At least I know that, if I fail at everything else in life, I could write a book claiming to reconcile science and Christianity. People love them. No matter how many times the same old talking points are trotted out there always seems to be room for one more volume on the subject. And even if readers do not entirely agree with the content of such books many are still comforted by their existence. Among the "Things Christians Like" is to see scientists saying that hard evidence from nature supports Christian beliefs.
I do not say this to belittle the scientific expertise of authors of these books, such as Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Paul Davies, Dale Russell, Simon Conway Morris, and (as I will get to shortly) Andrew Parker. They are certainly experts in their respective fields. What I am continually frustrated by, however, is their insistence that nature documents the influence of supernatural power.
Lately it has become fashionable to find some refuge for God in the natural world, some signal that tells us there is a cosmic someone who planned for our existence. This trend is not concerned with recognizing nature as it exists and modifying theology to match it, but with impressing particular religious views on nature. Sometimes such attempts are well-received, other times not, but many people are generally happy to see such efforts. It is more important for science and religion to "play nice" than for us to recognize that nature cannot provide the direct evidence for divine intervention in the universe that many people desperately want to exist.
The latest entry into this subgenre of evolutionary apologetics is The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is Scientifically Accurate by biologist Andrew Parker. In this new book Parker claims that the creation narrative of Genesis 1 presents an accurate prognostication of our current understanding of the evolution of life on earth.
I honestly do not recall hearing anything about Parker's new book at the time it was released two months ago, but today the Washington Post published a guest blog in which Parker presents readers with a muddled essay. In a few short paragraphs Parker breezes through what he interprets as the "scary" convergence between Genesis and modern scientific discoveries, all as a paean to something "inexplicable" outside our senses that can only be recognized as God. Parker closes with;
If we stick to science and avoid concocting theories of creationism, God may be revealed without self-deception...and in a form so much more powerful and guiding. So it has been for me.
Oh, what a little confirmation bias can do.
In 2003 Parker published a book called In the Blink of an Eye in which he suggested that the evolution of vision triggered the "Cambrian Explosion." In the wake of the book he began to receive letters that his hypothesis made sense of Genesis. The evolution of vision, his correspondents suggested, corresponded the second command of "let there be light" (Genesis 1:14) in Genesis. Nevermind that this second command was for "lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"; Parker believes that it corresponds with his favored evolutionary hypothesis. It is not about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, he says, but the first time that animals could see the heavenly bodies thanks to the evolution of eyes.
Things get even more complicated when the rest of the order of Creation is considered. Grass and fruiting trees (angiosperms) are called forth on the third day, but both of these kinds of plants did not evolve until the Mesozoic (popularly known as the "Age of Dinosaurs"), many millions of years after plants evolved. Forget about the specifics, says Parker. Grass and trees just mean photosynthesizing organisms.
But what of the fact that Genesis 1 places the creation of sea creatures, including whales, and birds together on the fifth day? Marine animals evolved long before birds, that is true, but birds evolved from dinosaurs long before the first whales evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors. This is followed on the next day by mammals and "creeping things", again confusing the chronological sequence of evolution that we know from the fossil record. (The first mammals evolved before birds, and anything that might be called a "creeping thing" upon the earth existed on land before the first tetrapods lived at the water's edge.)
And it cannot be denied that the creation narrative of Genesis 1 is followed by a second, very different story in Genesis 2. In the second story God has a garden all planned out but no one to take care of it, so he creates Adam and plants a garden in which Adam can live. At that point God realizes that his creation is missing something, a helper for Adam, and so he creates the entire diversity of animals in an attempt to find a suitable partner for the first human. Giraffes, porcupines, leopards, parakeets, squirrels, weasels... none of them measure up, so instead God snags a rib from Adam to make Eve. That story does not fit so well with what we understand about the history of life on earth, and Parker just waves it away without so much as a second thought.
In fact, Parker is utterly convinced that he is correct. When some of these inconsistencies were mentioned in an interview he conducted for the magazine Reform Parker asserted that the correspondence between Genesis and the history of life seemed clear enough to him. Unfettered by historical or theological scholarship Parker stated;
But I have no biases now and I didn't have then. I just put them together [Genesis and the history of life] and they matched perfectly. And what I used is what I think is the best version of the history of life on earth, and my best interpretation of the first page of Genesis.
By this logic, almost anyone could have written the same book. It appears to be simply an exercise in cherrypicking answers and ignoring contradictions. Such a technique at once both strongly literalistic and so weak as to be meaningless. Genesis 1 really does correspond to history, Parker argues, except when it doesn't, in which case we are not thinking loosely enough to allow the pieces to fit.
I am sure such a game of mix and match could be carried out with almost any other sacred book you care to name. (For another example of this kind of confirmation bias, note the belief that theropod dinosaurs were faithful steeds for Adam and Eve.) Parker's premise is flimsy (and that is being charitable), yet it is still welcomed by some because it provides a refuge for God at a time when the faithful are having conniptions about the "New Atheists" (same as the old atheists). I am truly baffled by such attempts at reconciliation that are made so blindly. It appears that these days many people value being nice over rational thought, and I expect that we will continue to see similar half-baked efforts to reconcile evolution and Christianity for a long time to come.
- Log in to post comments
For example, the ancient Egyptian belief that the creator god Atum brought order to the primordial chaos through an autoerotic display is a clear previsioning of the modern concept of abiogenesis. The belief that Atum created life without a female counterpart is a metaphorical reflection of the RNA world, in which life existed without protein, using only one of the substances we now see as complementary.
Oh, and also, Aphrodite arising from the sea foam after Cronos threw the castrated testicles of Ouranos into the ocean is a clear statement of panspermia. The resemblance is positively uncanny.
Alas, Andrew Parker. I really liked Seven Deadly Colours although I noted that Dawkins savaged In the Blink of an Eye in An Ancestor's Tale.
But this? Rather than take it seriously, I think we should turn it into a game. Can we read evolutionary theory in the plot of other famous works of fiction? How about Pride and Prejudice? Or Watchmen?
Brian,
I agree that this is a lame attempt at reconciling Genesis 1 with the theory of evolution. I disagree that it is an attempt at reconciling science with religion. The list of scientists Dissenting From Darwinism is almost 800 now and is growing rapidly. Not all of which have totally rejected evolution, but many have. There are many scientists who have rejected the theory for scientific reasons. They are not rejecting science, just one particular worldview.
The real issue is the fossil record. Is this a record of when life evolved on earth, or is it the result of a great flood? Trilobites, fish, reptiles & land animals, then birds and humans appear in the record, in that order. It is exactly what would be expected from a great flood, factoring in habitat, body density, and the ability to survive. Plus the majority of the layers are sedimentary, laid down by water.
Because of the volcanic activity supposedly going on at the time of this great flood, the lower in the layers we go, the greater the rock layers would be affected by heat and pressure. This can have an affect on dating methods. Comparing the fossil record with a great flood might give us a truer picture than comparing evolution with Genesis 1.
Arv; I will try to keep my response as concise as possible.
To embrace creationism (especially young earth creationism) is to reject science. Such faith requires the rejection of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, &c. Our understanding of the history of life on earth is not the result of a "worldview", but is derived scientific evidence that has been scrutinized over and over again over the past 150 years (with new discoveries made every day).
As for the Noachian Deluge and the fossil record, I see no sign of any global flood in the recent past. That hypothesis was tried out for a while but died in the first half of the 19th century. (Except, of course, among religious fundamentalists.) I suggest you start with Rudwick's The Meaning of Fossils if you want to know more about this, and I will refer you to my forthcoming book, Written in Stone, for more details on evolution and the fossil record.
"The real issue is the fossil record. Is this a record of when life evolved on earth, or is it the result of a great flood? Trilobites, fish, reptiles & land animals, then birds and humans appear in the record, in that order. It is exactly what would be expected from a great flood, factoring in habitat, body density, and the ability to survive. Plus the majority of the layers are sedimentary, laid down by water."
Sigh.
Except that, in a great flood, you would also expect some mixing with a few fossils in the "wrong" place. It's what happens when you get a deluge of water - it sort of swooshes all over the place.
And there are no examples whatsoever in the fossil record of anything like that happening. Not one. If there were (for example, "rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian") evolution would have been completely refuted.
Well, for this to be true (1) the laws of physics needs to be different, and (b) coincidentally, everything in molecular biology, ecology, geology â with emphasis on genomic, proteomic, and higher homology and morphology â just had to be created reflecting the evolutionary timeline.
I really don't understand why YECs first claim that there is no fossil record, and then claim that it proves the global flood. *sigh*
"The list of scientists Dissenting From Darwinism is almost 800 now and is growing rapidly."
Meanwhile, the Project Steve list — which only counts scientists who support evolution and are named Steve — has topped 1,100 names. And is growing rapidly. Remember, that's just the Stephens and the Stephanies.
Sadly the war over public opinion is still being waged by the theists who would try to reconcile theism with science, which promotes scientific ignorance within our society. Christianity may be on the decline, but irrationality and supernaturalism seem to be rising.
Brian thanks for the book review.
Since the bible is scientifically accurate neither in it's account(s) of creation nor in some of it's other narratives involving such cooly rational concepts as virgin births, resurrected corpses, talking jackasses, food falling out of the clear blue sky etc, Parker's subtitle is such a howler it's amazing he could write it with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously. Science and mythology can't be reconciled, and this project will fail as all others have, except among true believers.
Well⦠no. :-|
There simply is no way to accelerate or decelerate radioactive decay. There just ain't none. There's nothing that can be done about it â heat, pressure, you name it, nothing has an effect about decay rates.
Learn some basic nuclear physics.
And while you're at it, learn a bit about the fossil record, because you have visibly no idea how much knowledge there already is.
Hey, you don't even seem to know that there are wind-deposited sediment layers. Fossil sand dunes and the like. Those of the right ages contain dinosaursâ¦
For another take on this : http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2009/07/god-is-scientist.html
Don't worry too much about Mr. Edgeworth. As I wrote on Mike Keesey's blog, he thinks dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that every living creature ate plants before the flood (http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/2009/07/case-for-human-evolution-ill…). He also thinks that evilutionists claim roses and dogs have a common ancestor, which is a rock. And evolutionists focus on similarities but similarities show that evolution is impossible :
"1. Human Cytochrome C is closest to a sunflower.
2. Human eyes are closest to an octopus.
3. Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit and a pig.
4. Human milk is closest to a donkey.
5. If there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms, we could only eat other humans.
(This is very important for a food chain!). "
And the existence of "cavemen" doesn't support evolution since there are still people living in caves.
Oh! And I almost forgot : aliens are fallen angels and demons, Satan's helpers to deceive the world before the rapture... http://www.truthandscience.net/endorsements.htm
Let's see:
1. Human Cytochrome C is closest to a sunflower.
A quick run to PubMed and I find otherwise. Our sequence is closest to a chimp's. In fact, it's identical to a chimp's.
However, the sunflower's sequence is much different -- we're closer to tuna fish than to sunflowers.
2. Human eyes are closest to an octopus.
Actually, they are closest to a chimp's eyes, and much closer to a fish's eyes than to an octopus's eyes. This is a classic case of convergent evolution.
3. Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit and a pig.
Where are the numbers?
4. Human milk is closest to a donkey.
Where are the numbers?
5. If there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms, we could only eat other humans.
(This is very important for a food chain!).
Detailed similarities are unnecessary -- food molecules get disassembled by digestive enzymes, and it's not necessary to make something in order to digest it. Many cellulose digesters do not make cellulose, for instance.
Arv Edgeworth - I'll bet you consider yourself a moral person. Why, then, are you so comjpletely comfortable with lying? Why does putting easily-disproved lies in print so easy for you?
Since when is building a model based on facts and constantly testing the model against new facts a "worldview"?
Arv, why does your worldview support lying?
Arv, why do you worship as inerrant a book whose authors you can't name? Why do you worship as inerrant a book that contains definitely and demonstrably written by people who were not who they claimed to be (in other words, a book with known forgeries)?
Arv, why do you ignore evidence laid down by nature, and instead worship an object created by men?
Why does it seem the first people to break the 10 commmandments are those who claim to defend the Bible?
Not that it matters much, but here are some of the numbers for blood density :
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/20/5/615.pdf
http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/12/3/282.pdf
And for milk composition :
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/4/1635
And here is my own list :
1. Human hairiness is closer to cetaceans than primates.
2. Human number of legs is closer to birds than mammals.
3. Human internal organs dimensions are closer to pigs than to cebids.
4. Humans, like opossums, are omnivorous while gorillas are herbivorous.
5. Humans and Reeves's muntjac have the same number of chromosomes while chimpanzees and potatoes do too.
6. Humans and tyrannosaurus both have short and weak arms compared to their legs, contrary to apes.
Clearly, evolution is a hoax.
It's amazing that anyone can talk about a global flood with a straight face. And surely the first thing to reconcile with a global flood is not evolution but geology itself.
As for evolution, even if there weren't a single fossil there would still be overwhelming evidence for common descent. Not to disparage the quality of the fossil record of course...
Brian,
That is your opinion. If evolution theory has been tested for the last 150 years, why is it when someone tries to prove it wrong they are ridiculed? That is the way the scientific method is supposed to work isn't it? Looking for evidence that supports a theory is not the same as testing it.
Regardless of your opinion, evolution theory is a philosophical worldview and nothing more. How so many seemingly intelligent people have accepted it to the degree they have is amazing. By the way, are these a lot of the same scientists that gave us climategate? Could there be dishonesty in science? Eternity is a long time to be wrong!
Arv,
The fact of evolution stands on the merit of evidence, both from the fossil record and from modern biological testing and observation...it is not philosophy, it has nothing to do with faith, nor with belief, it is Science, it is testable and falsifiable. Things evolved and are still doing so, get over it.
I don't think any of us expect you to be honest about how you feel, but please just say you believe Genesis is fact and leave it at that (and troll somewhere else). This is not your realm, people here will point out the fallacies in your arguments, if you are being irrational and overtly dishonest you should expect to be called on it. Eternity is a long time, for your sake Arv I hope your Lord doesn't put much stock in the 10 commandments because you are breaking at least 2 relatively important ones by posting here (and by that I mean bearing false witness and invoking the Lord's name in vain [and by that I mean trying to strong arm the author of this blog by suggesting he will be punished for eternity for not believing]).
Arv it is fascinating to me how the people that try to disprove evolution, rarely make use of the scientific method. As far as "climaticgate", why are the same people acting as if all science that doesn't agree with the bible or ignores the bible is part of a big conspiracy?
Nothing more? So what of all the experiments done surrounding science? What of the predictive nature of the theory, particularly in regards to the fossil record and the fossil genetic code? What about all observations of speciation, of the arrival of novel traits? What of homology in multiple different lines of evidence that all converge on the same point?
The problem with such a statement is that as a scientific theory, evolution makes plenty of predictions that push further the understanding of nature. Nothing more? To say such a statement belies the last 150 years of empirical research across multiple disciplines. And for what? What do you gain out of decrying evolution's scientific status? Does it change that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Or is cosmology philosophy and nothing more? Does it change that the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Or is nuclear physics philosophy and nothing more? Does it change that the earliest life starts in rocks over 3 billion years old? Does it change that there is change in fossils in rocks over time? Does it change the kinds of fossils that have been discovered in the rocks?
â¦which is trueâ¦,
â¦which is utterly false. Our last common ancestor with roses was a recognizably eukaryotic cell. Arv, look up what eukaryotic means right now.
Sleeping through the last 150 years and not learning anything during that time is not how the scientific method is supposed to work.
Hey, even if you read Darwin's books, all of which are out of date, you'd learn more than you currently know!
Of course it is, because you can't know in advance what you'll find!
Counting the hits and ignoring the misses, now, that would not be the same as testing. But it would be dishonest anyway.
Wrong.
Some philosophical worldviews happen to be incompatible with the theory of evolution. Too bad for them. Some philosophical worldviews were also incompatible with the fact that â2 is an irrational number. :-|
2. No â climatologists are not biologists or vice versa.
1. You have misunderstood the alleged scandal due to your utter lack of knowledge. Go here to start filling in the gaping holes in your brain.
Two scientists can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
What do people get Nobel prizes for? For destroying established theories. Think about this long and hard.
From a Humanities professor, this would be fashionable nonsense. From the likes of Arv Edgeworth, it's just nonsense.
Two things in Arv's favor re: 9th Commandment.
1. Jesus - no responsibility for bad behavior if you accept the salvation. That's why Christians are more moral than atheists, scientists and evolutionists.
2. Cluelessness is a defense, with God anyway.
There is more evidence for the occurrence of evolution than for the occurrence of the War of 1812.
"If evolution theory has been tested for the last 150 years, why is it when someone tries to prove it wrong they are ridiculed?"
I think you have this wrong: we always kindly wait until they fail to prove it wrong, but then declare it's wrong anyhow, before we engage in ridicule.
How can anything be an prognostication of something current?
Once you assume supernatural intervention in the world, science is done, unless you assume a conspiratorial intervention that makes everything look the way it does. RE #18, yes there is a world view involved, but science has built a model that does successfully make predictions and recently has been doing a good job. Since science evaluates a model by how well it works evolution is doing splendidly.
If you want supernatural intervention, then there are no longer any rules Charles Lyell was wrong etc. If you go back and look at the discussions in 1860s the no supernatural interventions was a big thing as it was in the monkey trail.
But of course we don't teach science as a model building enterprise. If I could I would say we are building a model with the uniformitarian assumption and the no super natural intervention assumption and if you don't like these assumptions assume it a logic system not the model you need to hold for your view of the real world.
The two assumptions stated are more in the nature of metaphysics than science.
According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the Science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the Creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.How could he have seen something happen before his existence?For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The Creation had been REcreated to him there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the missing section of the chain which science is looking for.The Creation continue and the Next Jump Is Coming...
If I contacted to you by mistake and this is the wrong address,please make sure that you send me the correct e-mail or You can send that to the people who are interested on the subject.