride, he kills all the cubs. That allows the lion mothers to go back into estrus so that he can mate with them and the territory he defends will be sheltering his own offspring and not that of other males. Is it morally wrong for the lion to kill those cubs? Would it be morally wrong for a human to do this? I’m not asking whether it feels icky, but is it actually morally wrong in each instance. Any thought at all tells us that it is not wrong for the lion but it would be wrong for the man. Why? Because God gave mankind a moral code in which murder is sin. And God, the One who created us and told us His laws for our behavior, is also the One who gave us the way to deal with our sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in our place. The Bible explains it in much more detail than I can give here.
Great! Let's agree to disagree and co-exist in peace! I'd love to hear from the Evolutionists what existed before the Big Bang and what sits outside our ever expanding Universe? Stunning to see the personal attacks around this subject.
In my simplistic view, we are all scientists--to a point. We gather physical information, apply some sort of logic, and make predictions and decisions, which we might then modify as we get more information. But we avoid this approach when it might challenge our moral beliefs and emotional preferences.
Sure, evolution vs. christian fundamentalism is the classic science vs. religion conflict, at least in the western world. And it does reveal some basic truths about our societal intellect.
But before atheists and liberals get too uppity, they should recognize their own ideological limits to personal science. For example, can they even talk about cognitive differences by gender? Or does the very idea of (subtle) variations between the ways that men, women, and others think and feel strike them as heretical if not evil?
And I appreciate Michael's point #8, and have used the same rhetorical challenge: why should people who support evolutionary market economies prefer creationist biology? But again, I also have used the inverse rhetoric: why should people who embrace (or at least claim to support) evolutionary biology, including academic experts, embrace creationist economics? Along with the graph of support and denial of biological evolution through time, I would like to see a graph of support and denial of free market economics.
Excellent essay, Michael! Thanks for writing and sharing.
Well, Michael, I taught human anatomy & physiology, equine animal science, and emergency medical services at the college level for 30 years. I have also been a Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor for nearly 30 years. I have read quite a bit of your writing here and respectfully disagree with you for so many reasons, both intellectual and theological. I am going to keep it simple here: I have purpose, I am here for a reason, I am not random. All of these are objections to my support of Darwinian evolution. I am, and will remain, irenic and respectful in my living out my calling from God to proclaim the wonder of His creation including me, a sinner who has been redeemed by God becoming a human man in space and time, and carried out the most pressing need of we who have rebelled:He died in my place, and rose again as the first fruits of our restored relationship with God. I look forward to working with you for the purpose of breaking down walls of hatred, misunderstanding, and pride. I can do that with integrity and transparency, and I pray you will work with me as well.
Greetings Michael,
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree with the arguments you put forth in this piece. I'm wondering how much credence you think should be given to considering the emotional intensity component of why a particular individual either accepts or rejects the theory of evolution, or one that's been modified through a theistic lens? It seems to me that this concept would be a valid one to pursue in a rigorous scientific study and would yield important results. Emotional attachment or connection could be quantified, and then a cohort could be surveyed to find out to what level their emotions (both positive & negative) are involved in either acceptance or rejection of the theory and various permutations of it.
You can have a bulletproof argument for acceptance of evolution by conservatives & Christians from a rational, reason-based, scientific/evidence point of view, as well as the harmonious ways the theory is in agreement with their religious & political beliefs (which you do) and still not make more gains if their emotions aren't considered in the mix. It's possible that emotions (both for attraction & acceptance, or repulsion & denial) may ultimately hold sway in how far evolution is accepted by these folks, no matter how perfectly it's presented to their rational minds. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these observations. Q. Richlife
Michael, kudos for a well-done essay, which reflects an understanding of Christian theology and ethics (perhaps informed by your own upbringing?).
I suspect St. Augustine would also appreciate your words: “The universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state, but was gifted with the capacity to transform itself from unformed matter into a truly marvelous array of structures and life forms” (quoted by J. N. Wilford). Ditto Pope Francis in 2015: “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
With all good wishes for the new year.
"Why Christians and Conservatives Should "Accept" Evolution"
Mr. Shermer,
Once again you have demonstrated that not only are you a careful and knowledge based observer and thinker but you also demonstrate a clear understanding that the words used to express your conclusions matter. Too often the acceptance of evolution is characterized as a "belief" when discussing the lack of acceptance of evolution by "believers." This is where I think things can and do go wrong in any discussion of any scientific conclusions be they about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of infection. In the actual doing and conclusions of any scientific endeavor belief should be and basically is suspended. The closest thing that a practicing scientist would have to a statement of "belief" is the hypothesis. This, as anyone knowledgable of the scientific method knows, is not the same as a belief because it is held only to be tested for denial or confirmation. I think scientists and writers about science should when speaking or writing publicly, like Mr. Shermer did here, avoid expressing their scientific acceptance, conclusions and promotions of hypothesis' and theories as "beliefs." The question should not be do you "believe" in evolution or climate change. The question should be do you accept evolution or climate change based on the scientifically based evidence available to you. In any discussion this would necessarily keep the focus on the evidence and conclusions from it rather than the natural human proclivity to draw conclusions or assert beliefs from a rather limited personal experience and knowledge base.
Evolution is a fact, but fails to answer some fundamental questions. Scientists know the component cells and atoms of life but have failed to create life. How is it that the earth is just the right distance from its star, tilts in just the right degree. So far scientists have been unable to locate other planets that exhibit these attributes. Perhaps the Webb telescope will solve this mystery. Scientists believe almost universally in the “Big Bang” and if true it proves the universe had a beginning. Which is to say the “Big Bang” “proves” that the universe is finite. Intelligent design is not incompatible with evolution.
I'm not a believer but during undergrad days took my meals at a boarding club operated by a Lutheran seminary. As a consequence I had a lot of discussions with divinity students. The Lutherans demonstrated a rather practical approach to this subject. When I quizzed them concerning their acceptance of evolutionary theory they responded that the Bible wasn't meant to be a science textbook and that the narratives found there were intended as lessons in life and faith, composed in such a way as to make a point (when related by a teacher) understandable to people who were mostly illiterate. While these students rejected creationism they did embrace intelligent design although my pointing out the numerous harmful, imperfect aspects of that design confounded them. C. S. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", attempts what I find a convoluted and ultimately circular (and, therefore, unsatisfactory) explanation for the perceived imperfection of "creation" but believers will often refer to this work as the definitive answer to challenges such as mine.
Those are some very high-minded reasons to doubt evolution! I would suggest a more cynical view on the part of the clergy, for if man is just the latest in a chain going back to the primeval ooze, how can he be specially created by God? How can he be liable to sin and be punished when his ancestors weren’t? And how can the church keep him in line with threats of eternal damnation? It all comes back to maintaining the fear of Hell, which I suspect is instrumental in keeping the donations rolling in. It’s difficult to convince a man of something, if his salary depends on not believing it.
That was a wonderful essay. I think a key issue is what of thought processes people use to accept things like scientific theories & results, as well as philosophies, political stances, etc. For example, I have many Mormon relatives who marvel at BYU's extensive dinosaur fossil collection and then ask "What are fossils, _really_?" As if God put fossils there to trick us - like a Latter-Day Loki (and remind me why you'd trust such a god?). I cannot comprehend their thought processes.
Their fall back defense is "God's ways are not man's ways"
Alas, giving up on making sense of it all helps people decide to fly planes into skyscrapers or, since they are Mormon, kill a wagon train of immigrants ... every man, woman and child above a certain age. Rational thought is a gate keeper against extremism - it stops us from committing atrocities in God's name.
I think there is much projection in the 21st Century about Darwin, and about his particular theological stance in light of the new ideas he was generating. From Wiki..."Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated, and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters"