Are Christians Anti-Science?

Fewer slurs against Christianity are more common today than the accusation that Christians are anti-science.  You know the portrayal—Christians as Bible-thumping fundamentalists, so sure of themselves they don't give a darn what science says; Matthew Brady in Inherit the Wind.  A few, perhaps are happy to accept the stereotype, while others regret it, but see this as the price they have to pay in order to be faithful to Scripture on issues of creation and evolution.  Others more cockily insist they care deeply about science, but it's just mainstream science that isn't to be trusted, and they trumpet their own idiosyncratic scientific theories instead.  Outside of evangelicalism, and increasingly within, many have nervously shifted out of the firing line, doing their best to renounce all that is scientifically unrespectable in traditional Christian teaching.  On the wisdom of this latter strategy I do not intend to comment here (clearly, I have described it in rather unflattering terms, but on many issues, such accommodation may involve no trace of unfaithfulness).

On reading Merchants of Doubt, though, I was troubled by just how much truth there might be to the stereotype, and I have begun to wonder how true is the claim of American Christians that "We're not anti-science in general; we just cannot accept mainstream science on Darwinian evolution."  For when it comes to environmental skepticism, there seems little question that evangelical Christians have been in the front ranks.

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Pt. 4: Observational Science

by Bradley Belschner

Whereas forensic science uses clues to piece together a narrative of the past, observational science gives us a narrative that we can actually watch happening. We can see natural selection, speciation, and mutations in real-time, and sometimes we can even repeat them experimentally. In this post I'll be dealing with observational science.  

Exhibit F: Natural Selection 

Evolutionist: Natural Selection is the process that drives the survival of the fittest, and which in turn drives the gradual Evolution of all creatures. Peppered moths!

Creationist: Natural Selection does indeed drive survival of the fittest. But to equate that with “the gradual Evolution of all creatures” isn't just a stretch, it's a non-sequitur. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that mushrooms evolve into men; it just means that the fittest creatures survive. 

VERDICT: Irrelevant. Natural selection is an everyday process, and a necessary component of both Evolutionism and Creationism.

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Part 3: Forensic Science (2)

By Bradley Belschner

(continued from Part 2)

EXHIBIT C: Vestigial Structures

Evolutionist: Many structures appear to be vestiges---leftovers from earlier Evolutionary stages. Humans have tiny remnants of ear muscles, the human appendix is a vestige from when we were herbivores, the human coccyx is a remnant of a tail, dolphins have vestiges of legs, etc. Some of these vestiges have even adopted brand new uses over time. The Theory of Evolution predicts that we should see many vestiges from earlier stages of development, and that's exactly what we see. (The same argument applies to genetic and biochemical vestiges.) 

Creationist: Some of these structures in question are actually only minor vestiges from de-evolution (the opposite of Evolution). So yeah, perhaps Adam and Eve had more developed ear muscles than we do today. So what? Creationists agree with those sorts of minor vestiges, the sorts that come from realistic de-evolution. We disagree with Evolutionists over their claims of ridiculous major vestiges, the kind that only an Evolutionary narrative would want (e.g., dolphins with vestiges of legs). Most of the time we can identify important uses for these structures, thereby calling into question their 'vestigiality.' For example, the coccyx in humans serves to anchor muscles, and is an important part of the musculoskeletal system. If an organ's function is not known yet, we simply trust that its function will be discovered in the future. History has usually proven us right.

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Pt. 2: Forensic Science (1)

by Bradley Belschner

INTRODUCTION 

When it comes to the science of Creation vs Evolution, there is a vast ocean of evidence on either side. No single man could even read all the evidence, let alone form coherent responses to it all. Finitude is a serious limitation, one that I'm especially aware of while swimming around in the Information Age. Any discussion of the matter will necessarily be abbreviated, especially a discussion as informal as this one.

Nevertheless, it is my firm conviction---and my unequivocal experience---that the “experts” are not always right. This holds true in theology, politics, history, economics, agriculture, medicine, and even science. The experts usually are right, but not always. We're all human. Too often we lose focus, we think too narrowly, we share flawed assumptions, we ask the wrong questions, we are too biased, or we simply believe what we've always been told. The tricky thing is distinguishing when the consensus is right, and when it needs to change. 

Click to read more ...

Creation v. Evolution (Guest Series), Pt. 1: Should We Accommodate?

As promised for a couple months, my more scientifically-minded friend Bradley Belschner will be posting a series assessing the relative merits of Biblical creationism and Christian evolutionism.  This arises out of some conversations he and I (and from time to time, a couple other friends) have had in the past; when he proposed the series, I thought it would be an excellent learning opportunity for me and hopefully for many other readers.  The idea is to make this as open a discussion as possible, so that important arguments and counter-arguments can be addressed in the comments section.  So please jump in.  

Note that everything you will see in these posts is Bradley's--I take no credit for any of it, nor will I necessarily agree with everything he says.  The plan is for six posts, spread out over the next few weeks (and I'll probably continue posting occasional stuff of my own in between).

Suppose the Bible was your only source of information, and somebody locked you in a room and asked you how old the earth was, and where humanity came from. Your response certainly wouldn't include “millions of years”, and you certainly wouldn't talk about humans evolving from ape-like creatures. If the Bible was all you had to go on, you would say God created Adam from the dust, and he did it several thousand years ago. This is the traditional Christian interpretation, the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, and the most straightforward interpretation.

The trouble is, the Bible isn't our only source of information. We have eyes. We have science. If the Bible was all you had, then you'd also be a geocentrist. (There's nothing in the Bible that hints about the Earth revolving around the Sun.) 

Click to read more ...