Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism - oops, I meant theistic evolution

Journalism dean Marvin Olasky notes,

Today's three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I'm not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they're saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I've tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the "theistic evolution" that Francis Collins espouses, but didn't offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see "Theistic evolutionist," July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0."

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

C.S. Lewis and Darwinism

From Alan Jacobs, The Narnian (HarperOne, 2006)

from a letter to his father in 1925, p. 120 (long before he became a theist (1929) or Christian (1931), on having been accepted for English rather than philosophy.

If the air on the heights did not suit me, still I have brought back something of value. It will be a comfort to me all my life to know that the scientist and the materialist have not the last world: that Darwin and Spencer undermining ancestral beliefs stand themselves on a foundation of sand; of gigantic assumptions and irreconcilable contradictions an inch below the surface. It leaves the whole thing rich in possibilities: and if it dashes the shallow optimisms it does the same for the shallow pessimisms.

It's not clear to me why theistic evolutionists claim Lewis as one of their own. He never was.

Darwinism and popular culture: Attacking Collins hurts science, Chris Mooney argues

A friend draws my attention to "Defenders of the Faith: Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause." by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (Newsweek, July 14, 2009), in which they warn against new atheist attacks on Francis Collins:

The critics, though, have it exactly backward: the United States needs more scientists like Collins—researchers who show by their prominence and their example that a good scientist can still retain religious beliefs. The stunning irony in the longstanding tension between science and religion in America is that many scientists who merely claim to be defending rationality from religious fundamentalism may actually be turning Americans off to science, doing more harm to their cause than good.

The poster boy for the so-called New Atheist movement today is biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the bestselling book, The God Delusion. He and other New Atheists attack faith without quarter, and insist that science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable. In the process, they are helping to keep U.S. society polarized over science and likely helping to make it still harder for many religious believers to accept scientific findings in areas like evolution.

This is all well-meaning rot, of course. The new atheists are making sure that if even a bland, "let's just saw off the differences" figure like Collins can't be left in peace, just think what would happen to a Christian who took issues like the importance of human life seriously?

As for evolution: The fundamental unbelievability of many propositions asserted in the name of "evolution" attracts skepticism from growing numbers of intelligent lay people, hundreds of whom have shared their doubts/scoffing with me. Remember, what lay people hear is the big bazooms theory of human evolution and ridiculous hagiography of Darwin. Or the recent "Ida" circus. (Also here and here for more tents in the Ida circus.)

You needn't know much to know that that stuff just isn't plausible - "Ida" was savaged even by the popular press, almost the first instance I can recall for an icon of "evolution".

Evolutionary biologists' insistence on defending the whole whack makes people wonder - very advisedly, I may say - just how much else they front to the public is either poorly sourced or known to be false.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Theistic evolution - why can't God and Darwin kiss and make up?

Recently, a friend asked me about this perennial topic:

I replied, In today's Christian culture, the materialist atheist model of the universe is assumed to be true, but Christianity can be fitted in as an add-on, a sort of optional part that most people wouldn't need, but some insist on, because it helps them feel good.

No one says Christians can't bark for Jesus somewhere, preferably in a tabernacle far from civilization.

What the ID guys did was provide concrete evidence why the materialist atheist view of the universe - that is accepted as the norm - is incorrect. That it does not remotely account for the evidence. That is why they were so bitterly attacked.

When Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution came out, the posts at one allegedly Christian science list were revealing, disgusting, and pretty lame. I wrote a review here, to help people understand Behe's actual point: Very little Darwinian evolution had been observed in precisely the places we might expect it.

Why were the "Christians" in science so hostile to him? Because he provided evidence that did not support a theory fronted by materialist atheists. The skinny: They own the idea of evidence. Evidence is what supports them. By definition. If it doesn't support them, it isn't evidence.

Francis Collins isn't seriously attacked because he offers no serious challenge. Who cares if he feels good believing in God?

Now, Mike Behe and I have in common that we are real theistic evolutionists, That is, we say that if God wanted to create entirely through evolution, he could do so. But the question of whether God in fact did so must be addressed separately, and it depends strictly on evidence, not on prior assumptions.

What the "theistic evolutionists" (= fellow travellers and useful idiots) that one meets so often in Christian circles (I am using stare quotes here intentionally) mean is something quite different: They want to fit God into a system whose fundamental basis is atheist materialism. They want to form a bubble for theists in a world where atheism is assumed to follow from the evidence.

Apart from the fact that it won't work, it is completely contrary to the Christian tradition - and to all ethical monotheism whatever. If the "theistic evolutionists" were serious about ethical monotheism, they would support ID, the way serious Muslims and Jews do. Because it's obvious.

Theistic evolution: What does it really mean?

I asked a prof recently,

I don't mean to cause a hassle, but ... doesn't "theistic evolution" - Francis Collins- style - naturally lead to unorthodoxy?

Collins's view - amounts to making rules for God, doesn't it? Like, what God is or isn't allowed to do.

So then the rules run God, but God doesn't run the rules. So the rules are really God.

So we can dispense with God. It's just the rules, really.

Then we only need show that the rules could somehow have evolved without any
intelligence, and we have atheism.

If that is not "theistic evolution", American Scientific Affiliation list-style, please tell me what exactly it is.

I needn't wonder any longer why people who go for that sort of thing end up outside the evangelical Christian community.

Why I even care: I must write a journal article for ASA's Perspectives soon. I don't plan to get into religion, but don't want a fight with them.

I am a news hack. We call it news because it isn't "olds.".

PS: I am a genuine theistic evolutionist, like Mike Behe, in the sense that I think that God could create entirely through evolution, if that is what he chooses to do. But it is a designed process. Specifically, there is nothing random about the outcome. And there is evidence of design.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Theistic evolution: New site challenges tenured Christian profs' homage to atheism

Alarmed, perhaps, by the fact that establishment organizations in the United States are putting big bucks into "theistic evolution" (= God dunit, but it looks just the way it would if God didn't exists, so you must believe on the basis of unsubstantiated faith, not evidence), the evil Discos (the Discovery Institute) have started a Web site to try to explain what is at stake here.

New Website Explores the Intersection of Evolution and Religion

At the launch of FaithandEvolution.org, CSC associate director John
West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and
Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication,
and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian
evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

Read more about the new website faithandevolution.org here.

I wish them well. If I never hea from another tenured "Christian" prof explaining to me that the universe shows no evidence of design and that God means us to get on by "faith" (= delusions, like his) alone, I will ruddy be very glad.

I don't claim to get special messages from God but I am pretty sure he never meant anything like that.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

"Theistic evolutionists": What they can expect after they have surrendered

Here is a true story about "theistic evolution," by Carol Iannone:

[Theistic evolution, as normally propounded today = accept on faith that God dun it and holler yer guts fer Jesus to feel good - because the evidence suggests there is no God].

Why any theist should do that today is incomprehensible to me, because the evidence is all in the theists' camp. But tax-supported, tenured professors can say anything they want, and they certainly do.

Here is an instructive story about their true fate:

After eviscerating two new books that attempt to show that Darwinism is compatible with religion, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admits that they are not, and that declarations to the contrary have been "a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious."

The reason for this unedifying dissembling:

"After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith."

Once again, William Jennings Bryan has been proven right.

Add this one to the Theistic Evolutionists As Useful Idiots file.

Re Bryan: What you don't hear about Bryan's case at the Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 from the blowhard columnists who defend Darwinism is this: The science textbooks, including the one at issue in the trial, routinely fronted eugenics* as normal science.

Eugenics was closely linked to the idea that humans and apes had common ancestry (so we are all just apes, right, and so we kill each other for our own ultimate evolutionary good).

Bryan thought, based on his experience as US Secretary of State in the World War I era, that major social conflicts would follow from such an idea taking root, and that therefore it should not be taught in publicly funded schools.

Why should the public fund the teaching of an idea that would likely lead to disastrous social conflict?

His method - outlawing teaching it - could be contested. But not, I think, the outcome of the teaching.

Go here for more.

*My view for what it is worth: Eugenics is not a science at all! It is not possible to say in advance who is more fit and who is less fit over time. No one can predict the effect of unknown future stresses.

You can, if you wish, consult either the eugenicist or Madam Rosa the Psychic for information about future fitness (she does health, as well as romance and business matters, I gather, and so does the evolutionary psychologist - the eugenicist's heir).

I wouldn't spend a dime on either of them, myself, but with all its faults, this is still a somewhat free country, so ...

The evil that eugenicists did was not merely their pretense to knowledge that cannot, in principle, really exist, but their legal power to get people compusorily sterilized or euthanized.

Madam Rosa merely preys on silly people, lured on by her own delusions of grandeur. So,while I find these "psychic" shops a nuisance, that's all they are. A nuisance, not a catastrophe.

A handy, and pretty skeptical, guide to modern Brit theistic evolution

David Anderson's review of the Faraday Institute's Denis Alexander's book, Creation or Evolution: Do We have to Choose? (Monarch Books, Oxford, 2008):

If evangelicals take the contents of this book to heart, they will not only be endorsing a certain set of conclusions regarding origins; they will also be embracing a seriously erroneous approach to interpreting the word of God as a whole, and its relationship to other areas of knowledge. Such an approach, if carried out consistently, will ultimately damage the whole structure of Biblical revelation and the gospel itself - a road which I believe Dr. Alexander in this book has already travelled a long way down. I agree with Professor Andrew McIntosh, whose review in "Evangelical Times" published in September 2008 asserted as follows: "By writing this book, Alexander has placed himself on the side of liberal theologians and, in this reviewer’s opinion, has departed seriously from the evangelical faith."

Well, if so, that would be nothing new.

The main thing to see, regarding "theistic evolution" (Alexander's position) is that, by itself, it means nothing.

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe is a theistic evolutionist insofar as he thinks that design can be coded into the world from the Big Bang, and that subsequent individual creation events are not necessary. That is a possible interpretation of the universe's history from a Christian perspective

But Behe is despised by many "theistic evolutionists" because they in fact support propositions that cannot be defended by orthodox Christians - for example, that God does not know what will happen, is imperfect and therefore evolving along with creation, is not responsible for the way things are, and so forth. Also,

The purpose of this 19-page chapter is to have some discussion of the "Intelligent Design" movement, associated with such names as Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. I got the feeling in reading it that DA felt obliged to include something about it, but was a bit tired (or just contemptuous) by this stage, and the chapter is a bit of a damp squib because it neither goes here nor there, but remains content with some rather general arguments and statements - except for some more detailed discussion of the bacterial flagellum. It's all a bit of a damp squib, because packed into these 19 pages DA wants to survey the history of the movement, its personalities, its claims, and then comprehensively refute them such that he can conclude that the whole thing's a waste of time. That's a book-length project in itself. There's no problem with brief discussions of these things that skim the surface, but in these days of avalanches of free articles available from the Internet, you need to do a bit more than the kind of surface-level chatty repeating of talking points that this chapter is mostly made up of. It's rather disappointing that so many of those talking points seem to have been cribbed from village atheist websites - we expect better, particularly from someone who spends a few pages opining on how proper scientific research is done. We even get a celebrity appearance of the Pennsylvania school board court case and "Judge Jones, a practising Lutheran and Republican appointed by President Bush", the claim that ID does not fall within the definition of science (though DA concedes that it is in principle falsifiable) and such gems of self-delusion as the claim (made earlier in the book in the context of creationists) that editors of science journals would be falling over themselves if anyone had any legitimate criticisms of Darwinism and would gladly make any scientist who had them an overnight star! Puh-lease.

The fact that I have yet to hear that Alexander said anything about the firing of Michael Reiss pretty much tells us what we need to know. Liberal churches are collapsing, so the real action is in getting evangelical churches to front the village atheists.

Can we all just spell out together "U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S" and have done with it?

At the blog + Science and Values*: ("Support for Michael Reiss from Unlikely Sources," November 15, 2008), we read,

It is noticeable that many creationists and intelligent design supporters have written in support of Michael Reiss, despite the fact that Reiss claims to be a theistic evolutionist. The latest is a piece in the November issue of Evangelical Times by David Tyler, in which he welcomes Reiss’s call for respectful dialogue in the classroom so that the views of those who hold to different worldviews can be recognised, respected and treated fairly. Reiss has argued that disrespecting those who have different worldviews only turns children away from science and is therefore counter-productive to providing good science education. Many creationists broadly agree with this assertion and therefore welcome calls for respect in the science classroom.

What is also noticeable about the events surrounding Michael Reiss is the lack of comment and support for him from organisations such as the Faraday Institute (FI) and Christians in Science (CiS). A word search on the CiS website for ‘Reiss’ reveals only one entry in an article [1] merely as a mention of Reiss’s book under ‘Further Reading.’ On the FI website no results for Reiss were found.

One may wonder why there is such silence from CiS and FI when Reiss (who is a theistic evolutionist who held an important position) was recently treated so unjustly at the hands of some Fellows of the Royal Society. ...

If you don't remember Reiss, see "Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God." He's that Brit cleric who got the boot from the Royal Society for suggesting that students should learn about ID and creationism before launching directly into the two-minute hate.

Look, "theistic evolutionist" - Denis Alexander-style - is a brief synonym for "useful idiot for materialist atheism." Like most useful idiocy, it is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is supposed to be that the universe shows no evidence of design - but some people need that crutch. So how can they responsibly hold the belief in the absence of evidence?

The reality - which the most brief acquaintance with the popular science press will illustrate - is that the universe shows lots of evidence of design, and the big move on the part of atheist materialists is to explain it away when dealing with intelligent adults (and to institute the two-minute hate when dealing with children).

So Reiss the Nice was underbussed because, reckless idealist, he thought the theistic evolutionists' program was supposed to do something other than front atheistic materialism to foolish, pious Brits. And he tactlessly reveaeld that he thought so.

But just how many foolish, pious Brits are there? It sure wouldn't work so well here in Canada, where many of us are shaking off our chains.

*A group of theologians and scientists concerned about truth and values in science and society

The two-minute hate, in case you wondered:



Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

USA Today fantasy: All is well in Britain between faith and science ... scientists holler for Jesus in pulpits ...

Here's a textbook example of spin in the legacy media:

We are told on the USA Today blog that in Britain all is well in "faith and science" due to "theistic evolution":

While impossible to quantify, a surprising number of prominent British researchers at the pinnacle of their fields, with worldwide reputations in the physical and biological sciences, proclaim their evangelical Christian faith. And they are not perfunctory adherents, merely showing up for Sunday worship; they believe in acting on their beliefs. Some have taken up weekend pulpits.

Their roster includes Sir John Houghton, former head of the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office; Sir John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, Anglican priest and author of numerous books on science and religion; Sir Brian Heap, a biologist; geologist Robert W. White and paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. I asked these scientists the sources of their belief, and the answers they gave me were intriguing to someone who for years has been more immersed in the world of American evangelicals, where I frequently found that hostility toward science seemed to be the norm in public controversies. These Brits cited a disparate mixture of empirical scientific evidence and the veracity of Scripture for their Christianity, based equally on science and faith.

I have only two words to respond to this rubbish: Michael Reiss

(Yes, he’s the Church of England Darwin-booster who got dumped by the Royal Society merely because he thought that kids should be told words like “intelligent design” in order to explain why ID is wrong, wrong, wrong and Darwin is right, right, right. The very use of the word was fatal to his career.)

That’s the REAL state of things in Britain. And if that's good, aren't we all better off with bad?


Oh, and also the fact that Britain's Royal Society is considering casting God out of its charter.

Look, USA Today proves that you don't have to kill trees to be legacy media. You just have to inherit the spin.

Evolutionary Creation? I am supposed to promote THAT?

Someone has recently asked me to help promote Denis Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation book.

Well, I can’t. As long as I live, I will never forget Lamoureux vociferously agreeing with atheist Michael Ruse in attacking ID theorist Michael Behe and a local Toronto biology teacher who made the mistake of trying to present both sides in his classes (Valerie Pringle’s Test of Faith, November 17, 2003).

Ruse had the decency to admit that Bob Giza, an award-winning teacher, was a good teacher.

Of course he was. I met him and his students at Chaminade High School in Toronto.. They loved science, and if you are a science teacher, that is the best you can hope to do.

I have had several conversations with Lamoureux, and he has struck me as a typical fatuous sellout of the decaying “evangelical Christian” culture that currently helps to deform Canada.

Earth to Lamoureux: Darwin is not the answer to any problem we now have. There is NO need to figure out how to incorporate him into our life together.

Just forget him and start figuring out what really happened in the history of life. Stop attacking people who know that Darwinism - and all its works - is false.

Too many people who are not your students know that now.

A sociologist's perceptive look at "theistic evolution"

Recently, I have been reading Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller's Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism, and was intrigued by his comments about "theistic evolution", as understood by members of the American Scientific Affiliation and promoted by Francis Collins in The Language of God:

Theistic evolutionists ... simply take what Collins calls 'the existence of the moral law and the universal longing for God'' as a feature of human nature that is entrenched enough to be self-validating. But is their dismissal anything more than an arbitrary theological intervention? If humans are indeed, as the Darwinists say, just one among many species, susceptible to the same general tendencies that can be studied in the same general terms, then findings derived from methods deemed appropriate to animals should apply to us as well. Collins' own comprehensive but exclusive training in the hard sciences may explain why he believes in a God who communicates straightforwardly through the natural sciences but appears less willing to cooperate with the social sciences, including such biologically inflected fields as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Instead Collins finds intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence. Why God should have chosen not to rely on the usual standards of scientific rigour in these anthropocentric matters remains a mystery. (p. 104-5)

Collins is unlikely to understand the problem Fuller raises - why should anyone take Collins's faith as anything more than an evolutionary glitch?

I am glad that a sociologist is researching the debate, because ASA-style theistic evolution makes sense only as sociology. It doesn't make sense intellectually. As I have said elsewhere, it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (= how you can continue to believe in God even though the universe shows no evidence of design). But everyone realizes that the universe shows evidence of design. Design theorists must explain it, and materialists must explain it away.

The other, less benign role of theistic evolution is to confuse traditional religious people by implying that, for example, "you can believe in Darwin - and Jesus too!" Well, Darwin didn't.

The way you believe in Jesus and Darwin too is by keeping yourself in a permanent state of confusion about the basic issues, or, Collins-style, not really understanding them. Some clergy are happy to help.

A friend alerted me to this article which nicely illustrates the muddle in progress. The article features the efforts of the Vatican to address the current Darwin cult. My friend asked me for a comment, and I replied,

Well, I hope the reason they are trying to play all sides of the table (except Dawkins's) is that they know that “evolution” is in a state of meltdown.

If not, they will soon find out. I think the Church’s antiquity is partly the result of avoiding taking a position until necessary - and there is always the Galileo affair to remind us of what happens when we fail to adopt that course.

From the news article: “In his article, "Darwinism From Different Points of View," he explained that Darwinian theories of natural selection are only completely unacceptable to the church when they are used to become the basis for justifying certain social policies and ethical choices.”

The main problem here would be instantly identified by ID godfather Phil Johnson: If Darwinian theories are a correct account of our origin and nature, then it is reasonable to use them to justify social policies and ethical choices.

To refuse to focus on whether the Darwinian account is true raises the possibility that we regard our own bases of action as a pleasant fiction and theirs as an unpleasant one. But that is a matter of taste, surely, and the subject should be put to a vote.

If, on the other hand, we can say Darwin was wrong about human nature (for that is the point at issue), we can reject the proposed social policies that depend on them without further consideration. More important, we can defend our own proposed policies as proceeding from a correct estimation of human worth, not merely our preference.

About that question, the most obscure backwoods six-day-creation crank is far more clued in than many a Jesuit prof, I fear.

Basically, I think Fuller is right. Theistic evolution is for people who find "intuition, anecdote, theology and sheer faith to be more reliable sources of evidence" when it comes to religion, and flee the implications of design in nature. No wonder the atheistic evolutionists use them but don't respect them.

"Accepting evolution" does not make you an atheist? Oh come on, not this rubbish again!

A Dr. Ginger Campbell, MD, of the Brain Science podcast, writes to say,

I happened upon your recent blog post "Straw in the wind." and I just wanted to say that I agree with you that the most rabid atheists have done more to promote intelligent design than they seem to realize. I recently interviewed Eugenie Scott from the NCSE for my podcast Books and Ideas and I want to share the links with you. One of the things we talked about was the fact that accepting evolution does not mean one is an atheist.

She offers Link to show notes and to audio.

Oh, but come on, let's be realistic, Dr. Campbell. The majority of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will). Same thing goes for National Academy of Sciences. Did Eugenie Scott tell you that?

I realize that you were not intentionally trying to spin me, but - for the record, Darwinism is the creation story of materialism and Eugenie Scott is in the business of forcing it down everyone's throats - despite its gross and ridiculous deficiencies, about which more and more people are becoming informed.

Look, I deal daily with people who must decide how to avoid conflict with an increasingly rampant materialist system. If you want to know what the next stage is, take the time to learn about our struggles in Canada. It could be enlightening.

And as for "theistic evolution," don't get me started on that. If it meant anything, I would be considered a theistic evolutionist, because I have no doubt that God could design the universe so that everything was encoded at the Big Bang. But I am not called a theistic evolutionist. I am called a creationist.

Why? Because I think that we can reasonably expect to find evidence for God's work in nature. (The intelligent design theorists say that too.)

The Bible teaches that, as does tradition, reason, and experience.

But "theistic" evolution means that "God's work cannot be distinguished from chance events" so to believe in God we must take a "leap of faith" (= there is no real evidence for God's existence).

Incidentally, the atheistic evolutionary biologists cozy up to the theistic evolutionists. But they throw everything they can at the intelligent design guys and do everything they can to suppress evidence they bring up.

Did you ever wonder why that is?

By the way, I do not know which straw in the wind you meant - there is nearly a haystack by now - but it might be this one.

NO ONE makes a big-budget movie about faith and science bores

Recently, some friends were upset by a faith-and-science prof who was ruminating about how that awful Expelled film was ruining his tea party.

Well, first, no one makes a movie about people like that prof. Filmmakers look for heroes and resisters, not pettifoggers and yes-men.

I wrote back to my friends to say,

I’ve covered many public controversies in my time, and here is my take on this one:

Atheists in top science posts are waging an all out war against the reality of a designed universe.

Against any scientist who knows the facts and is unwilling to keep quiet or spout the party line (or some harmless “theistic” version thereof) is a target. Anyone – especially an identified theist – who attacks that scientist will be rewarded.

That is the one and only true conflict we are witnessing. Everyone who is at all relevant sorts himself in relation to that conflict.

And – this should be no surprise - many well-meaning Christian profs are taking money, and accepting perks and plaudits, to be on the top science atheists’ side, whether they recognize it or not. It comes out in the pettifogging, belaboured style they adopt when writing about issues for which, increasingly, only NAMES are even necessary:

Sternberg. Marks. Gonzalez. Crocker.

So then what happens? Well, life is fairer than some think.

People who tell a story or make a film choose to write about the Resistance, NOT about the Accommodation.

And the average devout Christian or Muslim or Jew is far more attracted to the Resistance than to the Accommodation.

When talking to average people, here is all I say: The universe and life forms look designed. That should be no surprise because the Bible says they are. And reason tells us that we should expect to see the evidence.

Top atheists find it an embarrassment and a problem. So those Expelled scientists got in trouble for crossing them.

But what would we expect? A rose petal parade?

Still, we must stop the persecution. The film was made to help with that.

Did the premier organization of Christians in science really choose to target fellow Christians instead of materialism in science? Apparently so.

Over at Uncommon Descent, another ID blog, a most interesting row is brewing. In "American Scientific Affiliation - whateverhappened to its mission?", Bill Dembski alludes to an earlier post of mine:

I write this post to put into perspective Denyse O’Leary’s recent remarks about the “gutting of a spiritual tradition from within” (see here — the relevance of her remarks to the ASA cannot be missed) and to highlight that with the efforts by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to ramp up their propaganda for atheism since this letter by Jack Haas was written suggests that the ASA was mistaken in shifting its emphasis away from “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism.”

He addresses something I find truly shocking:

About three years ago I received the following mass mailing from the ASA’s Jack Haas (I’ve known Jack since 1990 and our exchanges have always been cordial). In this letter he describes how the ASA had, in times past, been concerned to address “the sweeping tide of scientific materialism,” but had recently decided to change its emphasis to combat young-earth creationism.

adding,

If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe, the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.

appending the relevant letter.

Well, that sheds considerable light on why the 2000-member organization of Christians in science has been AWOL from the main battle for so long. In an age when the non-materialist taxpayer has been compelled to fund materialist propaganda in science textbooks, when science textbooks routinely promote long-exploded errors in order to advance Darwinism, and key Darwinists promote a widely publicized anti-God campaign, this premier organization of Christians in science has chosen to largely (or entirely) ignore these problems and instead ... conduct a war against the doctrinal position of some fundamentalist denominations. (The belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.)

It beggars belief, but it is apparently true.

Now, I am not saying that no one has done anything about the attempt of materialists to make materialism a publicly funded religion, with Darwinism as its creation story. As a matter of fact, ID guys like Dembski, the "evil" Discovery Institute, the estimable Muslim Mustafa Akyol, and others have jumped into the fray, even though they could all have just crowed, "See! We told you so! That's where Darwinism leads!" But they didn't do that because they actually cared about what was happening.

The fact that some publicly funded textbooks have had to clean up their act in recent years has everything to do with their efforts, as several correspondents have pointed out to me, and nothing whatever to do with ASA.

I have been covering controversies for my entire career as a journalist (now three and a half decades) and I recognize ASA's decision to combat young earth creationism instead of materialism for what it is - a familiar type of copout on the part of a sclerotic organization.

They removed themselves from the scene of engagement just before the serious battle with materialists began, leaving the field to be defended by the Dembski gang and assorted other non-materialists of varying types.

Worse, they turned their fire on fellow Christians.

YECs have virtually no serious social influence. For example, when Canadian prime ministerial hopeful Stockwell Day revealed that he was a YEC, his chances of the highest office were kayoed. Few scientists will rise in their field unless they conceal any sympathies they may have for non-standard time frames, however justified.

Indeed, I have just learned of yet another scientist who was fired most likely because he was insufficiently supportive of Darwinism (but I cannot say anything as yet). Indeed, if I did, I am sure that the egregious "ASA list" (which supposedly does not represent the organization) would seethe with posts purporting to show that the guy had it coming to him, just as it recently did with attacks on Smithsonian scientist Rick Sternberg, who was widely abused for permitting a journal article to question Darwin.

That, by the way, is another familiar dodge of sclerotic organizations: Claim that the hatchet jobs done under the banner of the organization's name do not really represent it. If the "ASA list" does not really represent ASA, the list should be ordered to change its name, go private, or just shut down.

I suspect that the true reason for ASA's posture is that the ASA types do not want the humiliation of being told in so many words by their atheist peers that the only reason they are not persecuted by materialists - the way the ID guys are - is that they are useless and irrelevant, except when they aid the atheists' cause by attacking fellow Christians.

Anyone who really does give the materialists grief will face serious attacks. For example, is Francisco Ayala invited to a confab to tell everyone about the danger presented by ASA? No, of course not. And why not? Because a chap can be royally popular at ASA and have tons of blowhards defending him against an obscure Canadian journalist - her crime was to reveal to a wider audience than the few people who bother to read the ASA public archive that he doubts that there is any "special supernatural component" in the human being. Well, if he doubts THAT, then ...* Meanwhile, Ayala wants everyone to know that intelligent design is a big danger because the ID guys mean business.

Look, I wouldn't care if I were not a Christian science journalist. After all, if I were an atheist science journalist, I would point gleefully to ASA as an example of the level to which Christians in science have sunk - attacking fundamentalist denominations' beliefs while atheistic materialists ride roughshod over anyone whatever who disagrees with their agenda for the sciences - the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Southern Baptists, the Muslims, scientists whose research does not support some materialist agenda - or whoever. But at some point the disgrace must surely come to an end.

And here's how I hope it will come to an end: The organization should either get real about the key current issues or diminish in proportion to its irrelevance.

*Apparently, that guy was supposed to be counselling a Christian whose faith was endangered. Well, it's hard to imagine how talking to him would help. The most important thing the troubled person needs to know is that he or she really does have a supernatural component, a light that cannot be extinguished by troubled circumstances.

Since I am here anyway, here is some advice for Christians troubled in faith: Stay away from all Darwinists of whatever type, whether they claim to be Christians, "from a Christian background," or "from a fundamentalist background." Do not concern yourself at present about the age of the Earth. You are immortal; the Earth is not. Join a serious church and ask for a godly pastoral counsellor. Find a committed fellowship group, and avoid obvious occasions of sin. Pray and read the Bible daily. Study the lives of the saints and follow godly examples. Practice charity with everyone you meet. Repeat daily as long as you live.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design. My reviews of movies relevant to the intelligent deisgn controversy.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Book Review: Francis Collins's The Language of God

Here's a nice review I did of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God for Faith Today. I've offered some critical comments as well, in a longer review, principally because I think Collins dropped the ball on dealing with the claims of evolutionary psychology and the issues in modern genetics. But if what you want is a book for a teenager or young adult that shows that a prominent scientist can be a Christian, Collins' book is a good choice. The kid isn't going to know about stuff like that, not for years anyway.

Come to think of it, while I'm here, here's the review I did of Collins's book for ChristianWeek, which doesn't post my work online:

Is the language of God really in our genome?

by Denyse O'Leary

James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix pattern of our DNA, was the first head of the Human Genome Project. He was a man with little time for religion. Indeed, in 2003, he and his fellow helix discoverer Francis Crick took the opportunity of the 50th anniversary celebration of their historic discovery to attack religion. Watson recalled for the media that he stopped attending Mass at the onset of World War II, because "I came to the conclusion that the church was just a bunch of fascists that supported Franco." He also noted, "Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely." (Telegraph, March 22, 2003)

Watson quit his post in 1992 and was succeeded by Francis Collins. In terms of religious faith, Collins has traced the opposite path. He has now written The Language of God (Free Press, 2006), explaining how he, an agnostic life scientist, came to believe in God.

Collins' parents were hippie freethinkers on a hardscrabble farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Life was fun and creativity flourished but, he recalls, "faith was not an important part of my childhood."A comfortable agnostic in university, he found little reason to question his disinterest in questions of faith until he entered medicine. There he had to confront not mere ideas about life, death, and suffering, but their reality on a daily basis.

As a 26-year-old medical student, he recalls, "I witnessed numerous cases of individuals whose faith provided them with a strong reassurance of ultimate peace, be it in this world or the next, despite terrible suffering that in most instances they had done nothing to bring on themselves." Then, an old woman asked him point blank what he believed and he did not know. But he determined to find out.

Unsurprisingly, Cliff's Notes on world religions did not help Collins much; they amounted to no more than a lot of information about what other people believed without the living examples that he had already seen for himself. So he confronted a local Methodist minister, who suggested C.S. Lewis'Mere Christianity. From Lewis, Collins first grasped the significance of the Moral Law: that instinctive sense we all have of right and wrong. This Moral Law, he decided, comes from God. It cannot be accounted for by the assertion that altruism helps the fittest to survive. (Indeed, it would be far easier to demonstrate the opposite.)

Collins' highly readable account of his conversion left me uneasy at times. The premise that a scientist can, after all, be a man of faith suffers from a key limitation: It implies that being a scientist gives one special insight into the experiences that are relevant to faith. But does it?

The apostle Paul certainly did not think so. He wrote, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20, NIV)

Without excuse? Yes. Even if we flunked Grade 10 science, we are without excuse if we do not see God's greatness in his creation. Ignoring "the glory of the immortal God," Paul goes on to warn, pagan hearts glorify natural impulses at best (Venus, Mars) or brute forces at worst (crocodile gods, beetle gods) (See vv. 21 23.)

Of course, science can be a way of worshipping the true God. Collins' comment on the completion of the Human Genome Project contrasts starkly with Watson's anniversary remarks: "For me, as a believer, the uncovering of the human genome sequence held additional significance. This book was written in the DNA language by which God spoke life into being. I felt an overwhelming sense of awe in surveying this most significant of all biological texts."

Okay, but Watson reads the same genome as Collins, and yet he does not believe. There is a way to understand this: Collins did not start his journey of faith as a result of anything he learned in the human genome, but because of what he learned from Christians facing death. He vowed to find the source of their spiritual power. And he who seeks finds. That said, Collins' book is lucidly and entertainingly written, and highly recommended for the science buff on your Christmas list.

Journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain (Harper: March, 2007).

How pro-Darwin Catholic biochemist Ken Miller lost favour - and you can too!

Bill Dembski noted that the inimitable PZ Myers has attacked Ken Miller, anti-ID Catholic poster boy, for thinking there is any evidence for theism.

I agree that PZ is having another junior moment, but it is nonetheless instructive.

National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, who knows more about retailing crude Darwinism to middle American shopaholics than anyone, has insisted, “One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!” (Yes, she really told Science and Theology News that in April, 2002. I would be curious to know if she would say the same thing in the same terms today.)

When I first started writing By Design or by Chance?"my recent book on why there is an intelligent design controversy in North America today, I found constitutional lawyer Phillip Johnson’s comments on theistic evolution (the point of view Miller espouses) illuminating. Johnson is the godfather of the ID guys, but don’t let that deter you. He wrote that it is culturally okay to say

As a Christian, I believe by faith that God is responsible for evolution.

but

It is emphatically not acceptable to say, "As a scientist, I see evidence that organisms were designed by a preexisting intelligence, and therefore other objective observers should also infer the existence of a designer."

because

The former statement is within the bounds of methodological naturalism, and most scientific naturalists will interpret it to mean nothing more than 'It gives me comfort to believe in God, and so I will.' The latter statement brings the designer into the territory of objective reality, and that is what methodological naturalism forbids.

Miller, alas, seems to have drawn some conclusions from believing in God that do not amount simply to joining a mob against ID - hence genuine Darwinists attack him.

But what intrigued me most about Johnson's analysis was his thoughts on the hatred directed against ID biochemist Michael Behe [break here]

Behe wrote, in Darwin's Black Box ,

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. Although Darwin’s mechanism—natural selection working on variation—might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

That would seem to make him a theistic evolutionist. But as Johnson notes at the beginning of the passage quoted above, that is not what "theistic evolution" currently means:

The defining characteristic of theistic evolution, however, is that it accepts methodological naturalism and confines the theistic element to the subjective area of “religious belief.”

In other words, theistic evolution today means believing things for which there is no evidence. Behe's sin is that he thinks he has evidence. He is not supposed to have evidence; he is only supposed to reassure pious old ladies that no matter what is happening in the world of science, everything is just fine, just fine, just fine.

It would also help if he would wear fake hair and a slick preacher suit instead of having the fashion sense of a research biochemist. But First Things first.

As I like to say, no wonder there is an intelligent design controversy.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.