Dembski and Falk: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?

The BioLogos forum has posted a position paper from William Dembski, on the subject of whether or not Darwinism is theologically neutral (he claims that it is not) as well as a response to Dembski from Darrel Falk. Dembski's paper is in two parts, here and here. Falk's is likewise in two parts, here and here. The BioLogos forum sets forth a list of 13 beliefs here. It is hard to imagine most Christians having any problem with those beliefs. However, quite a few have a problem with part of the opening statement, as follows: "committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that 'all things hold together in Christ.' [Colossians 1:17]" Perhaps it's too simple, but the BioLogos forum team are often called evolutionary creationists. Dembski is one of the leading spokesmen of the Intelligent Design Movement, which rejects evolutionary creationism*. He has earned doctorates in mathematics and philosophy, and also advanced training in theology. Falk, who is President of BioLogos, is a biologist by training.

I found Dembski's writing to be respectful of Christians who disagree with him, and he seems to understand at least some of the thinking of such people.

In Dembski's part 1, he sets forth these non-negotiables:

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

• (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
• (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
• (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
• (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law. 

At least some of these non-negotiables can be questioned. One question that occurred to me is in relation to C3. I would say that all creatures (and, for that matter, all rocks) are made in the image of God to some extent. They bear unmistakable marks of their creator. I would agree that humans are more in the image of God than any animals, or other organisms, or than any non-animate entities. It is possible that we may have computers or robots that are also more in the image of God than any animals, but we aren't there yet, and may never be. (See here and here for more about the idea of the image of God.)

His strategy is to explain how the two sets are in tension. He specifically avoids using "conflict," because he says that the languages of religion and science are different enough that it is difficult to know if you have found a real conflict.

Then, in part 2 of his essay, Dembski explains why he thinks that there are tensions, and which tensions are most important.

One tension, in Dembski's mind, at least, is that "it seems odd, given (C1), that God would create by Darwinian processes, which suggest that unguided forces can do all the work necessary for biological evolution." These unguided forces, if they are so important, are not evidence of God's wisdom, he says, nor do they reflect God's glory. (C2)

On the contrary, it seems to me that if there were a God who was able to create a universe, with properties such that unguided forces could bring about living things, in all their diversity, that would be strong evidence of His wisdom, and add to His glory. 

Dembski sees another problem. He says that "Francis Collins . . . denies that our moral capacities represent the natural development of the same essential capacities in other primates. Yet to say that our moral or cognitive or linguistic capacities are unprecedented in the rest of the animal world flies in the face of Darwinian evolution, certainly as Darwin conceived it." (Collins is a Christian, an author, and one of the most important scientists of our time. He is the founder of the BioLogos forum.)

I see what Dembski is talking about, but it seems to me that it could have been that God took some sort of pre-human, and, by miracle, installed those moral capacities. Also, it could be that the appearance of language, spoken and as thought, changed moral capacity by itself.

But Dembski also makes another important point. He claims that there is not sufficient evidence that natural selection can produce the complex structures we see in living things, and, thus, wonders why Darwinianism is important enough to examine. He writes ". . . the evidence for the creative power of natural selection to build complex biological forms is nil."This claim has been disputed at considerable depth, and some of the disputation is by Christian scientists who are convinced that natural selection can, and has, produced complex structures. In fact, there is a series, published by BioLogos, entitled  "Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information," which is reasonably accessible to the intelligent non-scientist, and refutes this claim of Dembski, and the ID movement, with examples. Here's a link to the final installment of that series. There are links to the other parts in that post.

As I write this, I have not read Falk's response to Dembski. I have read an important response to Dembski, by a Young-Earth Creationist, Todd Wood. I hope to post on what Falk and Wood have to say about Dembski soon.

Thanks for reading!

*There are several positions on origins among Bible-believing Christians. They include Intelligent Design, Young-Earth Creationism, and Evolutionary Creationism. See here for a summary, giving the weaknesses and strengths of these and other such beliefs.

The Language of God, Chapter 11 and Appendix

This is the final post in a series on The Language of God, by Francis Collins. Here's the previous post.

In Chapter 11, Francis Collins gives some personal history not found in the first part of the book, about how his faith was tested and renewed as a doctor visiting an impoverished hospital in Africa. He closes by calling again for Concordism -- faith in God's revelation through the evidence of science, and His revelation through scripture.

In a lengthy appendix, Collins considers a number of bioethical (by which he means medical ethical -- unfortunately, but understandably, he doesn't consider environmental problems) dilemmas. These include moral and ethical questions raised by DNA testing, by cloning, and by the possibility of "enhancement" of human capabilities by some form of genetic engineering, or other techniques. He has no easy answers, but he understands the questions, and knows that God has answers.

All in all, a splendid book. I am sorry to have to return it to the local library, where someone else has already requested it.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *

I corrected two typos on July 11, 2008.

The Language of God, Chapters 7-10

This is my next to last post on The Language of God, by Francis Collins. (previous post)

The titles of these four chapters of Collins' book tell their story. They are:
"Option 1: Atheism and Agnosticism (When Science Trumps Faith)"
"Option 2: Creationism (When Faith Trumps Science)"
"Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science Needs Divine Help)"
"Option 4: BioLogos (Science and Faith in Harmony)"

From these titles alone, you should be able to deduce that Francis Collins is a Concordist. That is, he believes that, properly understood, science and scripture are both part of God's revelation, and they don't contradict each other.

He has some particularly important words for the Intelligent Design movement:
So, scientifically, ID fails to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity. More than that, however, ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than to the hard-nosed scientist. ID is a "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain. . . . Ultimately a "God of the gaps" religion runs a huge risk of simply discrediting faith. (p. 193)

And:
The sincerity of the proponents of Intelligent Design can hardly be questioned. The warm embrace of ID by believers, particularly by evangelical Christians, is completely understandable, given the way in which Darwin's theory has been portrayed by some outspoken evolutionists as demanding atheism. But this ship is not headed to the promised land; it is headed instead to the bottom of the ocean. If believers have attached their last vestiges of hope that God could find a place in human existence through ID theory, and that theory collapses, what then happens to faith? (p. 195)

As far as I know, Collins invented the term, BioLogos. As he says, it is a combination of Greek words meaning life and word, and he refers to John 1:1, where logos occurs three times in the original, referring, at least in part, to Christ's creative work. As Collins puts it:
BioLogos doesn't try to wedge God into gaps in our understanding of the natural world; it proposes God as the answer to questions science was never intended to address, such as "How did the universe get here?" "What is the meaning of life?" "What happens to us after we die?" Unlike Intelligent Design, BioLogos is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind, and the soul. (p. 204)

This is a link to the next, and last, post on this book.

Thanks for reading.

The Language of God, Chapter 6

In chapter 6 of his The Language of God, "Genesis, Galileo, and Darwin," Francis Collins reflects on the Galileo controversy and the Genesis controversy. Why, when the evidence for evolution by descent is so compelling, do so many reject it, in the name of their faith? (Here's a link to my previous post on this important book.)

As Collins says, probably the main reason is that the Bible seems to contradict an ancient earth (and if the earth is only a few thousand years old, clearly evolution can't have had a lot to do with the current state of living things) and any development of complexity in living things. However, as he says, this is just one way to interpret the Bible, and careful interpreters, who hold scripture in high regard, and believe it to be inspired, have and do interpret it in other ways.

Here's part of what he writes about interpreting Genesis in other ways:
. . . in Genesis 1 vegetation appears three days before humans are created, whereas in Genesis 2 it seems that God creates Adam from the dust of the earth before any shrub or plant had yet appeared. In Genesis 2:7, it is interesting to note, the Hebrew phrase that we translate "living being" is applied to Adam in exactly the same way it was previously applied to fish, birds, and land animals in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. (p. 150-151)

Collins is not the first to say these things, of course. But the fact that they have been said often, independently, makes them even more important.

Why Galileo? Galileo proposed, perhaps a bit prematurely, but correctly, that the earth might not be fixed at the center of the universe. Some of the leaders of the church of his time believed that this was contrary to scripture. Finally, almost a century after his death, he was officially rehabilitated by the Roman Catholic Church, and, during the twentieth century, Pope John Paul II stated that the church had been mistaken in its handling of Galileo. Perhaps future generations of conservative protestant church leaders will come to accept evolution as a God-designed mechanism. (Both Pope John Paul II and Pius XII, speaking officially, have already said that evolution is not contrary to the faith for Catholics. As Collins points out, some conservative protestant church leaders of the past did the same.)

Thanks for reading. Here's a link to the next post in the series.

The Language of God, Chapters 4 and 5, by Francis Collins

A previous post gives the contents of Chapter 1, and the bibliographic and author information for The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, one of the most important books on science and Christianity, and additional posts describe Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 discusses the origin of life on earth. How did this happen, from a scientific standpoint? Collins says that we don't know. But he does not claim that complexity proves design. He summarizes Paley's argument from design thus:
1. A watch is complex.
2. A watch has an intelligent designer.
3. Life is complex.
4. Therefore, life also has an intelligent designer. (p. 87)
But he points out that there is a flaw. Collins shows this flaw with a similar argument: electric current comes from the power company, and is a flow of electrons, but that doesn't mean that every flow of electrons comes from the power company. (86-7)

Then Collins addresses the question of how, if processes set in motion by God brought about life, and each living thing, rather than the different kinds of things having been made by separate creative acts, we can see God in the result:
No doubt many readers have reasoned for themselves, or been taught in various religious settings, that the glorious beauty of a flower or the flight of an eagle could come about only as the consequence of a supernatural intelligence that appreciated complexity, diversity, and beauty. But now that molecular mechanisms, genetic pathways, and natural selection are being put forward to explain all this, you might be tempted to cry out, "Enough! Your naturalistic explanations are taking all the divine mystery out of the world!"
Do not fear, there is plenty of divine mystery left. Many people who have considered all the scientific and spiritual evidence still see God's creative and guiding hand at work. For me, there is not a shred of disappointment in these discoveries about the nature of life -- quite the contrary! Now marvelous and intricate life turns out to be! how deeply satisfying is the digital elegance of DNA! How aesthetically appealing and artistically sublime are the components of living things . . . Evolution, as a mechanism, can and must be true. But that says nothing about the nature of its author. For those who believe in God, there are reasons now to be more in awe, not less. (pp. 106-7)

I'll say little about Chapter 5, because it really needs to be read, and is hard to summarize. Let's just put it this way. The title is "Deciphering God's Instruction Book: The Lessons of the Human Genome." I will give away one detail, which is that Collins believes that he was divinely called to his work on the Human Genome Project, and says that he didn't accept the position until he had spent considerable time praying about it. (pp. 118-9) I will quote one passage, which relates to the title of the book:
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. pp. 123-4.

Here's a link to my post on Chapter 6 of this book.

Thanks for reading.

The Language of God, Chapter 3, by Francis Collins

A previous post gives the contents of Chapter 1, and the bibliographic and author information for The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and another post describes Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 is entitled "The Origins of the Universe." In it, Collins describes the history of our knowledge of cosmology, and the evidence for the Big Bang. He believes that science has no explanation for (or knowledge of) what came before the Big Bang. He describes current scientific thinking on the origin of the sun, and of the earth. Then he takes up the Anthropic Principle, which, more or less, is the idea that the universe is particularly hospitable to human, and other, life. (Here's the Wikipedia article on that important subject. There is also a web domain dedicated to the subject.)

One of his most remarkable statements is the following:
Altogether, there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable. (p. 74) Collins, of course, is not the first person to point this out, but he does a good job of doing it again, and it is worth frequent reminders. It is, of course, possible that some theory will come along that explains why the velocity of light, or other of these constants, is what it is now.

He goes on to argue that cosmology points strongly toward a supernatural origin of the universe, and would say that such a position is academically defensible.

As the last topic of the chapter, Collins tackles the status of the first part of Genesis. He does not believe that it was meant to be taken literally, and says why. He quotes St. Augustine on the subject: In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. (p. 83 of Collins)

Thanks for reading.

The Language of God, Chapter 2, by Francis Collins

A previous post gives the contents of Chapter 1, and the bibliographic and author information for The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Chapter Two considers four common arguments against faith in God (and against the validity of religion in general) with rebuttals.

The first argument is that religion is just wish fulfillment. Collins, following C. S. Lewis on this topic, says that, if religion were really wish fulfillment, the god we imagine would be much more indulgent than the God of the Bible. He also says that just because we may wish for a god, that does not prove that there isn't one.

The second argument is that there is a lot of harm done in the name of religion. Collins does not deny that, but points out that there is also a lot of good done in the name of religion, for example the story told in the film "Amazing Grace." He also points out that great evil was done by a supposedly atheist society, the Soviet Union. Finally, he says that it is not reasonable to judge the truth of religion solely by its human adherents. He asks "would you judge Mozart's The Magic Flute on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth-graders?" (p. 42)

The third argument is the evil that exists. How could God allow it? Collins has a personal story of great evil done to an innocent person. I'll let readers of the book discover that story for themselves. He follows Lewis (and many others) in pointing out that much evil is the result of God's allowing humans free moral choice, and our choices being bad. He also says: . . . if the most important relationship we are to develop on this earth is a relationship with God, and if our existence as spiritual creatures is not limited to what we can know and observe during our earthly lifetime, then human sufferings take on a wholly new context. We may never fully understand the reasons for these painful experiences, but we can begin to accept the idea that there may be such reasons. (p. 46)

The fourth argument is about miracles. How can a rational person, a scientist, believe in them? Let's put it this way. Collins is a scientist's scientist, and he believes in them. He does say that we use "miracle" much too often, and that we should not assume that everything we can't explain is due to divine intervention, but he sees no reason that a scientist cannot believe in miracles. Nothing in science can disprove them, as they are outside the purview of science.

Collins won't convince a reader who refuses to be convinced, but he makes a good case.

Thanks for reading.

The Language of God, by Francis Collins

Francis Collins is the long-time head of the U. S. Human Genome Project. (Here's the Wikipedia article on him, and here is his page at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Here is a statement by Collins to CNN, with some responses from readers.) I knew that Collins was a Christian, and an important scientist, but, based on the first two chapters, and a later one, I discovered that he is also an important author for the general public. His The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006) is currently among the 300 best-sellers, according to Amazon. It was in the top 10, I believe, when it first appeared. I've read a lot of books related to science and Christianity, and this one has to be in the top five of all of those, perhaps the best. Why? Because Collins is writing for a reasonably intelligent reader, on a simple, but very important topic, namely, "is science compatible with Christianity?" His answer may be summarized in a single word, and it begins with y, and ends with s. (He defends his answer at some length!) The book is also excellent because Collins is aware of contrary arguments, and deals with them, and writes well.

The first chapter of this splendid book describes some of Collins' journey to faith. He was an atheist, but, like many intelligent readers of his generation, found Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. This book, he says, demolished all his arguments as to why there was not a God. I will not rehearse all these arguments here, or re-hash some probably valid criticism of Lewis. Suffice it to say that reading Lewis was a major contributor to the conversion of a great scientist, and he is doing his part toward defending the faith (and science) in this book.

I hope to post more on this splendid volume in the future.