Robbie Eleazer
04/24/2008
Dr. Waldvogel
Bio 210 Evolution and Creationism
Left, Right, Slight Left, Slight Right, Middle and Me: A Sampling of Experts
The myriad of views encircling the theory of evolution attests to evolution’s importance and universal impact on how humans view the world. From the fundamentalist preacher to the hardnosed scientist, everyone seems to battle with the implications of this powerful biological theory. To understand the controversy between creationists and evolutionists one must inherently understand the views of each proponent. These experts, Kenneth Alfred Ham, William Dembski, Kenneth R. Miller, Mary Schweitzer, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, range the gamut from expert biologist to young earth creationist and those who squirm in between labels to embrace the realities and purpose of science and religion. These proponents have each fought their way into my mind, persuading and educating me. Some of these figures embody a latent sinister purpose, while I believe others are simply misguided. Each offers a new perspective to a multidimensional topic. Somewhere in the fray, I find myself struggling with such comfort that it shocks me- where before this seminar I felt alone with my views of science and religion, I now feel at ease with my perspective.
For me the gradient begins with those who feel that religion cannot be reconciled with science. Kenneth Ham and William Dembski approach this perspective in different manners, yet with the same mindset.
Ken Ham is the most brash and unabashed with his views. Ken Ham supports the idea that evolution is destroying religion (Ham 2000). Because of this belief, he is on the constant attack of evolutionary science. Kenneth ham is particularly dangerous because I view him as a master of rhetoric. Ham is the founder of the international movement Answers in Genesis. Through this venue, Ham is disseminating his ideas through any means necessary. His rhetorical assault on science begins with a series of books A is for Adam which seeks to prove to children that genesis holds all of the necessary information to view the world (Ken and Mally Ham 1995). By targeting children with colorful picture of Dinosaurs and people Ham clearly seeks to further the rift between science and religion. Even the logo for the AIG website flaunts a graphic 1:1 a subtle message that what you see is what you get in the Bible (www.answersingenesis.com). I believe that books contain a certain clout to the everyday person-authorship holds with it a certain authority. I do not think Ham is targeting particularly intelligent people with his barrage of rhetorical assaults but rather the everyday Christian who wants the simple answers. Through his constant publishing of books, Ham has established a written authority in his area of belief. Books such as The Lie: Evolution (1989), What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs (1990), A is for Adam (1995), Refuting Evolution (1999) embody his caustic view. His use and manipulation of media tactics are furthered by his radio show Answers with Ken Ham (www.Wikipedia.com). Most recently Ham has helped found the Creation Museum. If books are not enough to convey authority to your view, then certainly a museum is the next step. It does not take much analysis to see how scary the concept for a Creation Museum can be, an institution which seeks to parallel the Smithsonian museum of Natural History. In fact, on my road trip to Cincinnati I passed by several billboards for the museum. The graphic savvy, the authentic wording, all of the images needed to convince people of a legitimate museum-perfectly in line with Ken Ham’s strategies. Ken Ham has effectively used media to establish his views. Through websites, books, radio shows, and even a museum, Ham has been able to creatively speak to the masses-spreading the seeds of scientific doubt.
William Dembski advocates Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. For all of the media tactics of Ham, Dembski enters the arena with “science”. His position seeks to use Intelligent Design as the alternate model for science education-fighting science with religion pretending to be science. However, while Ham has produced small easily accessible books, Dembski’s publications are much more intelligent-the audiences are clearly different. Dembski is part of the core of Intelligent Design proponents, a part of the “round table” Phillip Johnson gathered in 1993 (Regal 2008). Johnson, a lawyer by training knew he himself did not have the biological training to critique evolution. William Dembski becomes that person, well versed in philosophy, theology, science and mathematics. When Dembski speaks, he does not orate like his fellow Ham, he uses logic and evidence. Dembski becomes the soldier in the enemy’s territory, a stark believer in Christianity who understands how science reacts to evidence. Dembski uses mathematics to calculate the probability of complex biological systems developing by chance. He then proposes that this number indicates an impossible chance. From here he declares that there must be a moving force behind these systems, an Intelligent Designer (Regal 2008). Books by Dembski such as No Free Lunch contain hard science and research. A 400 page megalith, with twenty pages of references, No Free Lunch crafts the scientific base for intelligent design. Dembski even eloquently describes that “The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002). Whether or not Dembski crafts supported arguments for design in No Free Lunch, Debating Design, or Mere Creation cannot be the point. Even as lay as I am in science I can still see the sole flaw in all of the Intelligent Design research- the in ability to test for a designer. Science cannot default to higher powers when the numbers point to improbability.
With Ham and Dembski at the forefront, both public opinion and Science will be continually attacked with religious motives. Ham will continue to simplify the issue by declaring that the bible is infallible and therefore science is wrong. Dembski will continue to craft intelligent research, convincing scientific books as to how complex biological systems were designed by “intelligence”. However, these views are so far right that they will never be accepted fully. For every soul won by Ham, there will be two who will be disgusted by the simplicity.
Continuing through the color wheel are those who defy labels. Scientists with deep faiths even people of faith who trust the rigor of science. Kenneth R. Miller and Mary Shweitzer embody the middle ground, those who can reconcile faith and science.
Kenneth R. Miller removes all doubt of evolution in his book Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution. Miller becomes the foil to Dembski’s line of reasoning, sticking strictly to science and inserting God into the process seamlessly. Chapter three, God as Charlatan, allows Miller to accept Genesis as an accurate book containing truth-it can remain myth and still hold universal truths that do not affect science (Miller1999). Miller’s way of thinking drastically alters Ham’s world view, while also scientifically remaining consistent which Dembski cannot accomplish. So it seems that Miller’s part of the debate is much more rooted in reconciliation rather than division. Miller is the olive branch between science and religion without compromising the tenants of either world.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer has added to the controversy through an accidental discovery without the motivation driving Ham and Dembski. Schweitzer is at once a paleontologist and an evangelical Christian (Yeoman, 2006). Upon discovering tissue in a T-Rex femur bone Dr. Schweitzer has found herself at the fulcrum of controversy between scientist and creationist. Professor at Montana State University and curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies Jack Horner describes Schweitzer as a scientist who thinks differently, allowing her to accept things based on the evidence and not preconceived notions. This quote reveals her ability to cope with the standard that the tissue she found should not have been there. The accepted view of fossilization states that soft tissues will not survive after about 10,000 yrs. For Schweitzer it is clear that the tissue is there and that the fossil is much older than 10,000yrs instead of dismissing the evidence. Why does this matter? Young earth creationists are championing here discovery as proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Meanwhile scientists dismiss her discovery because of their previously accepted knowledge of fossilization. Yet, Schweitzer holds true to her discovery and reconciles the facts with her religious views-"That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."-Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Though Dr. Schweitzer chooses to remove herself from the debacle between science and religion, it is clear that she embraces both science and religion as modes of viewing the world that are separate and equal.
The power of Miller and Schweitzer is their ability to unite, on a universal and personal scale. Miller for me becomes the champion of the middle, an active academic and theistic voice. Schweitzer, however, becomes the epitome of self exploration. Schweitzer removes the debate from the clutches of the media, and demonstrates how for most this is a personal struggle.
Finally, we end on the other end of the spectrum, where scientists themselves seek division. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett represent the folly of explaining away religion. Much like Ham and Dembski seek to alter science through religion, Dawkins and Dennett seek to alter religion with science. Division is sure to follow.
Richard Dawkins is perfectly allowed to research an evolutionary need to believe in God. In fact, I tend to find his book The God Delusion quite comprehensive in describing our need to believe in God. However, for me Dawkins is such a disconcerting figure for his brash disregard for religion. He is the Ham of Science. He uses his position and research as a method for division. More specifically his involvement in aggressive atheist groups which promote the dismemberment of organized religion is very similar to Dembski’s involvement in the Discovery Institute (www.wikipedia.com). My critique for Dawkins has very little to do with his research and writing. Where Ham’s writing is for rhetoric only, I believe Dawkins writes in the interest of good science. However, Dawkins should realize how his attitude toward religion further drives the wedge between religion and science-an ironic reality in the light of Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document.
In a similar fashion Daniel Dennett studies how our minds evolved to show an advantage for belief in a God (Dennett 2006). Again, there is the same pattern of science trying to discount religion. However, Dennett is not as brash as Dawkins. In a PBS interview Dennett says “I think a lot of people prefer the traditional idea that we get our purpose from on high, somehow. I think that the important idea here is that you want there to be something more important than you are, to give you meaning and to make you happy. My advice if you want to be happy is, find something more important than you are and work for it.”
This Statement contains many of the claims of Dawkins, however put in a much more humble manner. The meaning is clear however, if religion makes you happy, it is your prerogative to enjoy this delusion.
The Dawkins and Dennett duo represent that which we all fear-the ability for science to explain things we think exist in the realm of personality or super reality. For science to seek to think through consciousness, and inherently religion, division will be created especially if division is sought.
The wheel turns. We have gone left, right, slight left, slight right, middle with those who embody the evolution and creation/religion debate. It leaves me baffled that all of these intelligent people (even Ken Ham) tackle this issue with such conviction and knowledge. For me, this becomes personal. I believe in God. I believe in Science. Is that too simple? Genesis can’t be wrong, but surely God did not poof us out at once. However, can nature be soulless? Is there nothing there if we can’t test it? I doubt it. In a way I become Ken Ham, loving the simple explanations. I am Dr. Schweitzer celebrating the complexities and intricacies. I also find myself a Dawkins, skeptical and almost atheistic. Yet, these conflicting internal forces keep me from simplifying the issue-able to nimbly respect those around me, always learning.
Works Cited
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.Viking. 2006.
Dembski, William. No Free Lunch. Rowman & Littlefield. 2002.
Dembski, William. Debating Design. Cambridge Press. 2004.
Dembski, William. Mere Creation. Intervarsity Press.1998.
Ham, Kenneth. A is for Adam. Master Books. 1996.
Ham, Kenneth. The Lie:Evolution. Master Books. 1989.
Ham, Kenneth. Refuting Evolution. Master Books.1999.
Regal, Brian. Icons of Evolution Vol 2.Green Wood press. 2008.
WWW.Wikipedia.com
WWW.answersingenesis.com
Alda, Allan.PBS.http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/features/dennett3.htm
Yeoman, Barry. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna. 2006.
04/24/2008
Dr. Waldvogel
Bio 210 Evolution and Creationism
Left, Right, Slight Left, Slight Right, Middle and Me: A Sampling of Experts
The myriad of views encircling the theory of evolution attests to evolution’s importance and universal impact on how humans view the world. From the fundamentalist preacher to the hardnosed scientist, everyone seems to battle with the implications of this powerful biological theory. To understand the controversy between creationists and evolutionists one must inherently understand the views of each proponent. These experts, Kenneth Alfred Ham, William Dembski, Kenneth R. Miller, Mary Schweitzer, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, range the gamut from expert biologist to young earth creationist and those who squirm in between labels to embrace the realities and purpose of science and religion. These proponents have each fought their way into my mind, persuading and educating me. Some of these figures embody a latent sinister purpose, while I believe others are simply misguided. Each offers a new perspective to a multidimensional topic. Somewhere in the fray, I find myself struggling with such comfort that it shocks me- where before this seminar I felt alone with my views of science and religion, I now feel at ease with my perspective.
For me the gradient begins with those who feel that religion cannot be reconciled with science. Kenneth Ham and William Dembski approach this perspective in different manners, yet with the same mindset.
Ken Ham is the most brash and unabashed with his views. Ken Ham supports the idea that evolution is destroying religion (Ham 2000). Because of this belief, he is on the constant attack of evolutionary science. Kenneth ham is particularly dangerous because I view him as a master of rhetoric. Ham is the founder of the international movement Answers in Genesis. Through this venue, Ham is disseminating his ideas through any means necessary. His rhetorical assault on science begins with a series of books A is for Adam which seeks to prove to children that genesis holds all of the necessary information to view the world (Ken and Mally Ham 1995). By targeting children with colorful picture of Dinosaurs and people Ham clearly seeks to further the rift between science and religion. Even the logo for the AIG website flaunts a graphic 1:1 a subtle message that what you see is what you get in the Bible (www.answersingenesis.com). I believe that books contain a certain clout to the everyday person-authorship holds with it a certain authority. I do not think Ham is targeting particularly intelligent people with his barrage of rhetorical assaults but rather the everyday Christian who wants the simple answers. Through his constant publishing of books, Ham has established a written authority in his area of belief. Books such as The Lie: Evolution (1989), What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs (1990), A is for Adam (1995), Refuting Evolution (1999) embody his caustic view. His use and manipulation of media tactics are furthered by his radio show Answers with Ken Ham (www.Wikipedia.com). Most recently Ham has helped found the Creation Museum. If books are not enough to convey authority to your view, then certainly a museum is the next step. It does not take much analysis to see how scary the concept for a Creation Museum can be, an institution which seeks to parallel the Smithsonian museum of Natural History. In fact, on my road trip to Cincinnati I passed by several billboards for the museum. The graphic savvy, the authentic wording, all of the images needed to convince people of a legitimate museum-perfectly in line with Ken Ham’s strategies. Ken Ham has effectively used media to establish his views. Through websites, books, radio shows, and even a museum, Ham has been able to creatively speak to the masses-spreading the seeds of scientific doubt.
William Dembski advocates Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. For all of the media tactics of Ham, Dembski enters the arena with “science”. His position seeks to use Intelligent Design as the alternate model for science education-fighting science with religion pretending to be science. However, while Ham has produced small easily accessible books, Dembski’s publications are much more intelligent-the audiences are clearly different. Dembski is part of the core of Intelligent Design proponents, a part of the “round table” Phillip Johnson gathered in 1993 (Regal 2008). Johnson, a lawyer by training knew he himself did not have the biological training to critique evolution. William Dembski becomes that person, well versed in philosophy, theology, science and mathematics. When Dembski speaks, he does not orate like his fellow Ham, he uses logic and evidence. Dembski becomes the soldier in the enemy’s territory, a stark believer in Christianity who understands how science reacts to evidence. Dembski uses mathematics to calculate the probability of complex biological systems developing by chance. He then proposes that this number indicates an impossible chance. From here he declares that there must be a moving force behind these systems, an Intelligent Designer (Regal 2008). Books by Dembski such as No Free Lunch contain hard science and research. A 400 page megalith, with twenty pages of references, No Free Lunch crafts the scientific base for intelligent design. Dembski even eloquently describes that “The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002). Whether or not Dembski crafts supported arguments for design in No Free Lunch, Debating Design, or Mere Creation cannot be the point. Even as lay as I am in science I can still see the sole flaw in all of the Intelligent Design research- the in ability to test for a designer. Science cannot default to higher powers when the numbers point to improbability.
With Ham and Dembski at the forefront, both public opinion and Science will be continually attacked with religious motives. Ham will continue to simplify the issue by declaring that the bible is infallible and therefore science is wrong. Dembski will continue to craft intelligent research, convincing scientific books as to how complex biological systems were designed by “intelligence”. However, these views are so far right that they will never be accepted fully. For every soul won by Ham, there will be two who will be disgusted by the simplicity.
Continuing through the color wheel are those who defy labels. Scientists with deep faiths even people of faith who trust the rigor of science. Kenneth R. Miller and Mary Shweitzer embody the middle ground, those who can reconcile faith and science.
Kenneth R. Miller removes all doubt of evolution in his book Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution. Miller becomes the foil to Dembski’s line of reasoning, sticking strictly to science and inserting God into the process seamlessly. Chapter three, God as Charlatan, allows Miller to accept Genesis as an accurate book containing truth-it can remain myth and still hold universal truths that do not affect science (Miller1999). Miller’s way of thinking drastically alters Ham’s world view, while also scientifically remaining consistent which Dembski cannot accomplish. So it seems that Miller’s part of the debate is much more rooted in reconciliation rather than division. Miller is the olive branch between science and religion without compromising the tenants of either world.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer has added to the controversy through an accidental discovery without the motivation driving Ham and Dembski. Schweitzer is at once a paleontologist and an evangelical Christian (Yeoman, 2006). Upon discovering tissue in a T-Rex femur bone Dr. Schweitzer has found herself at the fulcrum of controversy between scientist and creationist. Professor at Montana State University and curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies Jack Horner describes Schweitzer as a scientist who thinks differently, allowing her to accept things based on the evidence and not preconceived notions. This quote reveals her ability to cope with the standard that the tissue she found should not have been there. The accepted view of fossilization states that soft tissues will not survive after about 10,000 yrs. For Schweitzer it is clear that the tissue is there and that the fossil is much older than 10,000yrs instead of dismissing the evidence. Why does this matter? Young earth creationists are championing here discovery as proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Meanwhile scientists dismiss her discovery because of their previously accepted knowledge of fossilization. Yet, Schweitzer holds true to her discovery and reconciles the facts with her religious views-"That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."-Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Though Dr. Schweitzer chooses to remove herself from the debacle between science and religion, it is clear that she embraces both science and religion as modes of viewing the world that are separate and equal.
The power of Miller and Schweitzer is their ability to unite, on a universal and personal scale. Miller for me becomes the champion of the middle, an active academic and theistic voice. Schweitzer, however, becomes the epitome of self exploration. Schweitzer removes the debate from the clutches of the media, and demonstrates how for most this is a personal struggle.
Finally, we end on the other end of the spectrum, where scientists themselves seek division. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett represent the folly of explaining away religion. Much like Ham and Dembski seek to alter science through religion, Dawkins and Dennett seek to alter religion with science. Division is sure to follow.
Richard Dawkins is perfectly allowed to research an evolutionary need to believe in God. In fact, I tend to find his book The God Delusion quite comprehensive in describing our need to believe in God. However, for me Dawkins is such a disconcerting figure for his brash disregard for religion. He is the Ham of Science. He uses his position and research as a method for division. More specifically his involvement in aggressive atheist groups which promote the dismemberment of organized religion is very similar to Dembski’s involvement in the Discovery Institute (www.wikipedia.com). My critique for Dawkins has very little to do with his research and writing. Where Ham’s writing is for rhetoric only, I believe Dawkins writes in the interest of good science. However, Dawkins should realize how his attitude toward religion further drives the wedge between religion and science-an ironic reality in the light of Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document.
In a similar fashion Daniel Dennett studies how our minds evolved to show an advantage for belief in a God (Dennett 2006). Again, there is the same pattern of science trying to discount religion. However, Dennett is not as brash as Dawkins. In a PBS interview Dennett says “I think a lot of people prefer the traditional idea that we get our purpose from on high, somehow. I think that the important idea here is that you want there to be something more important than you are, to give you meaning and to make you happy. My advice if you want to be happy is, find something more important than you are and work for it.”
This Statement contains many of the claims of Dawkins, however put in a much more humble manner. The meaning is clear however, if religion makes you happy, it is your prerogative to enjoy this delusion.
The Dawkins and Dennett duo represent that which we all fear-the ability for science to explain things we think exist in the realm of personality or super reality. For science to seek to think through consciousness, and inherently religion, division will be created especially if division is sought.
The wheel turns. We have gone left, right, slight left, slight right, middle with those who embody the evolution and creation/religion debate. It leaves me baffled that all of these intelligent people (even Ken Ham) tackle this issue with such conviction and knowledge. For me, this becomes personal. I believe in God. I believe in Science. Is that too simple? Genesis can’t be wrong, but surely God did not poof us out at once. However, can nature be soulless? Is there nothing there if we can’t test it? I doubt it. In a way I become Ken Ham, loving the simple explanations. I am Dr. Schweitzer celebrating the complexities and intricacies. I also find myself a Dawkins, skeptical and almost atheistic. Yet, these conflicting internal forces keep me from simplifying the issue-able to nimbly respect those around me, always learning.
Works Cited
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.Viking. 2006.
Dembski, William. No Free Lunch. Rowman & Littlefield. 2002.
Dembski, William. Debating Design. Cambridge Press. 2004.
Dembski, William. Mere Creation. Intervarsity Press.1998.
Ham, Kenneth. A is for Adam. Master Books. 1996.
Ham, Kenneth. The Lie:Evolution. Master Books. 1989.
Ham, Kenneth. Refuting Evolution. Master Books.1999.
Regal, Brian. Icons of Evolution Vol 2.Green Wood press. 2008.
WWW.Wikipedia.com
WWW.answersingenesis.com
Alda, Allan.PBS.http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/features/dennett3.htm
Yeoman, Barry. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna. 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment