Associated Baptist Press - 2/9/2009

Associated Baptist Press
February 9, 2009 · (09-18)

David Wilkinson, Executive Director
Robert Marus, Managing Editor/Washington Bureau Chief
Bob Allen, Senior Writer

In this issue
Two centuries after his birth, Darwin still controversial (771 words)
Intelligent design renews debate between science and religion (1,003 words)
Scientific organizations, court: 'intelligent design' isn't science (1,023 words)
Evolution Sunday says a dichotomy between faith and science is false (716 words)
'Young-earth' creationists value literal reading of God's word over human intellect (1,121 words)

---

Two centuries after his birth, Darwin still controversial
By Bob Allen (771 words)

(ABP) -- Two hundred years after his birth on Feb. 12, 1809, British naturalist Charles Darwin remains controversial.

His theory of evolution became the linchpin of modern science, but a majority of Americans believe God created humans in their present form. And church-state battles continue to rage over whether teaching about evolution ought to be balanced with alternative theories like intelligent design.

The debate began 150 years ago, with the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species. In it, Darwin argued that species were not distinct and direct creations of God but rather evolved from common ancestors.

Darwin didn't invent the idea of biological evolution. His preface cited 34 authors who believed in modification of species or at least disbelieved in separate acts of creation. His concept of natural selection -- the idea that organisms that inherit favorable traits over long periods of time survive while those with unfavorable traits become extinct -- created a firestorm, however, because it contradicted the popular belief in the literal biblical account of creation.

Some liberal theologians embraced natural selection as the instrument of God's design, but Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, one of the most prominent religious figures in England in the 19th century, called it "absolutely incompatible with the word of God."

Darwin's book also divided the scientific community. Thomas Huxley, a London lecturer and naturalist who opposed church control over science, coined the term Darwinism and compared Darwin's achievement to the theories of planetary motion propounded by Copernicus. Huxley's ardent defense of evolution earned him the nickname "Darwin's Bulldog." Scientist Richard Owen, meanwhile, inventor of the word "dinosaur," viewed ideas in The Origin of Species as dangerous to society. He thought Darwin's theory left too many questions unanswered and steered science away from its role of investigating God's creation.

Darwin's own views on the subject evolved during the first 50 years of his life. As a young man, he began studying for the Anglican clergy at Christ's College at Cambridge. He embraced philosopher William Paley's famous metaphor of the watchmaker to argue that complexity of the universe implies an intelligent designer.

Introduced to botanist John Stevens Henslow, however, Darwin's interest shifted to natural science, and Henslow, an Anglican priest, became one of his closest friends. Darwin first began having doubts about Paley's argument from design with observations made during a five-year expedition journaled in his 1839 book, The Voyage of the Beagle.

Darwin said in his autobiography he was "quite orthodox" while aboard the ship, and in fact was laughed at for quoting the
Bible as an unanswerable authority on points of morality.

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation," Darwin said. His disbelief crept over him so gradually "that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct," he explained.

Darwin's main objection was the belief that if Christianity is true, all who do not believe will be punished eternally. "And this is a damnable doctrine," he wrote.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us," Darwin wrote, "and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

Darwin's book, however, was not overtly anti-religion. He used the word "Creator" several times, though scholars disagree about whether that was because by then he believed evolution was guided by a divine hand or simply to head off accusations that he was an atheist.

Darwin's argument was that religious dogma should not trump reason. Arguing contrary to scientific observation on religious grounds, he observed, "makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception."

"I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore," he wrote.

Darwin kept his theories about evolution to himself for a long time, because he knew they would be explosive. Seventeen years before publishing The Origin of Species, he made an outline of reasons not to publish that included concern that trouble-making atheists would use it for their agenda and the church would scorn him.

Darwin's health was too poor for him to spend much energy in the debate he launched, but his ideas grew into the mainstream so fast that by the time he published The Descent of Man in 1871, where he applied his concepts to human origins, there was little outcry.

Darwin died April 19, 1882, and was given a state funeral. He is buried in Westminster Abbey, a burial place that England has long reserved for kings, the famous and the great.

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

---

Intelligent design renews debate between science and religion
By Bob Allen (1,003 words)

WACO, Texas (ABP) -- If there ever were a chance that conflict between evolution and religion might die a natural death, it ended with the birth of the "intelligent design" movement.

Just ask William Dembski. Educated as a probability theorist, Dembski had a "Eureka!" moment in 1988 when he heard a statistician say at a conference that mathematics can define what randomness is not, but not what it is.

It made sense to Dembski, a born-again Christian who later earned a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. If God created the world, he reasoned, it should exhibit order instead of chaos. Scientists' difficulty in defining the randomness driving the evolutionary model, therefore, actually could be evidence of an intelligent designer.

In 1996, Dembski met Robert Sloan (at the time president of Baylor University) who had read some of his work and was impressed. Three years later, Sloan approached Dembski not only about teaching, but also offering him a whole center dedicated to the relationship between faith and science.

The center was to be named the Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information & Design after Michael Polanyi, an outspoken physical chemist from the 1930s, and housed within Baylor's Institute of Faith and Learning.

Although Dembski met with a few members of the Baylor faculty, most heard nothing about the arrangement until the center's website went online and colleagues in other institutions around the country began asking if it meant Baylor was surrendering to fundamentalism and planned to start teaching creationism instead of evolution in its science classes.

The chair of the Baylor Faculty Senate called the ensuing controversy "one of the most divisive issues to have arisen on the Baylor campus during my 32 years on the faculty." Incensed they were not consulted before launching a major venture overlapping with other teaching disciplines, the faculty eventually called on the administration to dissolve the Polanyi Center. Sloan refused.

The faculty and administration reached a compromise, and an external peer-review committee determined that while controversial, the dialogue between science and religion had a place on a university campus. The committee proposed broadening the center's work, establishing an advisory committee composed of faculty members from related disciplines and dropping the Polanyi name.

Dembski responded with a press release hailing the report as a "triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and "a great day for academic freedom."

Dembski's exultation further enraged his opponents, who had expected an olive branch. The next day, Dembski was relieved of his duties as director of the center and reassigned as a research professor, with an explanation that his actions did not promote collegiality.

Dembski eventually left Baylor to become the first director of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Center for Theology and Science in 2005. After one year, he moved to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, citing professional and family reasons. He now serves there as research professor of philosophy and director of Southwestern's Center for Cultural Engagement.

Supporters of intelligent design view Dembski's story as part of systematic censorship of a theory that questions the some of the basics of Darwinian evolution. Dembski's celebrity earned him a role in Ben Stein's 2008 independent documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which argued that mainstream science suppresses academicians who see evidence of intelligent design or criticize evidence used to support evolutionary theory.

Like its cousin, the creation-science movement in the 1960s, intelligent design is a reaction to Charles Darwin's notion of natural selection, which explains the emergence of current life forms by a series of random events governed by natural laws without any reference to an ultimate creator.

Critics of intelligent design, in fact, say it is nothing more than a modern reincarnation of creationism -- a political Trojan horse being used to undermine scientific consensus about evolution and inject religion into public education in ways otherwise prohibited by the separation of church and state.

Proponents strongly deny the charge. Dembski says intelligent design differs from creationism in that it sets out not to prove the Bible's account of creation, but rather challenges Darwin's assumption that evolution occurred devoid of any intentional purpose.

Advocates of intelligent design argue that some patterns in nature are best explained not as accidents, but rather the result of some kind of intelligent cause. Biochemist Michael Behe, for example, uses an analogy of a mousetrap to describe microscopic organisms that are "irreducibly complex."

Composed of a wooden base, a spring and a trigger, a mousetrap doesn't work at all unless all the individual components are present, begging the question of how interacting parts of the simplest organisms could have evolved without a previous function of their own.

Dembski cites the example of Mount Rushmore. If humans went extinct and aliens discovering the massive sculpture in the future had no direct evidence it was man-made, how would they know it wasn't simply the natural result of wind and erosion?

For Dembski and other "design theorists," it comes down to a formula called "specified complexity."

In the novel Contact by Carl Sagan, for example, astronomers discover a long sequence of prime numbers being transmitted from outer space. Because the sequence is long, it is interpreted as unlikely to have occurred by chance. Because it is mathematically significant, the scientists are convinced it is evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.

But when the same criteria are applied to biology and the natural sciences, Dembski says, it is denounced as creationism and false science. Dembski insists the problem is that science currently is dominated -- both in the secular and Christian academy -- by naturalism, excluding any appeals to anything "non-natural" or supernatural.

As long as that remains so, Dembski says, there is no possibility of integrating science and faith. For him, the key is "an enriched conception of nature that leaves room for intelligent causes."

Dembski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports scientists and scholars who challenge evidence of neo-Darwinian theory and develop the alternative intelligent-design theory.

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

---

Scientific organizations, court: 'intelligent design' isn't science
By Rob Marus (1,023 words)

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Teaching the alternative to Darwinian evolution known as "intelligent design" in American public schools would require fundamental shifts in one or both of two things -- the way scientists generally understand the basic philosophy of their profession, and/or the way the nation's courts interpret the First Amendment. But that hasn't stopped proponents of the movement rom trying.

"While supernatural explanations [about the origins of life] may be important and have merit, they are not part of science," wrote United States District Judge Stephen Jones III in a groundbreaking 2005 decision on the teaching of intelligent-design (ID) theory in a Pennsylvania school district. "ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world -- forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test -- which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory."

Jones' decision came in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which he declared unconstitutional a disclaimer the school board in the central Pennsylvania town of Dover had attempted to force biology teachers to read to their classes. It claimed there were flaws in evolutionary theory and suggested students interested in an alternative read Of Pandas and People, a textbook that promotes intelligent-design theory.

Jones -- an appointee of President George W. Bush -- concluded that intelligent-design theory asked questions and proposed answers that were fundamentally non-scientific, because they were theological in nature. The Dover policy was conceived by proponents of ID theory and promoted an ID textbook. Because of that, he said, the school district's policy violated the Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion.

The relatively small number of scientists who promote intelligent design propound it as a scientific challenge to some of the fundamentals of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which underpins modern evolutionary theory. ID proponents cite certain biological systems that they find too complex to have arisen from random mutations in living structures. They posit that such "irreducible complexity" points to an intelligent designer.

In scientific contexts, at least, they don't argue that the designer is God. But virtually all of the scientists and organizations behind the ID movement have deep ties to conservative Christian groups.

The leading organization for ID proponents is the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle-based think tank. The organization has, in the past, pushed for the teaching of ID theory in schools at the secondary and university levels. More recently, the organization has backed away from support for ID teaching, instead calling on schools to "teach the controversy" that ID proponents claim exists over the validity of the overarching theory of evolution.

But an internal Discovery Institute document, leaked and published by ID opponents in 1999, said the organization's goal in the ID debate was ultimately "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

ID proponents have tried -- in the Dover case and through legislative attempts or attempts to revise statewide teaching standards -- both to get public schools to teach ID or to at least raise doubts about the validity of overall evolutionary theory.

But almost all of the nation's major scientific organizations have issued statements saying there is no scientific controversy about the overall validity of evolutionary theory.

"Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution," read a 2006 statement by directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a coalition of the nation's major scientific societies. "The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."

What legitimate scientific controversy exists over ID and purported flaws in evolutionary theory regards whether the basis of modern biology should be what the Discovery Institute has called "the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century."

Materialism is the philosophical term for the idea that the only things that can scientifically be proven to exist consist of matter.

In a 2004 article on the backlash against ID theory, prominent ID proponent William Dembski wrote, "From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda. What's more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false."

Hal Poe, the Charles Colson professor of faith and culture at Baptist-affiliated Union University, interviewed in response to the 2005 Dover decision, said he thinks neither intelligent design, in its current form, nor the aspect of evolution it challenges qualify as science.

"My view is that intelligent design at the present moment is philosophy of science rather than science," he said. "With natural selection, you have the argument that mutations [in life forms over time] occur by random chance. The argument of intelligent design is that mutations occur through some intentionality."

But both are predicated on competing philosophies of science, Poe said. Evolutionary theory predicates that natural selection is the process by which evolution takes place, and that its effects are scientifically measurable and observable. ID theory, meanwhile, is predicated on the philosophy that a non-natural explanation -- the existence of an intelligent designer -- is a legitimate form of scientific inquiry.

But he sees both as being different fundamental frameworks for viewing the results of scientific inquiry.

Not being able to question one's own philosophical framework is "a major problem in the academy, because most scholars, most professors have no training in philosophy to recognize it when they see it," Poe said.

Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

---

Evolution Sunday says dichotomy between faith and science is false
By Bob Allen (716 words)

INDIANAPOLIS (ABP) -- While many Christians view evolution as a threat to faith, a growing number of churches view Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his seminal work The Origin of Species as something to celebrate.

More than 900 congregations in the United States and elsewhere are scheduled to participate in Evolution Weekend 2009, an annual event that began with a letter-writing campaign in 2004.

That summer, the school board in Grantsburg, Wis., passed a policy requiring that all theories of the origin of life be taught in the district's schools. A Christian minister who heard about it penned a short response letter saying the dichotomy between science and religion was false.

Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Liberal Arts & Science at Butler University in Indiana, worked with about 200 clergy across Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. It went so well, Zimmerman decided to take the project nationwide.

Today, more than 11,800 people have signed the Christian Clergy Letter, including about 250 Baptists.

Most are current and retired pastors, but they include notables like Ralph Elliott, the former Southern Baptist seminary professor whose 1960 Broadman Press book, The Message of Genesis, sparked controversy presaging the rift 20 years later between moderates and conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The two-paragraph statement articulates a position that Christians can embrace evolution and calls for teaching evolution in public schools.

First celebrated in 2006, Evolution Sunday has since been renamed Evolution Weekend to expand the focus beyond the Christian faith. Separate clergy letters exist for Jewish rabbis and Unitarian Universalists.

The emphasis has three goals:

· To elevate the discussion on the topic beyond sound bites to meaningful conversation.

· To demonstrate that people from many religious faiths view evolution as sound science that poses no problems to their faith.

· Along with the Clergy Letter Project, to argue the case that people do not have to choose between science and religion.

"Science can't prove that God doesn't exist," Zimmerman wrote in a February 2007 op-ed piece in the Indianapolis Star. "That's not what science is about. But for far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science."

Because the vast majority of people consider themselves to be religious, Zimmerman says, when forced to choose, many will opt for religion.

"People don't have to choose," Zimmerman said. "Go to church -- whether or not it's one that celebrates Evolution Sunday. Love God. Believe in religion. But respect science. And keep science and religion separate."

Michael Castle, pastor of Cross Creek Community Church in Dayton, Ohio, said his church, dually aligned with the Alliance of Baptists and United Church of Christ, planned to participate in Evolution Sunday for the third time this year.

"I have found this emphasis to be a good opportunity -- and a good reason -- to lift up the compatibility and complementary relationship between religion and science," Castle said. "So many Christians have it in their heads that science is opposed to religion and see science as a threat. I think that religion is most relevant and powerful when it deals with life as it is, not as we wish it to be."

Castle said the first year he prepared for Evolution Sunday, he wondered how his church would respond. The most telling comment came from a member who is a scientist. He told Castle he had never heard a sermon like that, and it made him feel good to know his profession did not make him less of a Christian.

In his 2007 Evolution Sunday sermon, Gary McCaslin, pastor of First Baptist Church in Painted Post, N.Y., said science isn't what threatens faith -- instead, it's "being shackled to a literal interpretation of the Bible that insists on everything being provable."

McCaslin said stories in the Bible are "images" of God described by ancient writers who had no need to provide accurate history or scientific details.

"When we try to impose a scientific understanding on subjects that have nothing to do with science, we get in trouble," he said.
McCaslin appealed to the Bible's "real authority," meaning that the Bible is true regardless of what science learns about the world or universe.

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

---

'Young-earth' creationists value literal reading of God's word over human intellect
By Bob Allen (1,121 words)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- In his 2006 best-selling nonfiction book, The God Delusion, British biologist Richard Dawkins said he is hostile toward religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise.

Wise, a Harvard graduate who studied under paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, gave up his dream of teaching at a major university because he could not reconcile claims of science with his faith.

At one point, Wise took out a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors. Beginning at Gen. 1:1, he cut out every verse that would have to be removed in order for him to believe in evolution.

Months later, he cut out his final verse and one of the last verses in the Bible, Rev. 22:19, which read, "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Wise describes what happened next: "With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong, or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible."

Dawkins called Wise's story "pathetic and contemptible."
"The wound to his career and his life's happiness was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape," Dawkins lamented. "All he had to do was toss out the Bible or interpret it symbolically or allegorically as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out science, evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes."

Wise's current boss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler, viewed it as a badge of honor. Mohler brought Wise to Southern Seminary in 2006 to lead the Center for Theology and Science.

Wise replaced William Dembski, a leading thinker in the theory of intelligent design, who moved to a sister seminary. Unlike Dembski, Wise is a so-called "young-earth" creationist. Based on his understanding of Scripture, he believes the universe is on the order of 6,000 years old.

After a global flood during the time of Noah, Wise believes, animals left the ark to disperse and multiply as God commanded, while humans disobeyed God's command and settled in a city to build the Tower of Babel.

During that time, Wise theorizes, some animals became buried in layers of sediment during a series of catastrophic events that occurred while the earth was recovering from the flood and today are preserved as fossils. That would include the higher primates, such as the famous fossil "Lucy" discovered in 1974 that scientists believe is 3.2 million years old and an ancestor of humans.

Wise acknowledges fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms between humans and lower animals lend support to evolutionary theory. He believes that because it is still a new science, young-earth creationism hasn't yet come up with an explanation for the existence of such fossils -- but it is only a matter of time before it does. That is because he thinks science inevitably leads to incorrect conclusions unless it appeals to the Bible.

"It seems to be a clear reading of Scripture that God told us that the earth is young, and I hold that position for that reason," Wise said Feb. 13, 2007, on Mohler's radio program. "I also believe science is such that these are theories of humans, so if it's a choice between God's clear word and humans' reason, then I'm going to take God's word over it. That's why I am a young-age creationist as opposed to an old-age creationist."

Mohler concurred, speaking not as a scientist but a theologian. "I have to come to the Scriptures -- and in particular the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis -- and try to figure out why I should interpret those 11 chapters differently than I would interpret any other passage of Scripture," Mohler said.

In another 2007 radio broadcast, Mohler called theistic evolution, a middle-ground argument between evolution and direct creation, a "lie" and said Christians cannot have it both ways.

Mohler said teaching in Genesis that death entered the world as a result of Adam's sin makes no sense if species of animals had been dying off for millions of years. He also said without a literal Adam, it's hard to explain what the Bible means when it talks about notions like creation, the fall of humankind and redemption.

Mohler and Wise are far from alone, and their ideas aren't new. A 2005 poll by CBS News found 51 percent of Americans reject the theory of evolution and say God created humans in their present form. And more than 500,000 people have visited the $27 million Answers In Genesis Creation Museum since it opened near Cincinnati in 2007.

In 1987, the Southern Baptist Convention Peace Committee reported that most Southern Baptists believe in "direct creation of mankind and therefore believe Adam and Eve were real persons" and called on denominational agencies to "build their professional staffs and faculties from those who clearly reflect such dominant convictions and beliefs held by Southern Baptists at large."

Richard Land, head of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Chris Matthews of MSNBC in 2007 that he thought only a small minority of Southern Baptists believe God used the evolutionary process to create humans.

Land said the belief that humankind was created gradually rather than in seven 24-hour days is "an acceptable belief" held by many Christians, but he is not among them.

"I don't believe that," Land said when asked if humans evolved from lower species.

That incenses skeptics like Dawkins.

"Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds," Dawkins complained.

"Non-fundamentalist, sensible religion may not be doing that, but it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children from their earliest years that unquestioning faith is a virtue."

Mohler said rejecting evolution "raises intellectual questions that I don't have neatly answered, but the alternative position leaves a larger number of messy questions, so I find this a much more intellectually satisfying position as well as theologically satisfying."

"We have to remember that Christianity dignifies science because we believe God has given us a creation that is intelligible, because he wants us to love him, even as we come to see him in this world," Mohler said.

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.