Heresy
Early in my career I taught physics and astronomy at a private religious college in the heart of the Bible belt. I often found myself teaching students who were creationists. As a result there were times when I would find myself using terms such as “billions of years ago” or “over many millennia” to young men and women who believed in their hearts that the world is only 6000 years old.
In my first year one student confronted me on what I was teaching. Out of class the student would challenge me with evidence for a young earth, and he had it in spades. He described “polonium halos,” formed in granite via radioactive decay, as an indication that earth must have formed in less than a minute. He introduced me to “canopy theory” to account for the global flood, the idea being that shell of ice encompassing the earth provided the source for 40 days and nights of rain. This particular student was no slack. He was intelligent, curious and motivated. He asked good questions, and in the end did quite well. He also adamantly believed that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.
He is not alone. Studies have shown that about 18% of Americans believe the Biblical description of creation to be literally true. This is vastly higher than in any other industrialized country. America is one of only two countries where a belief in creationism is prominent. The other country is Turkey, where Muslim creationism is widely accepted.
This week marks the grand opening of the Creation Museum. This tweny-seven million dollar museum is established by Answers in Genesis to promote scientific creationism. The museum shows that the earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs rode with Noah on the Ark, and that everything from fossils to the grand canyon to plate tectonics are the result of the Biblical flood.
Given such absurdity it is easy to disregard this effort as simple-minded stupidity. It isn’t. My creationist student was neither ignorant nor stupid, and there are quite a few creation scientists with legitimate degrees (even Ph.Ds) from accredited universities. They are vastly outnumbered by traditional scientists who consider creation science to be pseudo-science at best, but that does not make the degrees of creationists any less valid.
Creationism is not simple-minded ignorance. It is a sophisticated resurrection of medieval science, where scientific evidence is accepted so long as it agrees with their forgone conclusions. Their website summarizes it clearly:
The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God’s authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history-including six-day creation and Noah’s Flood-is ‘willfully’ ignorant.
Any scientific evidence or conclusion which contradicts a literal Biblical interpretation is heresy.
Contrary to the common view, the medieval Church was not opposed to the study of science. It actually encouraged science in many ways. Science (then known as natural philosophy) was taught in Church-controlled universities, and was seen as an essential area of study. Scientists even enjoyed significant intellectual freedom, so long as their conclusions did not contradict Church teachings. Such heresy would earn you excommunication, or worse.
Galileo is the best known example of this. A devout Catholic, Galileo studied everything from the motion of pendulums to ebb and flow of tides. He discovered moons around Jupiter and craters on the moon. However Galileo crossed the line when he asserted that the earth moved around the sun. Church doctrine held that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 states “…The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” To claim otherwise was heresy.
In Galileo’s time heliocentrism was viewed in much the same light as evolution is today. Most scholars of the day saw Galileo’s findings to be an elegant proof of heliocentrism. At the same time much of the general population felt it defied common sense. For example, Martin Luther ridiculed the idea, saying “The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
In the end, the Church lost its battle against heliocentrism. Because science isn’t driven by popularity or religious dogma. Science is driven by evidence. Creationism is not science. It is a theological perversion of science into Christianity’s version of Sharia Law. Either you accept their version of Biblical truth, or you are a heretic. Scientific evidence to the contrary be damned.
Only about 40% of Americans accept evolution as a scientific fact. This is the lowest percentage of any industrialized nation. This lack of acceptance is driven in large part by creationists and supporters of intelligent design, who have convinced the general public that evolution is a speculative theory supported by tenuous evidence.
But the blame cannot be placed entirely on creationists. As scientists we have failed to convey a better understanding of evolution and the evidence which supports it. That can only change if we are willing to confront questions head on.
So I’m putting out a call to anyone who wants to discuss evolution. If you think evolution is largely unsubstantiated and want more evidence, just ask for it. If you are a creationist who feels your theory is better, make your case.
Be Brave. Be Human. Think.
May 30th, 2007 12:27
Brian,
I was wondering if you used my book, Letter to an Atheist, or any of my articles as sources for the fact you cite that 18% of Americans accept a literal interpretation of Genesis to explain the creation of the universe, earth, and man.
If not, it would be great to see your source.
I arrived at the 18% figure by looking at the 2004 study of Duncan and Geist, and I believe it to be accurate, though Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists fit into this 18%.
May 30th, 2007 13:26
Welcome, Michael
I actually drew the percentage from several websites, including your article on Christian Faith and Reason. I would agree your value of 18% is probably more accurate than Sam Harris’ 50%. It seems to correlate with the percentage that feel that ONLY creationism should be taught in school, for example.
The problem with many surveys out there is that the questions are not well formed. They tend to ask questions such as “Did God play a role?” or “Did humans evolve?” which is not the same as young earth creationism. They also tend to overlook the fact that people have complex beliefs regarding human origins. Even among those who accept evolution many believe evolution is simply God’s way of giving rise to humanity.
Brian
May 30th, 2007 14:22
Brian,
Please email me the other sources you used. I am trying to break down that 18% into Young Earth Creationists (the ‘faux science” behind the Creation Museum) and Old Earth Creationists (real science as conducted by Hugh Ross at Reasons to believe).
My email is editor@christianfaithandreason.com
Or, just post the other citations here.
Thanks !
May 30th, 2007 14:47
I don’t have any references which would break creationist views into old earth vs. young earth. Your best bet would probably be to conduct your own survey. It would be interesting to see more detail on American views on the subject.
I am curious as to your designation of old earth creationism as science. My understanding of OEC is that it assumes God created species over time (including humans) as opposed to speciation via natural selection. If this is what you mean by OEC, it is not science. It is simply a variation of creationism.
In general, creationism is not science because it makes no testable hypothesis. OEC differs from YEC in that it accepts evidence such as the fossil record, but couples it to the philosophical argument of the “God of the gaps.”
May 30th, 2007 15:54
Brian,
Good question about Old Earth Creationism.
I am not saying that either Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design have proven anything yet that would cause the scientific community to reject Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
I am saying, however, that at least one school within Old Earth Creationism (Hugh Ross’ Reason to Believe non profit, found on the web at http://www.reasons.org) accepts the scientifc method as the proper way to challenge Darwin.
Check out their website and let me know your thoughts.
I was actually looking for other citations that confirm my 18% finding.
Thanks !
May 30th, 2007 23:31
Michael,
The only source I have which states data in your range is this one, which finds that around 15% - 19% of people favor teaching creation only in schools. Pew did a study which found 42% of Americans held “strict creationist views”. That seems high to me, but my perception could be way off. If Pew is right, we’re even worse off than I thought.
I’ve been reading through some of your site. If I understand it correctly, you generally accept findings of science, but reject speciation. Instead you place creation of species under the purview of God. That seems to be pretty standard OE creationism as I understand it. Other than allowing a more general sphere of scientific findings, I’m not sure what makes in scientific.
Both YEC and OEC use the scientific method. Both bound science within a literal interpretation of the inerrant Bible. The only difference you have is on what you mean as literal, and therefore what constitutes heretical science.
Creationism in either form is not science.
May 31st, 2007 21:58
Brian,
I am a bit surprised that perusing our site you concluded that I reject speciation. As a layman I would say that I haven’t seen as much evidence to support the kind of randomly developed speciation that one might expect under Classical Darwinism as I’ve seen to support variations within species, But until the ID folks or someone else sets forth a provable theory to the contrary, I would tend to accept Darwin. I’m more in the Stephen Jay Gould school of punctuated equilibrium than the Richard Dawkins school of random linearity on that.
I think you may be making assumptions about how I view the relationship between religion and science which are not accurate. Again, I would subscribe to the views of Stephen Jay Gould that they are “non-overlapping magisteria.” Or, as Hubert Yockey put it “too often we find that scientists are talking religion, and theologians are talking science.”
As to your assumption as to my views on speciation being divinely inspired, I will say that science tests the empirical evidence on this topic, and I am most happy to accept the explanation for the mechanism of speciation that is developed by the scientific community.
Given the scientific evidence of speciation, the theologian can view that evidence and attribute it to the hand of God within either the “theistic evolution”, “intelligent design”, “old earth creationist”, or “young earth creatist” schools of thought. Of these, as you well know, only the “theistic evolution” school of thought is consistent with the currently accepted scientific theory on the evolution of life.
I’ll check out the Pew study that 42% are “strict creationists”. The number seems quite high and is not consistent with the 2004 Duncan and Geist results.
As to the charge that Young Earth Creationism is not science, I readily concur.
As to the charge that Old Earth Creationism is not science, I am not quite so sure. Tell me, if you would your assessment of Dr. Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. Have you studies his work ?
June 1st, 2007 09:45
Michael,
Actually, I concluded that you didn’t accept speciation from this page, which states:
Sounds to me like Ross is saying God, not natural selection creates new species.
I haven’t studied Ross’ work. I must admit I find reading through his site difficult in places, largely because there is a great deal of mixing scientific and religious terms. As a result, many of the scientific terms are misapplied, such as “The physics of sin.” Sin, as I understand it, is not a physical quantity. Another term you use is “science apologetics,” which is a misnomer. What you mean is Christian apologetics, where you are using science to justify Christianity.
Creationism is not science. Even theistic evolution is not science, but as you say does not contradict our current scientific understanding. They make no testable predictions, and provide no new scientific understanding.
Taking scientific findings and arguing that it fits with the Bible is not science. It is theology.
June 1st, 2007 09:53
Hi all-
I’m just going to stick my 2 cents in here and say how much I appreciate the thoughtful, reasoned, and respectful discussions on religion that are currently going on at BH, both here and at “Begging the Question.” This kind of interplay is what we were hoping for here, whatever the topic. I’m learning a lot from all contributors.
Thanks
Susan
June 1st, 2007 11:05
Brian,
The quote you mention on speciation is from Reason to Believe. Christian Faith and Reason is simply reporting
I would like to invite you to submit an article for next month’s edition of Christian Faith and Reason on why Old Earth Creationism is not science. I will run a counterpoint from Dr. Hugh Ross if you accept this invitation.
Thanks !
June 1st, 2007 11:41
Okay, since I’m apparently one of few odd men out (and I’m assuming this was inspired by our other conversation), let me lay out some things about evolution that I think are unsubstantiated.
While I’m sure there is a defense in these areas, I’m truly interested in knowing what it is.
1) Spontaneous Generation of Life. During our admittedly short time on Earth (no matter whose definition you use), we have never observed the spontaneous generation of life from it’s components (ie. “primordial ooze”).
If life is not able to be spontaneously generated any more, that makes it a brief, unrecurring, one-time-period event. In other words, a “miracle”.
2) Increasing Complexity. Current evolutionary theory says that life evolved upward, continually getting more complex over huge amounts of time. I am unaware of any evidence of life getting more complex (other than the vicious cycle of arguing that “we’re here now, aren’t we?”)
Does such evidence of life becoming more complex exist?
3) Irreducable Complexity. There are certain pieces of life that appear to be irreducably complex. The common example is the eye. What was the evolutionary advantage that came first? The eyeball that couldn’t see? The area of the brain to interpret light that didn’t have an input source? The optic nerve to connect the two?
On top of that are the amazing chemical reactions that occur in the eye to cause it to adapt and change (pupil size, focus, etc.) All of the chemicals involved are interdependent and wouldn’t work if one of them weren’t present.
What is the evolutionary advantage that resulted in the dominance of the mutation carrying only part of the eye in any species until the eye could be completed in a later mutation?
Dan
June 1st, 2007 13:22
Michael,
Ah. You cited reasons.org, and I simply assumed you advocated their position. My apologies.
Having me write an article only to be countered by Ross would not really be an effective discussion any more than having a creationist write an article for Skeptic, only to be rebutted by an atheist.
If you want to talk about having a dialog between Ross and myself as to why creationism is or is not science, that is something we could talk about.
June 1st, 2007 21:13
Daniel,
I’ll number my answers
1) Just to clarify a point, Spontaneous Generation actually refers to the spontaneous appearance of complex organisms arising from decaying matter, such as maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. It was popular in the 1600s, but has long been invalidated by experimental evidence. What I think you are referring to is known in the scientific community as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the general study of living matter arising from non-living matter. It does not require that life initially appear fully formed.
The short answer to your question on how life began is “we don’t know.” There are several hypotheses for abiogenesis (primordial sea, hydrothermal vents, etc.) but none of these hypotheses have nearly enough substantiating evidence to merit becoming theory.
You can call the origin of life a miracle if you wish. You can even propose that God must have done it. But this is not a scientific conclusion. The scientific answer at this time is “we don’t know.”
To clarify another point, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. It is a separate field of study. Abiogenesis addresses the origin of life from non-living matter, while evolutionary theory addresses the behavior of life. In the same way, Newtonian mechanics studies the behavior of matter. It does not study the origins of matter. That would be high-energy particle physics.
Which brings up a related point. Often creationists and ID proponents will do two things 1) incorrectly assume that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same, and 2) declare that if evolution cannot explain abiogenesis then all of evolution must be discarded. Let me discuss the second point just a bit.
A good comparison would be to go back to our physics progression:
Kepler develops his rules for planetary motion. Why do the planets follow those rules? No idea.
Newton develops gravity. Kepler’s laws derive from gravity. What causes gravity? No idea.
Einstein develops general relativity. Gravity is the result of spacetime curvature. What causes spacetime curvature? No idea.
For every answer we get in science, there is an even deeper question. But this doesn’t mean the answers we have are not valid. In the same way, not knowing how life began does not make what we know about how life adapts and evolves invalid.
2) Evolution does not say that life evolved “upward”. That is a common misconception. Evolution does not move species to increasing complexity, it moves species toward increasing fitness. If a species can become more successful by losing abilities, it will (e.g. flightless birds).
But to answer your question: Yes. Increasing complexity does occur, and depending on what you mean by complexity, there are tons of examples. Here’s a really well documented one from modern times:
Flavobacterium sp. K172. Commonly known as the Nylon bug. This bacterium underwent a “frame shift” mutation which allows it to metabolize nylon waste. This is an increase of complexity for life. It is a new trick that this species can do, that the species from which it evolved cannot. A single mutation, powerful new trick. What makes it all the more powerful is that Nylon did not exist until the mid-1930s.
3) Now let’s talk about irreducible complexity. There are several misconceptions surrounding irreducible complexity. The most common misconception is the idea that to get to a complete function as we see now (e.g. the modern human eye), we would have to evolve each part in its current form separately. First the lens, then the retina, then the iris, etc., all of which would seem to be useless until the whole thing comes together. This is not the case for two reasons: 1) “parts” are not fixed as to their purpose. They can be adapted to new purposes. 2) even a small advantage can be crucial.
In the case of the eye, there is a clearly established progression where each stage gives an advantage. For the progression of the eye there are examples of mollusks for each stage of the progression. Even for the flagellum there is a proposed progression. Each step provides an evolutionary advantage.
I could go into detail, but I’m getting tired…
In general, the irreducible complexity argument is an argument from ignorance: we don’t know, so God did it. But as I mentioned earlier, in science we don’t know simply means we don’t know.
So let’s take the idea a step further. Suppose we could clearly find just one example of something in nature which could not happen by progression. Not simply that we don’t know how it could, but that we could show conclusively that it couldn’t.
Would that tell us that evolution is a failure? No. It would be analogous to the issue with Newtonian gravity, and how it can’t account for all of the precession of Mercury’s orbit. Evolution would still work just as well as it ever did, but we would now have some exciting new information. We would know clearly that evolution is not the whole story. Scientists would start looking for a more general theory which does everything evolution can AND accounts for this truly irreducibly complex organism.
If that were to happen, that would be cool!
But so far all we have found that a lot of things which seem irreducibly complex really aren’t. Ho hum…
June 4th, 2007 19:19
Brian,
Thanks for the explanation re: abiogenesis. I didn’t realize they had split it off as it is usually the starting point for discussing evolutionary theory in the schools.
I don’t think the lack of explanation here defeats evolutionary theory. I just think it’s an example of trying to fit the data to the model and not the other way around.
—–
As to complexity, to clarify, I’m talking on a macro level and not adaption, for which there is plenty of evidence (bacteria becoming resistant - and ultimately immune - to new antibiotics, for instance).
When I speak of complexity, I mean more than adapting to the environment. What I mean is the ability of a well-adapted organism to genetically mutate in a way that increases the complexity of the DNA, imparts - as you say - greater fitness, while still setting the stage for a much bigger change.
In short, the impetus to change from fish to a lizard, continuing upward into man. Every single mutation in the DNA must be beneficial to the point where it enables the species to survive better than its predecessor.
There are so many examples of the opposite being true (ie. a fin into a weight-bearing leg in thousands of little mutations - each mutation away from a fin and until the “leglet” can bear weight is actually a negative benefit to the organism which can’t swim as well, etc.), that macro-level complexity doesn’t fit into evolutionary theory.
—–
As to irreducible complexity, you ultimately reject my argument because it leads to God. Or are assuming that’s where I’m headed.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing for (or against) God when I speak about evolutionary theory. I’m only trying to show how, frequently, evolutionary theory runs out of evidence and must be taken on faith.
Whenever a defense of evolutionary theory comes down to “there are no alternatives that I like” (such as, “Well, God wouldn’t have done it that way!”), that is choosing a faith, not being a scientist.
I’m fully okay with there being no known answer (the “we don’t know!” that you spoke of). But to try to say, “Well, evolution has to be the answer, so it must have happened something like this!” is to promote the theory in the face of no evidence (but you have faith the evidence will be found, right?)
The mollusks argument is just that - an “I imagine it could happen this way” discussion and not a laying out of evidence that it *did* happen that way.
Again, I’m not arguing for God here (He doesn’t need me for that). I’m just saying pointing out that both sides are using faith in place of evidence to fill in the gaps.
Dan
June 7th, 2007 06:47
One word, Logic. Now I might be wrong here, but Creationisim relies on the existance of God. The rules of creationism suggest we are too complext to have come about by chance, so evolution goes out of the window. Something more complex must have created us, i.e. God. So God is more complex, but he can not have come about by chance (evolution) so he must have been created by something more complex. Ah, but there is nothing more complex than God. So unless my logic has a flaw, by the rules of creation God can not exist, therefore creation is a none starter. I am reliably informed that God has a different set of rules, he has always existed he is the alpha and the omega. Yes and the moon is made of Cheese, no doubt why NASA went to go to the moon.
Lack of reason results in many innocent people dying, there is a plaque on the wall of Exeter Castle in the UK, it is dedicated to the last women in England to be murdered by the Good, or is that God people.
June 7th, 2007 15:11
David,
The problem becomes that there is no logical basis for us being here, regardless of what theory you use.
In evolution (abiogenesis), life comes from non-life. That doesn’t happen, is not logical, and does not work.
And, even before that, the entire universe comes from a Big Bang. Where did the mass / energy / catalyst come from? There is no logical beginning.
And, as to lack of reason killing people, establishing a god of reason (Socialism / Communism) killed 176 million people in the 20th century alone. You see, once reason is the ultimate goal, then life has no value and we can kill the folks we just don’t get along with.
Dan
June 7th, 2007 17:03
The whole religion vs. secular body count game is ridiculous. So before we reach Godwin’s limit, let me make one point on the matter. Look back across all the great tragedies of humanity, from the Crusades to WW II to Stalinist Russia to the genocide of native tribes in America. All of them have one thing in common: they were carried out by empires. Some did it in the name of God, some argued that they were the superior race, but the justification is irrelevant.
It is not religion or secularism which kills people. What kills people is nationalism. What kills people is the absolutism of one’s own superiority.
June 7th, 2007 22:09
And the thing that defends against people who believe in the “absolutism of one’s on superiority” is the absolute belief that they are wrong.
Dan
June 7th, 2007 23:55
What kills people? - religion, secularism, nationalism…
Interesting article by Stephen Pinker (Harvard Prof), “The History of Violence” which argues and presents evidence that violence is on the decline overall. He includes all kinds of violence (murder, war, domestic violence, slavery, etc) and reviews the long time span (1,000s of years) and short time spans (decades).
What does this imply for theories of secular vs religion? Are societies less religious now, therefore less violent?
What does it imply for empire? Do we have less ‘empire’ now, therefore less violence?
We definitely have fewer kings, queens and emperors now, and more accountable governments. Perhaps that is making a difference? Accountability makes a difference.
It seems to me that nationalism is still very strong, despite the lack of kings, queens and emperors.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
Sorry, I can’t quite weave a link from the decline of violence back to the starting point of evolution vs creationsim. Unless we could regard this decline in violence as a form of cultural evolution?
The decline in violence could be said to be progressing by increments and to be a positive adaptation to the environment. Yes?
Is it time for someone to start a new topic about the decline in violence? The US may be an exception to world trends, but that could make it an interesting discussion.
BTW - it would be really handy if there was a prominent email link on this site. It’s quite hard to communicate in any way other than via these comments.
June 8th, 2007 07:29
Just a short note. With regard to Daniels point, chemistry, look at how crystals form, they do because of the structure of the atoms and molecules in a certain environment, e.g. salt crystals.
Stalin, was originally schooled for the priesthood. Mr H was also from religious parents, and if you look at any current conflict, check out the men at the top.
What religion does allow is the justification of things which would otherwise be rejected. Read almost any religious books, and you will find them and us. Most ordinary people just want to get on with life, it is the very ambitious aquisitive people at the top who want more and find ways of getting us to follow them. That is why there were places like Vahala, and may others we could trot out.
We might not know where the matter for the universe came from, or the logic of why life can be where there was none. Please remember we once thought that lightening came from Thor’s hammer, just because we don’t have information, or understanding, we should use this to justify the existance of a God, or that we are his chosen ones.
Socrates, There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.
June 8th, 2007 17:03
It seems to me that religion can be a two-headed hydra — very good in some ways and shockingly bad in others. When followed by ‘good’ people, religion seems to lead towards something better. When followed by ‘bad’ people, religion seems to validate and bolster actions that are worse.
Given this two-sided effect of religion, I suspect that where power is wielded, the secular approach is much safer than specific religious codes.
June 11th, 2007 08:20
The secular approach isn’t any safer. There are plenty of secular leaders that have caused destruction (Stalin, Lennin, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, etc.) and plenty of death that have secular origins (Rwanda, Darfur, erc.)
Gillian does have it right though - the difference is in the people who wield the power. There are good ones and there are evil ones.
And, unfortunately, religious rules are no better at restraining evil than secular systems. And neither are particularly good at it.
Dan