Alfred Russel Wallace may be considered the co-founder of natural selection along with Darwin. But he has a different conclusion:

RT: Darwin’s Heretic

If you look at the current landscape of creation theories , there are differing opinions being discussed. I thought I would outline the most popular views to show the broad distinctions. I’m sure this isn’t the full spectrum of theories, and these happen to be more specific to Christianity. Nevertheless, these might be helpful in recognizing the terms being discussed.

As a preface, I want to mention that this post isn’t about what is scientifically compatible or not? That is a much larger discussion. It is however, important to mention that there are well respected scientists who hold these positions.

Young Earth Creationism: This is the view that interprets the Genesis account most literally, concluding that God created the world in six twenty-four-hour days, less than ten thousand years ago. The most popular organization that spearheads this view is ‘Answers in Genesis, ‘ most notably promoted by founder Ken Ham.

Old Earth Creationism: This view tends to also interpret the Genesis account literally, but allows that the time periods are much longer. For example, the ‘days’ in the Genesis account are viewed as periods of time or geological epochs. The organization that is most popular for promoting this view is Hugh Ross’s ‘Reasons to Believe’

Intelligent Design: This movement does not adhere to any one religious viewpoint, but is founded on the assumption that since life if complex, there must be an intelligent agent responsible for life. There is generally a skepticism in ID regarding maco-evolution, claiming that there is not enough substantial evidence in science to suggest Darwinian evolution as fact. This view is generally promoted by the senior fellows of the Discovery Institute.

Theistic Evolution: This viewpoint holds that God created life using natural processes and maco-evolutionary change. Darwinian evolution via natural selection and random mutation is often embraced as the mechanism of God’s creative process. However, there are distinctions in the Theistic Evolution camp on how God is involved. Some hold that God simply kicked things off by allowing creation to self-create via random mutation (deism), while others hold that God is intimately involved in the process. The organization that is most popular via theistic evolution is BioLogos.

——-

In each of these views, particularly ID and Theistic Evolution, there are also differing opinions on the specifics. I am cautious not to make too many generalizations on these positions because of that reason.

My own personal opinion is I tend to favor the ID approach with an open mind towards theistic evolution. In terms of my beliefs, this topic isn’t necessarily a hill I plan to die on. I could be convinced either way, and I don’t build my theology on any specific creation story as the foundation of my faith.

I would say though, that I’ve always been fascinated in the creation stories. Contemplating and studying the origins of life is another way of looking at the beauty of God.

When someone asks the question “do you believe in evolution?” the premise behind the question usually means that if you do, then you must not believe in God. The problem with the question is that it doesn’t address the real issue of origins.

The creation/evolution debate tends to be surface-based discussions about method. Such as… At what level does evolution happen? where is the distinction of species? how does evolution relate to the Biblical creation story? while all of these are good discussions, the challenge from the God-believer against evolutionary scientific claims should not be about the method of evolution, but about the purpose of evolution.

The pro-darwinist will often state that evolution is not just about random mutation, but is a purposeless process; it is evolution by chance or by accident. This I believe, is outside the bounds of science. There is no experiment or objective evidence in science that shows purposelessness. There is no scientific data that describes the reason why one organism evolves into another organism.

The real question about origins is to ask ‘what is responsible for life?’

Is life a result of a purposeless beginning or process, or does life result from something purposeful? The answer comes from a place of faith, by both the theist and the atheist. Not from science. Therefore, the atheist cannot, nor shouldn’t appeal to science for a blind-evolutionary claim.

Three men walk into a coffee shop. Behind the counter on a stove-top is a pot of boiling water. One of the men asks the question “why is the water boiling?” The first man responds “because the molecules in the water are moving fast enough to separate and begin to change properties.” The second man answered “because somebody turned the gas on below the pot.” Finally, the third man responds “it is boiling because somebody ordered tea to drink.”

Which one is the correct answer?

They are all correct.

They are all true.

This is a good illustration, because it shows that there can be different answers; different perspectives that relate to reality. The scientist and the theologian can both have an explanation for something, and both can be correct.

The first answer that was given was a good scientific explanation. However, it doesn’t make it any truer then the other answers. Unfortunately, some scientists would argue that this should be the only valid explanation of truth, and reality can and should only be explained on that level.

Case in point – when Stephen Hawking says that life can be explained physically, and without the need for a God. He concludes therefore that God does not exist. Hawking stops at the first level of explanation and does not allow the possibility of other levels of truth.

At the same time, there are theologians who try to explain life solely on that first level. So the answer looks something like this - “The water is boiling because God is making the molecules move and miraculously making the energy increase.” Here the theologian is also not allowing multiple levels of truth. He too has flattened reality.

One of the problems in the science vs religion debate in our culture is that each side tries to debunk the other with truth. Each operate on a level of faith, and each derive from different perspectives. That does not mean they function as different worldviews; on the contrary they can co-exit in the same worldview. The key is to respect each discipline as it pertains to knowledge.

——–

The following post was inspired by a lecture I heard from Dr. John Haught on ‘levels of explanation.’ The illustration of the boiling pot was paraphrased by John Polkinghorne.

Once again, Stephen Hawking is in the news regarding comments about God, or rather that there is no God, and that heaven is a wishful tale for people afraid of death.

Once again, the critics (who believe in God) respond with something like this:
Hawking is in no place to assert that there is no God, because science can only give us experimental results, not grand meanings. Physics is about evidential science, but Hawking is delving into philosophy.

I could be wrong here, but I think we give too much credit to this idea of splitting disciplines so easily. There seems to be a dualism in this way of thinking, and our conclusions are much more fluid then rigid. simply because we claim that “doing stuff”(practically) is factual, and “what we believe and think about” is more akin to faith. In the end, this type of dualistic perspective ends up putting belief or non-belief in God in the private thinking department.

When Stephen Hawking does physics, is he able to separate his presupposed beliefs with his experimental results? Could he separate his theories from his intuitions or convictions?

I would say no.

Hawking’s science operates in a naturalistic framework, anything he influences in his experiments, and everything that results, comes from a presupposed conviction. It makes sense that Hawking concludes that there is no God, because he starts with that notion.

We can disagree with Hawking in his convictions and worldview. We may even say that he is a bit arrogant in how he makes his claims. However, what Hawking gets right is that he doesn’t separate Hawking the scientist with Hawking the atheist. Nor should he.

This is still one of my favorite TED videos. If you were ever interested in knowing what string theory is… this is really good.

BioLogos is another voice in the creation/evolution discussion. The BioLogos foundation is founded by Dr. Fancis Collins, who is the lead geneticist for the Human Genome Project.

Unlike other Creation theory organizations, BioLogos holds the position that God works within nature and hence they support scientific theories of natural selection and theistic evolution in theological context. Whatever your thoughts are on this subject of creation and evolution, it is well worth listening to their perspective.

I don’t particularly have a problem with the idea that God could/may use evolution as we understand it, but my concern is that the description of ‘evolution’ from the scientific community (on a popular level) seems to infer a ‘purposeless’ process.

To imply ‘purpose’ into the process is to suggest more than what science can offer.

I have also always assumed that ‘random mutation’ was synonymous with purposeless, but I think this BioLogos short does a good job of showing the distinction.

BioLogos “Distinctions” from Three Light Pictures, LLC on Vimeo.

Thoughts on the Creation Evolution debate

When it comes to discussions about creation vs evolution, it seems that a typical conversation travels in all sorts of places – from fossil types, to genotypes, to what should be taught in public schools, to days of creation, to science vs faith distinctions, etc…

I wouldn’t want to discourage these conversations, I think they are useful. Some of the arguments on both sides appear to be good, and some are outright silly. However, the question that I think is foundational to these discussions; what I would call the question behind the questions is as follows:

“What is responsible for Life?”

There really are only two possibilities here. Either life is the result of a ‘mind’ or life is a result of matter. And what I mean by matter is not necessarily something physical, but some kind of impersonal substance that is self-sustaining.

Not to get scientific, since I’m not a scientist by any means, I would like to point out that for me, it is much more reasonable to believe that life is a result of mind rather than matter. Here are some quick observations:

The evolution of consciousness
It seems highly unlikely that consciousness could simply emerge from blind chance; That rational thinking individuals have somehow gained the ability to reason from an unintelligent source. Could random mutation produce thought? what observation can we make anywhere in nature that would even support that claim?

Information-rich life
All of life carries cells, which contain DNA, which essentially is information. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. Micro-biologists are increasingly amazed at how information-rich life really is.

“what has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology… The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is literal truth.”
– Richard Dawkins

“The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.”
– Paul Davies, The Origin of Life II

“Life, consciousness, mind and the self can only come from a Source that is living, conscious, and thinking. If we are centers of consciousness and thought who are able to know and love and intend and execute, I cannot see how such centers could come to be from something that is itself incapable of all these activities… it’s simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. Matter cannot produce conceptions and perceptions. A force field does not plan or think. So at the level of reason and everyday experience, we become immediately aware that the world of the living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind.”
–Roy Abraham Varghese

My final point is that often when this Mind/Matter discussion comes up, the naturalist would state that to invoke a mind is to invoke a creator, and therefore it brings religion into the scientific discussion. This is just plain false… This is an observation from what makes most reasonable sense; evidence from the best explanation, not simply a God in the gaps theory.