Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, I thought I would post some of my own ideas on the environment, or more particularly, on the environmental movement. While I do think stewardship of the earth is an important aspect of mankind's work--in fact, a divine command given to us in the Garden of Eden--I take issue with the environmental movement as a whole. It strikes me as a movement striving toward an earthly, man-made (and carbon-free) Utopia that is attempting to force the rest of us into submission in order to achieve that goal. It has moved from promoting healthy human interactions with our environment to a battle for political power, based on an anti-biblical worldview.

Therefore, I present to you the changes I would like to see in the environmental movement:

• Drop the "salvation" language. If I switch to a hybrid car or turn my lights off for an hour once a year, it is not going to "save the earth." There are billions of people in the non-West who are more than making up for me in the "Global Warming" game. Plus, since there are problems with climate data dating back to 1960 (see next), we must question the underlying proposition that the earth is heating up due to human causes in the first place.
• Admit that there's a problem with the data. With the recent Climategate scandal, we now know that much of the data that the UN (via the IPCC) is using to determine whether or not the earth is heating up was deliberately altered. Unfortunately, the original 40+ years' worth of data has been "lost," so we will never know what the real temperature data is. And even if we did have the original data, the manner in which it was collected has also been shown to be suspect.
• Stop using the environment as a motivator. Yes, the environment is important. Yes, bettering the environment for its own sake is a noble cause. But most people aren't going to get motivated and make radically life-altering choices because of "the environment." If you really want people to be environmentally friendly, make it cheaper than the alternative and stress this fact ad nauseum. The caveat here is that it has to be cheaper in the short-term; as a consumer, if I'm buying an electric car, for instance, I'd better be able to come out ahead financially in 2-3 years' time--not 10.
• Let the free market "do its thing." When cars came out, the government did not have to enact legislation to force people to switch from horses. The car was a better mode of transportation that was affordable to most people, so most people sold their horses and bought cars. The same could be said for ice boxes and electric refrigerators, land lines and cell phones. When consumer demand is high enough, someone will come up with an affordable product to sell--and that includes "eco-friendly" products.
• Quit the scare mongering and guilt trips. Fear and guilt are poor motivators. We all want clean air and water, and we all want to preserve forests for future generations. Making me feel like a jerk because I don't use Denver's inadequate public-transit system, or telling me that if I don't act in wild and financially irresponsible ways, the earth will be destroyed before my kids grow up, well, that's just irritating. How about some positive reinforcement every now and then?

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Today

The Winter Olympics are an amazing thing to watch. Here are people who have devoted their entire lives to a given sport (most of which are incredibly dangerous) and are now at the pinnacle of success. They execute triple lutzes, Double McTwist 1260s and 90-mph luge runs flawlessly, looming larger than life above us normal folk who work in an office for a living. We look at them and think, "I could never do that." And for most of us, we are right. We weren't privileged to be raised near a mountain range; our parents didn't start us in competitive skating at age 2; and, most importantly, we don't have a natural inclination to cheat death on a daily basis.

But think of successful men and women in other areas. Businessmen, speakers, teachers, singers and songwriters, moms and dads. Whatever it is you aspire towards, whatever personal or career goals you have, you no doubt have your role models, your idols. "The best." Those people about whom you think, "I could never be as good as him." The difference between these cases and those above is that in these cases, for most of us, we are wrong to think in this way. Each of these people is most likely just like you, dealing with the same issues, the same circumstances, the same constraints. In many cases, Fortune did not smile upon them; success was not given to them on a silver platter, nor did where they were raised come into play. (And thankfully, death-cheating was rare.) What does set them apart, in large measure, is their attitude.

While this is a multi-faceted topic, of course, I think I have identified a key aspect of this attitude (or at least I'm hoping so!). Like most of us, I, too, have personal and career aspirations. And because I am an overachiever, I set the bar high for myself. Without going into details, I want to be the best that I can possibly be--all the time. And when I do less than my best, it really grinds me. I can't stand it. Unfortunately, one cannot be at his best all the time. Perfection is a goal which can never be achieved. I have tried to come to grips with that. I understand that I will never reach perfection this side of the grave; I will not reach all of my goals tomorrow, or next month, or next year. And as I get older I am learning that I can't even do all of the things I should be doing to achieve those goals. It's just not possible. But what I can do is ask myself a question. Every day, I can ask myself, "What can I do today?"

What can I do today to move one inch closer to my goals? What can I do today to become a better, healthier person? What small thing is in my power to control that I can change for the better today? Asking this question is enormously freeing and gratifying. Will I be out of debt tomorrow? No. But can I make a good financial decision today, one that will help me become debt-free? Probably. Will I ever know everything there is to know about the Bible? Not a chance. But can I take a few minutes to become more acquainted with it today? More than likely, yes. Am I the world's best dad? Despite what any coffee mug or t-shirt I may someday receive might say, I doubt I am. But can I take Brodie for a few minutes to give his mom a well-needed break? Well, it doesn't take a genius to answer that question.

Am I great? Am I among those to whom people refer as "the best?" I would highly doubt it. Will I someday become noticeably successful? I'll leave that question for others to decide (they'll be the ones who would have to notice, after all). Will I at least achieve my own goals? That's the plan. And when I do achieve those goals, I'll know that it wasn't because I won the lottery, or because the Spirit miraculously endowed me with a Blombergian knowledge of the Bible in my sleep, or because I was visited by the Dad Fairy. I'll know that it was because each day between now and then, I made the decision to do something small, something positive, something today.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm:

(1) write down the problem;
(2) think very hard;
(3) write down the answer.

The Case for Intelligent Design

Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!

Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.

As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.

Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?

Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:

Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:

Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.

The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.

Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.

Let's look at a few more examples.

DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.

Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.

These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:

The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*

Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.

We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.

At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:

*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.

Karma: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

*Let us put aside the fact that American karma is a bastardized version of the actual Hindu/Buddhist doctrine. I am only discussing the American version here.

Begging the Question

I typically let most grammar and usage mistakes slide. Mind you, when I find one in print or hear one spoken, it still makes me cringe. I have learned, though, just to let it go, except when I think that pointing it out would be beneficial to all parties involved (for instance, when I am grammarian at a Toastmasters meeting). I come across a few mistakes, however, over and over again, and sometimes I must comment.

The particular oft-misused phrase stuck in my craw at the moment is begging the question. Countless times have I heard or read something like, “The Rockies have been on a tear since firing manager Clint Hurdle. That begs the question, why was Hurdle not fired sooner?” The fact of the matter is Hurdle’s firing does not beg the question of timing. It raises the question.

Begging the question (a.k.a. petitio principii) is a logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. Note that in the phrase begging the question, beg does not mean “plead for” but rather “assume” and question does not mean “a sentence in interrogative form” but rather “the thing one is trying to prove.” Thus, begging the question literally means “assuming the thing one is trying to prove.”

For example, the famous zinger, “When did you stop beating your wife?” begs the question. It assumes that you have been beating your wife, even though no evidence has been produced that you do in fact beat her. Another example is, “OJ could not have killed his wife, because he just wouldn’t do that sort of thing.” It assumes that OJ could not have killed his wife because he would not kill his wife. No evidence is produced to suggest why he would not perform such an act other than “he just wouldn’t.”*

Perhaps I am being way too anal about this, but I believe that clear and cogent thinking is extremely important, and an important part of solid thinking is having a solid understanding of the words and phrases used. Furthermore, not only is the phrase begging the question often misused, the real fallacy of question-begging is common, as well. Thus knowing the true meaning protects you from misusing your words and your logic.

So the next time you read, “The economic crisis begs the question, when will things turn around?” join me in cringing in your chair. Let out a good, hearty scream while you are at it. And then relax by chanting this mantra: It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It doesn't beg the question; it raises the question...It'll make you feel better. I promise.

*Apologies for the misogynistic examples; ladies, please do not take offense!

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction?

Belief in Bigfoot is logical.

I know what you are thinking right now—I am crazy. Look at the crazy guy who thinks it’s perfectly sane to believe in Bigfoot! Let’s all laugh and point! All right, all right, get it out of your system. Better now? Good.

Seriously, though, I believe that Bigfoot exists. Let me explain why. First, the discovery of animals once thought mythical is not unprecedented. At one time gorillas were considered mythical creatures. The kraken was thought to be a figment of frightened sailors’ collective imagination until someone brought in a colossal squid. Similarly, the coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years until a fisherman caught one in 1938. And of course previously unknown fauna are being discovered all of the time.

Second, there is possible physical evidence to corroborate the existence of Bigfoot. Hair and fecal samples of unknown origin have been collected near alleged sightings. Piled rock, stacked wood and damaged trees—all seemingly intentionally done—have been reported in those areas, as well. Of special evidential import, however, are films, pictures and footprints. The famous Patterson-Gimlin film has been subject to intense scrutiny, but it has never been proved to be a hoax. (Indeed, if it is a hoax, it is one of the best ever done.) Various pictures, including the recent “Jacobs creature” photos, show something very primate-looking. (The Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the picture was of a mangy bear. Decide for yourself.) There have been many footprints discovered over the years. Some have proven to be hoaxes. Some, however, seem to be genuine, to the point of having possible dermal ridges.

Third, there are thousands of reported sightings of a large, hairy primate in North America. All throughout the continental United States and Canada, people claim to have seen such a creature. One can even find reports dating back nearly 400 years to the native peoples of the Northwest. In many cases, the eyewitnesses are of reputable character (not mentally ill, not known to be habitual liars, not seeking fame, etc) have no reason to lie, are experienced woodsmen[1] (many sightings occur deep in the woods where few urbanites would venture), do not know and therefore cannot collaborate with other persons who report sightings, and simply cannot come to any other explanation of what they saw. Furthermore, the details of the sightings are very often extremely similar. The object of the sighting always has a human-like face, very broad shoulders, hair of roughly six inches in length, a height of 7-9 feet, arms that extend down close to the knees, and so on.

The logic of my belief in Bigfoot (meaning an undiscovered large, bipedal, North American primate), then, can be represented by the following inductive argument:

1. Animals not thought/known to exist are often discovered.
2. Physical evidence exists that may corroborate the existence of Bigfoot.
3. Therefore, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be rejected a priori.
4. Many sightings by reliable people of reputable character occur, most of which contain extremely similar details describing a large, bipedal primate.
5. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are lies or fictional accounts.
6. Many sightings are reported by experienced woodsmen.
7. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are misidentification of known animals.
8. Some sightings have been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
9. Some sightings have not been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
10. Sightings have been reported over a vast amount of North America for hundreds of years.
11. It is not likely that a vast network of Bigfoot hoaxing has been in existence for hundreds of years.
12. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are the result of hoaxing.
13. Not all sightings have been identified as lies or fictional accounts, misidentification of known animals, or hoaxes.
14. Therefore, it is likely that some sightings are real and reliable accounts, the object of which is a large, bipedal, North American primate.
14. Therefore, it is likely that a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
15. Therefore, a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
16. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.

In the end, I suppose, belief or disbelief in Bigfoot is trivial. In fact, I prefer that most people disbelieve in its existence; that means fewer people are out there trying to bag one. But one day, when you take your kids or grandkids to the zoo to see the gorillas and the sasquatches in the primate enclosure, remember me. I’ll be the guy in the corner thinking to himself, “I told you so!”

[1] Many such people, in fact, have often seen bears in the wild and are adamant that what they saw was not a bear. Thus the misidentification of known animals cannot account for all reported sightings.

The Goal, or How Much Further Have I to Go!

...It is not just those who plan to enter the academy professionally who need to have training in philosophy. Christian philosophy is also an integral part of training for Christian ministry. A model for us here is a man like John Wesley, who was at once a Spirit-filled revivalist and an Oxford-educated scholar. In 1756 Wesley delivered "An Address to the Clergy..." In discussing what sort of abilities a minister ought to have, Wesley distinguished between natural gifts and acquired abilities. And it is extremely instructive to look at the abilities that Wesley thought a minister ought to acquire. One of them is a basic grasp of philosophy. He challenged his audience to ask themselves,

Am I a tolerable master of the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate of them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther when I stumble at the threshold...Rather, have not my stupid indolence and laziness made me very ready to believe, what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, "that logic is good for nothing?" It is good for this at least,...to make people talk less; by showing them both is, and what is not, to the point; and how extremely hard it is to prove any thing. Do I understand metaphysics; if not the depths of the Schoolmen, the subtleties of Scotus or Aquinas, yet the first rudiments, the general principles, of that useful science? Have I conquered so much of it, as to clear my apprehension and range my ideas under the proper heads; so much as enables me to read with ease and pleasure, as well as profit, Dr. Henry Moore's Works, Malbranche's "Search for Truth," and Dr. Clarke's "Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God?"

Wesley's vision of a pastor is remarkable: a gentleman, skilled in the Scriptures and conversant with history, philosophy and the science of his day. How do the pastors graduating from our seminaries compare to this model?

Taken from Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview, p. 4

Qwantz.com Takes on the Straw Man

I recently stumbled upon a very interesting and weird comic strip called Dinosaur Comics. The graphics never change (yet still amuse me every time), only the words. One strip I saw today I felt was apropos for posting here for three reasons:

1. You learn about a logical fallacy.
2. It pokes fun at people who debate each other on the Internet. (Who, me?)
3. It achieves 1 and 2 in a funny way.

So without further ado, say hello to T-Rex, Dromiceiomimus and Utahraptor!

The Big Bad Wolf

The best Christmas present I ever received was given to me by my wife last year.* It was the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. (Why yes, I am a nerd; how could you tell?) It is a great introduction to philosophy by two of the best Christian thinkers today. One of the best features of the book is that each chapter contains a reference list of additional, more in-depth resources. As I was perusing these bibliographies last night, I came across http://www.philcristi.org. This is the website for the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which is "an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy." I have not had the chance to perform and in-depth review of this website, but I have linked to it on this blog for that purpose. I have managed to read one particular article, however, which I felt was definitely blog-worthy. It is an article entitled "The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design: A Review of Richard Dawkins', The God Delusion" by Peter S. Williams.

Although I have not read Dawkin's book, it is obvious that Williams has, and meticulously. In his lengthy review (15 pages, but I would urge you, if interested, to read all of it), Williams dissects Dawkin's arguments for atheism and naturalism and against theism and the Intelligent Design theory. Williams gives a very fair critique. Not only does he point out areas of weakness, but he also points out areas in which Dawkins is right on the money. Probably the most interesting point found in the review is Dawkin's support of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with it, but he does state that if an intelligent designer did leave marks of design in the universe, such marks would be subject to scientific scrutiny in theory, if not in fact. Dawkins also correctly notes that certain scientific disciplines such as archaeology already employ the concepts of Intelligent Design--the problem comes when those concepts are introduced into biology. Williams rightly praises Dawkins for this understanding, while also critiquing him for poisoning the well by "tendentiously talking about 'Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America' and 'creationist Michael Behe.'"

Williams goes on to discuss many other aspects of the book, and for time's sake I cannot repeat them all here. His review is, however, a great read for one interested in understanding better the philosophy that lies behind modern science.

*I expect to receive a much better present this year, though.

Philosophy of Evangelism and Discipleship

Today's entry is a slightly modified essay I wrote for a class this past semester. I thought it was one of the better pieces I had written in a while, so I'm posting it. I hope you enjoy it, and any feedback is appreciated, as always.

Evangelism and discipleship are two ideas that have been used and abused by many in the church. Just recently, in fact, Iived a link to a YouTube video from a friend of mine. A prominent youth speaker was telling a stadium full of students about a youth group that had attended one of his previous retreats. The youth group had put up poster boards in the youth room with the names of every student, teacher and administrator in their high school. Within three months, they had given the gospel presentation to everyone in their school (he did not say how many, if any, of these people accepted Christ). The speaker then asked the audience who had had a one-on-one conversation about Jesus with someone in the past two days. Only four had. This, he stated, was the problem with Christianity. Many Christians’ view of evangelism and discipleship, in my opinion, is the same as this man’s, and I believe it is harmful. What is so harmful about this belief? It presents “cold” evangelism as the only viable option. This approach also relies on guilt as a motivator. Furthermore, it completely neglects the idea of relationship and prefers to treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. It is against this type of view that I must stand.

In order to understand evangelism and discipleship correctly, we must look at the ideas behind these concepts. In the New Testament, the idea of salvation has past, present and future implications. Those who profess faith in Christ have been saved (Luke 7:50), are being saved (1 Co 1:18) and will be saved (Matt 10:22). This tri-fold usage of salvation terminology shows that it is a journey. Being evangelized is one of the first steps of that journey, followed by a period when one accepts Christ, followed by discipleship. Evangelism and discipleship, then, are not so much two separate entities but different stages of the same journey.

It is imperative to understand that we are all on a journey somewhere. We who have Jesus are not the sole arbiters of truth and goodness, although we know the One who is True and Good. We also know that the One in question created all men, women and children in His own image. He loves them because He created them in His image. As Christians, we must remember, then, that we, too, should love—really love—our fellow humans because God loves them and they are worthy of love. This doesn’t mean that they are not sinners going down the path to destruction, but it does mean that as we evangelize them we do so with respect. In the case of the students sharing the gospel with everyone in school, I wonder with how much respect this was done. I suspect that it was a well-intentioned project—let’s fix as many of them as we can. What if each of the students had committed instead to deepen one relationship? What good might have come out of that, even if the sheer number of people “touched” is much lower?

This is a hard concept for many of us in the West to grasp, where our idea of success involves quantitative elements. A church with 10,000 attendees must be successful, right? What about my church, that has around 20 regular attendees? Well, bless them, they’re sure trying. I would submit that both quantitative and qualitative elements must be taken into consideration with evangelism and discipleship. There are surely those with the gift of evangelism who can bring the masses to Christ. Most of us do not fall into this category. Some of us even seem always to get the seeds that have fallen to the side of the road (cf. Jesus’ parable in Matt 13)—a lot of sowing, not much reaping. At my church, we pray for both numerical and spiritual growth. I think this balance is a key when discussing evangelism and discipleship.

So, then, what is our ultimate role as Christians, if it is not to tell everyone we meet about Jesus? In a moment, I will argue that this question is not the appropriate one to ask. First, though, we must remember what Jesus said when asked about a person’s ultimate role. In Matt 22, a lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. In his famous response, Jesus states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (vv.37-39). Jesus said we are to love God and love people. Every action we take, every conversation or thought we have, should tie back into loving God and loving people. This is the heart of discipleship: Tying our life into these two commandments. When Jesus later gives the Great Commission in Matt 28, he instructs us to go “and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (vv.19-20). As we go, we must remember to “go” in such a way that we love God and love people. This is the heart of evangelism: Spreading the gospel in love.

Now, let us return to the above question. Does making disciples of all the nations equate to telling everyone we meet about Christ? Or does it rather mean working the gospel within the relationships we have? Perhaps circumstance plays a part in determining this, but I would say that the more loving route would typically be the latter. The question Should I tell everyone I meet about Jesus? should be replaced in our hearts and minds with the question How can I love God and people as I spread the gospel? This is the key question for us to ask as we consider evangelism and discipleship.

Having theorized sufficiently, I will now turn to how I practically apply my philosophy in ministry. First and foremost, as with any aspect of ministry, I believe prayer must be central. James 5:16 states, “The effective prayer of a righteous person can accomplish much.” Although I need much work in my own prayer life, I am firmly committed to the idea that prayer must serve as the foundation for all ministry, including evangelism and discipleship. Second, I highly emphasize growing relationships. There are people in my own circle of friends with whom I actively try to cultivate deeper relationships. As a non-Christian example, I have a friend named (Mr. X). I have shared the gospel presentation with him, we have debated the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture and we have generally talked a great deal about religion and philosophy. He knows my worldview, and I know his. He is not currently a follower of Christ. I have learned that I cannot convert him—that is a decision between God and him—and I have accepted that. What I can do is be his friend and listen to him respectfully. He knows I am a trusted confidant, and I know that I am showing him Christ’s love. In the discipleship arena, I can mention (Mrs. Y). (Mrs. Y) comes to me with questions about the Bible and faith. Again, listening is the key. She says that she learns a lot from me, but the truth is, she is working out her own thoughts and ideas through verbalization. In addition to prayer and cultivating relationships, evangelism and discipleship in my ministry involves waiting on the Spirit to work. Again, in the case of (Mr. X), I have been waiting years for him to become more open to the gospel message. God’s timing, though, is not my own (2 Pt 3:9; Ps 90:4). We do not live in a sitcom, where everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes’ time. In the same manner, with (Mrs. Y), as it is with me, growth takes time. Evangelism and discipleship timelines may need to be expressed in years or decades—a thought that we who live in a fast-paced society ought not to forget.

I have in this essay juxtaposed two very different methods of evangelism and discipleship. On the one hand, there is the common method of guilt-induced programs that treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. On the other hand, there is the less common method of forming real relationships with people, loving and respecting them because they are intrinsically valuable to God. I cannot say that this method is always—or ever—easy, fun and clean (there are no neat and tidy checklists to go down), but I must say that it is the method to which I adhere. I hope you will, too.

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Cake, Anyone?

I hate to harp on subjects unnecessarily, but I must go back to the dichotomy of faith and reason. I have had several conversations and have read several blogs generally dealing with this theme lately, and it reminded me of a point I was probably going to make some time ago.* It goes something like this…

In the ongoing battle over God’s existence, evidence for Christianity, etc, there are typically two camps. In one camp is the Christian who says that there is plenty of evidence for his or her belief in God and such. In the other camp is the non-Christian who says there is no evidence for this kind of thing (or the evidence points in the other direction). The stage is set; the debate continues ad infinitum.

There are good and bad arguments on both sides, but I want to look at one in particular. This is the argument that there is no “scientific” evidence for God or faith, so therefore these things cannot be true. Now, if one believes in a unified theory of truth, that all areas of study can touch each other, that there is Truth that transcends categories, in that case we have an argument. But if one believes in the fact-value dichotomy, we have a problem. Since we humans have apparently decided that science is and should be separate from religion now and forever, then let us dispense with the argument that a belief in God is false for scientific reasons. In a fact-value dichotomy, there is no true or false in the realm of values. True and false become meaningless terms. Science becomes useless in matters of faith. Likewise, faith becomes useless in matters of science.

Whether or not this dichotomy is the actual state of affairs in the universe is extraneous for the current discussion. The point I wish to make is this: If you adhere to such a worldview, you limit yourself a priori from arguing against God, Christianity, etc, by using evidence (or a lack thereof) as a criterion. In a fact-value dichotomy, there can be no evidence for or against faith. It is entirely subjective. You can, therefore, never claim that Christianity is wrong—or right. Any such statement is mere emotivism, or at best, relativism.

I suppose I see this issue surface the most with the evolution debate. Purported evidence is presented against a Christian worldview (namely, that God created the universe with purpose), and this is labeled science. When purported evidence is presented arguing for a Christian worldview, this is labeled as pseudoscientific garbage not worth the paper and ink expended upon it.

It brings to mind the old adage, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”


*This is in no way directed at anyone personally.

The Pleasure of a Good Book

There's just something about books. I love the experience of reading a book. The feel of the cover, the rustling of pages. The smell of ink and paper (and maybe even a highlighter). There are the pricey textbooks, with their glossy pages, whose shininess is a foe to be reckoned with when attempting to read under adequate lighting. I haven't seen a true textbook in years, thank God. Dry as kindling but sparking knowledge if the reader is disciplined enough. I can't tell you how many textbooks I only read halfway. Then there are the cheaply printed variety of books. The reward for paying them attention is a black thumb and smudge marks in the margins, and perhaps a dog-eared page here and there, and a broken spine. I try never to break a spine or disfigure a page, although some of the longer books are almost impossible not to injure (City of God, for one). Some books I highlight and mark all over; others are much too sacred. I think my Greek New Testament only has one verse underlined, and that done with a light pencil stroke.

Each book contains a bit of paradise--a sanctuary of the mind. They are time machines: Copleston's A History of Philosophy, Vol 1 transports me to ancient Greece; The Abolition of Man transports me to the present and future--as though I were a visitor from the past. They are precious jewels, if one is willing to search for them. They are new worlds to be explored from the comfort of one's living room! They were died for in the past--scarce and sacred. They are at our fingertips now by the millions--omnipresent and overlooked.

People wonder when the book will become obsolete. I hope never. The tactile experience of a book is much too precious to be lost, and it can never be replaced by technology.

Give me a book, and I will be happy.

FSM

My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.

Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:

1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:

1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Let's try it one more time, just for fun:

1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.

Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?

If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.

Truth and Starbucks.

I have been reading through The Gospel According to Starbucks by Leonard Sweet. The basic idea of the book is that the church should take a look at what Starbucks is doing that makes them so successful and appropriate what it can. That is, why do people flock to Starbucks for expensive coffee drinks, and what positive things can the church learn from Starbucks' example? Fair enough; there is no reason the church shouldn’t take that which is good from culture and use it.

Of course, being a seminary student, I must always find some aspect of any book with which I disagree—it is simply a burden I must carry. Sweet, who is a seminary professor, ironically downplays the role of the intellect in the life of a believer. Christianity, he says, is not to be lived out solely in the mind; it is to be experienced. He even goes so far as to say that theological and philosophical debates might do some good in the ivory towers, but they do nothing for the average person. (Never mind that everyone has a theology and a philosophy, no matter how common.) Sweet goes on to format his idea of the Christian life like this:

It seems as if Sweet is saying that the mind and experience are completely distinct from one another. For too long, he argues, the intellectuals in the church have controlled and subdued Jesus. No, he says, to know Jesus you must experience him, and to know the Truth you must experience it. He does briefly acknowledge the role of the mind, but the reader gets the sense that Truth is 95% experiential and 5% intellectual in nature.

I, on the other hand, would describe the life of a believer more like this:

Truth through Jesus serves as the foundation of the faith. The mind and experience, however, cannot be completely separate. Each interacts with and affects the other, and each serves as a corrective to the other. Truth is not found solely through experience or intellectual pursuit. Rather, it is a bedrock upon which both sides are built.

All in all, this is not an attempt to knock Leonard Sweet. There are some good tidbits of knowledge in the book (perhaps I will blog of these later). And I agree with his overall premise. I think he is offering a needed corrective--i.e. let's make church a place where people want to come--but he over-steers the ship. The church needs sharp minds as much as it needs authentic lives. After all, as a wise author once wrote, we are a body.

Monkey Girl

On the recommendation of a fellow blogger, I picked up a copy of Monkey Girl by Edward Humes from the library. It is a chronicle of the infamous Dover, Pennsylvania, incident in which the local school board desired to teach creationism in its high-school science classes. Eventually this led to a national firestorm on evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design and the like. Humes retells the story, and he proclaims on the inside flap of the dust cover that the book covers the perspectives of all sides of the debate. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Humes has the worst kind of bias—one that is not admitted. In fact, he gives a façade of objectivity by claiming to be a simple journalist, one who is committed to the truth. In reality, he is committed to the status quo. He sees the standard scientific model as unassailable—any dissent is jumped on, with all weaknesses exposed. What he fails to do is understand his own position’s weaknesses. He has no time to waste analyzing his own belief in evolution, because he is much too busy producing ad hominem attacks on William Dembski, Michael Behe and others and using suspect arguments in his defense of naturalistic science.

There are two incredibly frustrating leitmotifs in Monkey Girl. The first is his insistence on the absolute dichotomy between science and religion. I have a simple rebuttal for this: Why? Why must science and religion be separate? Science with its methodological naturalism has no room for divine activity in the physical world. (To be true, science will occasionally throw the dogs of religion a scrap from the table—God could have used evolution as his means of creation, but that’s for the theologians [said with great disdain] to worry about—we deal with the facts.) But consider this: If it is true, as I believe, that God was and is actively and detectably involved in nature, then methodological naturalism has a false presupposition. Everything, then, that flows out of it is also suspect. Given the implications of this, is it not prudent at least to investigate such an idea? Science answers with a resounding No! The fact that science is unwilling even to ask such a question is evidence that there is more than just science at stake in this debate. Philosophies and worldviews are on the line.

The second continual source of frustration in Humes’ book is the all-too-common tactic of using a slippery definition of the world evolution. Evolution can mean anything from the breeding of dogs to the common descent of all animals from a single cell, depending on the context. After all, what does “change over time” really entail? It depends on whom one asks, and how it is asked of them. Humes uses this slippery word to his advantage numerous times, especially by stating repeatedly that evolution has been proved. To which type of evolution is he referring? The reader can never be sure, and I doubt that this is unintentional.

You might note at this point that I have not mentioned much regarding the actual content of the book but have only identified certain of the author’s presuppositions. This is purposeful; in light of his deliberate biases and dogmatic support of the status quo, I find that the content of Humes’ book is worthless in the science/religion/whatever debate. In fact, the main bit of knowledge I came away with after reading it was a hefty insight into the author’s “objective” belief system. Do I have biases? You bet. But at least I try to be honest and open about them. I don’t pretend to tell “all sides of the story” as Humes does.

That being said, I would not recommend this book. Humes’ declared objectivity is extremely suspect, which therefore causes me to doubt the entirety of Monkey Girl’s content. In my mind, he is little more than a minion of methodological naturalism, a serf of the status quo. Had he really strived for objectivity, perhaps he could have composed a book worth reading. In this case, he did not.

Sicko

Well, here we go again. Michael Moore is putting out yet another movie this summer. This time it’s his autobiography, appropriately entitled “Sicko”. Just kidding—it’s really about the state of health care in America.

This is a good time, then, for another discussion of the role of moral truth in society. Mr. Moore’s films are propaganda that play fast and loose with the facts. (For brevity’s sake, I will not defend this statement; there are plenty of others who have.) He calls his works documentaries, yet all he truly documents is his insatiable desire to have his own views accepted. If that means a few lies along the way, then so be it. His is a classic example of the ends justifying the means.

Moore won an Oscar in 2003 for “Bowling for Columbine” in the category of best documentary. Did anyone on the Oscar committee bother to do any fact-checking on this film? If I had to guess, I would say no. “This is Spinal Tap” portrays a more realistic picture than Moore’s movie. So why did Moore win the Oscar? Even in the materialistic world of verifiable facts, “Bowling” comes up short.

I think the answer is political power. The reign of morality was overthrown in the last century. One of the results of this was the removal of barriers for the powerful. In a moral void, what prevents a head of state from killing his subjects, knowing that retribution is unlikely? What prevents a dictator from controlling the press and filling the papers with propaganda? What prevents a movie director from using lies and misrepresentations to advance his political agenda (with a little help from his friends at the Oscars), all while under the protection of the First Amendment?

I doubt if Moore cares about the veracity of his films as much as their verisimilitude. He is simply trying to be the strongest in a solely physical world, and in so doing, strangely enough, he is fulfilling the commission bestowed on him (and all of us) by our society. Though he has perpetuated a slovenly appearance throughout the years, I doubt that he is stupid. I think he may be more perceptive than most, and more courageous in a perverse way. At least he lives out what our culture has taught us to believe—but thank God more people don’t!

Whether you watch “Sicko” is, of course, up to you. I myself will pass, thank you very much. But I would encourage you to give some thought about the reasons that overarching moral truths are important. Michael Moore is just one example.

A Word on Intelligence

I thought I would take a moment to remind everyone what Intelligent Design is, and what it is not. I recently read some material on the Internet about ID, and the usual mischaracterizations were present. So let's review, shall we? I will enumerate.

1. ID is the scientific movement that believes certain organisms cannot have come to their present state via naturalistic evolutionary forces. These organisms have or contain irreducibly complex or specifically complex traits. Inference to the best explanation would lead a person to conclude, in ID's view, that such traits were designed.

2. While ID's main proponents are Christians, ID does not name the Intelligence of which it speaks as YHWH. Any person who believes in a personal god (personality being a prerequisite for creativity) could adhere to ID in theory.

3. ID is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Either life evolved naturally, or it was created supernaturally. I know of no tertium quid. (Theistic evolution contains a contradiction--evolutionary theory rules out any divine activity a priori.) When examining irreducibly or specifically complex organisms or traits, then, one must conclude that they either evolved or were created. Evolution has not yet been able to come up with a good explanation of how such complexity has arisen. ID has posited a reasonable explanation based on observation. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation would be that the organisms or traits in question were created.

4. "ID is creationism in disguise." This is perhaps my favorite misconception, because the proponent of this proposition unwittingly confesses to his or her own ignorance by attempting to point out the ignorance of others. I have read a fair bit of ID literature, and I have not come across a single reference to Genesis 1-3, stated or implicit. (Dembski does mention his faith in Intelligent Design; if he quotes Genesis as well, then I have missed it and apologize.) It is true that ID does complement creationism, but ID does not necessarily lead to creationism, and there is no evidence for the claim that these two "isms" are the same. (As an aside, usually when I hear this statement made, it is an exercise in question-begging, thus giving credence to my argument.)

5. "ID is not science." Up until about 1850, most scientists were men of faith. Then, as a result of views first formed during the Enlightenment, a dichotomy emerged. Science withdrew itself from anything to do with faith, the supernatural, God, etc, by erecting an artificial--though infinite--barrier between fact and value. Therefore, any idea that references an intelligent agent outside of human beings is labeled "unscientific" from the outset. This is, of course, a huge hurdle to the development of new ideas and the progression of scientific thought. Think of it this way: If a divine hand really is involved with the goings on of life on earth, then science has been fundamentally wrong for over 150 years. This little exercise alone should make it abundantly clear that science and religion need not be completely separate. Science needs religion to provide its very foundation, or at least to offer a healthy critique of it. Back to the main point, though. ID is testable because scientists can compare known designed items (outboard motors, arrowheads, writing, etc) to items found in nature. Therefore a scientist can test and validate certain hypotheses related to design. Therefore, ID can follow the scientific method and should be correctly labeled as a scientific theory.

I could go on, but this covers most of the basics. Please do your best to avoid some of the pitfalls I have mentioned should you ever find yourself in an evolution-vs.-ID debate (especially if you are debating me).

A Pleasant Evening with Charles

I was reading through The Origin of Species last night, and Darwin surprised me. Unlike many caught up in the debate on evolution, Darwin was by no means acerbic or polemic in his arguments. At least from The Origin of Species, I get the impression that were he alive today, he would be a genuinely nice guy who would want to engage in a real, substantial debate about his theory. For instance, in his conclusion (ch. 14) he says,

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force.

While he does not find objections ultimately valid, he at least does not dismiss them out of hand.

As a whole, though, I found a few things lacking with his argument. For one, consider the following, also from chapter 14.

It is, no doubt, extremely difficult even to conjecture by what gradations many structures have been perfected, more especially amongst broken and failing groups of organic beings; but we see so many strange gradations in nature, as is proclaimed by the canon, `Natura non facit saltum [Nature makes no leap],' that we ought to be extremely cautious in saying that any organ or instinct, or any whole being, could not have arrived at its present state by many graduated steps.

This seems to be a summation of his logic, which can be expressed in the following manner: We cannot rule out the possibility that natural selection did not cause the evolution of all species from one or a few species, so therefore this is what happened. In other words, Darwin has turned the table. Before him, the basic assumption was divine creation. After him, it becomes natural selection. The logic underpinning his view, however, is extremely weak, and it is my guess that it came about due to his views on God and the problem of evil.

Second, he does not account for the origin of the originator of species. For instance:

I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction…Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

With his theory, he can trace back all life to roughly ten progenitors. He hypothesizes that those ten, in turn, likely descended from a single ancestor, though unlike his previous logic, he is quick to point out that this argument is also very weak. Example two (from ch. 6):

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated…

Here he is talking about the evolution of the eye, which was one of the main arguments against him at the time. But notice something from these two examples: He cannot and does not even want to account for the origin of life itself. (Notice, however, his metaphor of "breathing life into" the first being, which is an ironic reference to the Creation story of Genesis.) He is happy to leave his theory where it is--common descent from one or a few life forms whose very existence is not important to explain.

Darwinism has come a long way since 1859, perhaps going further than Darwin himself would have wanted. Yet no Darwinist will seriously challenge the weak logical foundation of the theory (it might have happened, so it did). Also, after 150 years, no one has been able to put a satisfactory answer to the origin of life, an answer that is very important but Darwin saw no use for in his book.

Ultimately, I think if Darwin could see the blind dogmatism and extremism that can happen on both sides of his theory, he would shake his head and wonder what happened.

(I apologize for not having page numbers for The Origin of Species references. I don't have access to the book right now; I had to rely on an e-copy.)