The Seen and Unseen in Science and Theology

Another interesting paper I have come across recently was published by the American Scientific Affiliation. Hyung S. Choi , 'Knowledge of the Unseen: A New Vision for Science and Religion Dialogue', Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 53.2 (June 2001): 96-101.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/pscf/2001/pscf6-01choi.html

A few quotes:

"While contemporary physics and cosmology take seriously the knowledge of invisible realities, the discussion of the unseen in religion has been largely neglected in the recent science-and-religion discussion. Neglecting the issue in theology is ultimately self- defeating since God is considered the Unseen. In light of contemporary understanding of the unseen in science, we contend that that there are significant parallels between scientific and theological claims concerning the unseen. The epistemic distinction between the seen and the unseen does not necessarily imply the ontological demarcation between the natural and the supernatural. New heuristic frameworks such as a multi- dimensional model are suggested for more holistic and dynamical understanding of reality that includes both the seen and the unseen."

"In hindsight, it is an irony that while modernity in its positivistic spirit started out with the notion that the reality perceived by our senses is the only knowable reality there is, we now end up with the idea that the true nature of physical reality is quite different from what we experience through our senses. The legend of the tangibility of matter, or what may be called "the matter myth," which served as the basis for the certainty of knowledge, was lost."

"Here, within science, were raised the problem of reality (an ontological problem), issues of the limits of human knowledge (an epistemological problem), and the problem of testability (a methodological problem). Relativity and quantum physics, which serve as the pillars of contemporary science, and more recently chaos theory, are now presenting us with a radically new physical view of the world in which positivistic, deterministic, and materialistic philosophies no longer have secure places. They present us with deeper, greater, and more mysterious aspects of nature."

Andrew Sibley

Humanists try to Close Christian Zoo

It seems the British Humanist Association (BHA) has become a self-appointed arbiter of science. In criticising a Christian-owned zoo this week, it seems to be aping Richard Dawkins in not only promoting atheism but also pontificating on what is or is not good science.

Mind you, it’s got ‘previous’ on this issue, having waded into scientific arguments on many occasions. And, true to form, it is also trying to squash opposition to evolution, instead of standing for the ‘free thinking’ it claims to embrace.

The BHA says Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in Wraxhall, North Somerset, is bad for science, and has been urging tourism boards to boycott the zoo and the local authority to revoke its licence. Of course, the BHA’s concern for good science is a cloak for its opposition to creationism. When else do you ever see the BHA standing up for good science? Answer: only when creationism or Intelligent Design theory need a good kicking. Why? Because such unorthodox science threatens the atheistic view of life that the BHA espouses. It can stomach no opposition.

Signs at the zoo suggest that the "three great people groups" of the world may be descendants of Noah – which a literal reading of the Bible would certainly support. Another sign says animal predation occurred after "man rebelled against God". Now, such views might be typical of traditional Young Earth Creationism (YEC), but the website and two spokespeople for the zoo do say that they view “the natural world around us as a product of both God and evolution”.

A closer look at their website indicates they accept a limited form of evolution and believe that the world may be much older than the typical YEC position of less than 10,000 years. As a spokesperson says, "Although technically creationists, we do not hold the stereotypical creationist views that the world was created in 6,000 years and there is no evolution."

So we are not dealing here with the ultra-traditional creationism that the BHA seems to want to brand this zoo as espousing. But that is no matter to the BHA – any religious view on life must be suppressed. The BHA’s criticism is an attack not only on creationism but on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

BHA education officer Paul Pettinger says, "We're very concerned because it will undermine education and the teaching of science." First, it’s ridiculous that one small zoo could undermine education as a whole, and second it certainly doesn’t undermine the teaching of science itself – only the teaching of a rigid Darwinian view of evolution. But of course, the BHA needs evolution to reign supreme in order to shore up its atheistic beliefs.

The zoo’s website says that scientists are afraid to talk about "design" in the natural world, and the zoo’s owner Anthony Bush says, "There's a lot of people who believe in Genesis who don't want to come out of the woodwork, but they don't want to come out of the closet because of the thought police."

Well, it’s clear why when the Inquisitors of the BHA come knocking on your door if you cast the slightest doubt on Darwinism.

Bush, a former Evangelical preacher, says his zoo actually presents a variety of views, only one of which is creationist. "I think God created life. I have no idea when," he adds.

One tourism group, Visit England, avoided the issue by pointing out that it only checks a zoo’s visitor satisfaction rating and has no opinion on content. On that score, Noah’s Ark Zoo is clearly a winner. Despite only having 100 animals, it is visited by 120,000 people every year, including members of school parties, yet only gets about ten complaints per year. As Noah's Ark research assistant Jon Woodwood says, "Clearly the public do not share the British Humanist viewpoint.''

BHA director of education and public affairs Andrew Copson also accuses the zoo of deceiving people about its creationist views: ''We believe Noah's Ark Farm Zoo misleads the public by not being open about its creationist agenda in its promotional activities.”

This is clearly untrue as the zoo website has a whole section on creationism and is completely open about its stance. And as Jon Woodwood points out, the zoo is actually named after the biblical Noah’s Ark – might that not be a big clue as to its viewpoint?!

As for undermining science education… ''Our education policy is purely based around the National Curriculum. We are offering our visitors the chance to look at the evolution/creation debate. As it is a free country, that is within our right. Contrary to a small minority of people's claims we do not teach false science.

''This is clearly shown within the zoo, with one exhibition talking about Darwin and another offering another point of view.”

Fortunately the director of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Miranda Stevenson, is perceptive: ''I find it extraordinary that an organisation that I thought promotes free thinking appears to want censorship.''
By Andrew Halloway

Theos and Mary Midgley

Nick Spencer of Theos has interviewed Mary Midgley as part of their Rescuing Darwin project. This is written up in a report entitled Discussing Darwin. It would seem though that Midgley is closer to post-modernism and a multi-faith approach to truth, than the type of objective modernism that Darwinists believe underpins their science. Is she really the person to ask to defend science? Both Dawkins and scientific creationists have one point of agreement, that there is such a thing as objective truth.

http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/DiscussingDarwin.pdf

While she has a few good points to make, she believes for instance that Darwinism is the creation myth of our age, she seems in reality muddled by post-modern ideas. I am not convinced that Darwinists would really find such ideas of relative truth helpful to the advancement of objective science. She comments;

“Yes, we all have myths through which we explain the world. The word ‘myth’ is a bit awkward because it is sometimes used simply to mean ‘false’, but I find its other meaning very useful. I also talk about dreams and dramas and visions and so forth. Whichever way one talks about it, it’s about an imaginative background, a way of seeing a problem in the world which determines what questions you ask, how you select your questions.”(p. 13)

“I suppose it sounds less surprising if one refers to ‘visions’. It’s an imaginative framework within which one fits the different elements. (p.14)

“So if one asks what myth the term ‘evolution’ is propagating, it is rather a pernicious one in many ways, because whatever the right way to justify some policy may be, it never is that it is the only road to the future.” (p.16)

But while she believes in having one’s own ‘myth’, and recognizes the subjective and perhaps ‘pernicious’ nature of such beliefs; ‘revelation’ she thinks is dangerous. “You need to have an awareness that other people have views and that your position is just your position and not revelation. The idea of revelations is a dangerous one.” (p.15)

In this statement she is making the mistake of collapsing a belief in literal truth into militant fanaticism. That does not follow by necessity and is offensive to many people, but it is a prejudice of our age where liberals have an antithesis towards those who believe strongly in objective truth, whether it is suicide bombers, or those who uphold the absolute sanctity of life; but what of nihilism – and the darker side of Darwinism that comes out of ‘myth,’ isn't that potentially dangerous also?

So biblical literalism is apparently irrational and dangerous. That sounds to me like an argument that objective truth is irrational or relative truth is rational. As Mike Peter’s of the pop group the Alarm said, ‘The truth is the truth or the truth is surely a lie.’ Or as St Paul said, ‘let God be true and every man a liar.’

It is part of the muddled thinking of post-modernism where the only acceptable intolerance is towards those who are deemed intolerant because of their belief. I might ask on what basis and by whose authority should we reject objective truth - not on the basis of reason and logic I would guess. So why might I disagree with her article - perhaps for no other reason than it makes me feel good and it isn’t in accord with my ‘myth’, but that would be wholly unsatisfactory.

Midgley though thinks that creationists and intelligent design supporters are cutting themselves off from others. I would suggest the reverse is the case, that the liberals who accept Darwinism are expelling and ostracising those who want to believe that there is a truth and objectivity in the universe worth finding, a 'myth' that is ultimately true is the great hope of humanity.

Andrew Sibley

James Lovelock calls for mitigation strategies

James Lovelock commented to an audience at the 'Ways With Words' literary festival at Dartington Hall, near Totnes in Devon that; "It's not going to take much of a sea-surge to knock out London. We should be spending money strengthening defences there rather than vain efforts to improve renewable energy."

Although he thinks renewables are a good idea, he is right to note that they are not very practical at present, instead more work needs to be done in developing mitigation strategies around the world to protect against sever weather. That would have a benefit to the world whether global warming is real or not.
Renewables are a waste of time, says James Lovelock Telegraph 14th July 2009

Andrew Sibley

So even God evolves now?

A new book by an author of best-selling books about science, evolutionary psychology, history and religion attempts to unify conflicting religions into a one-world religion of niceness – thereby avoiding World War Three. How? By showing that belief in God has evolved and is evolving into a ‘tolerant’ God that all religions can share.

Breath-taking naivety or a subtle crusade for political correctness?

Both, if you ask me. But as usual this theme of unifying religions will be lapped up by the chattering classes. The author is Robert Wright – an American journalist and scholar who was born into a Southern Baptist family. He seems to have rejected faith as a young man – leaving Texas Christian University after only one year, switching to Princeton University.

If Richard Dawkins and the ‘new atheists’ have their way, religion will be eliminated. They claim this will be for the universal good because they believe that religion poses the greatest danger to world peace today. But more realistic atheists and agnostics, who recognise that God is too powerful a concept for people to give up, are instead trying to recreate him in their own liberal image so that ‘tolerance’ becomes the god of all religions. In this way, each religion’s own understanding of God will no longer be so unique that it’s worth fighting for, and consequently all religions will be emasculated and their attraction undermined.

This seems to be the secret campaign behind Robert Wright’s book. And to give the idea a veneer of scientific respectability, Wright has called his book ‘The Evolution of God’. Of course, to the so-called ‘fundamentalists’ who oppose his views, the word ‘evolution’ will be a red rag to a bull. But bending evolution to his cause will give Wright’s book an appeal to those more liberal believers who have already compromised their religion by accepting evolution instead of their own creation doctrines.

Indeed, it won praise in a Sunday Times’ review (10 May) by Andrew Sullivan, a liberal Christian: “My own view, as a struggling and doubting person of faith, is that truth matters in whatever mode we find it — but ultimate truth, because we are not ultimate beings, will always elude us. The search for this truth is the point, illuminated in my own faith by Jesus… Our consciousness asks questions to which there will never be a complete answer… And the challenge of our time is… a humble openness to history and science and revelation in the journey of faith… if we are to survive this era of technology with the potential of mass destruction, if we are to endure past the darkness of the Taliban and the religious right, this process of religious reform is not an option. It is a necessity.”

Note Sullivan’s readiness to equate the “religious right”, by which he means Bible-believing Christians, with the Taliban. In that respect, he’s already fallen for the atheist propaganda that sees all fervent believers – as opposed to “doubting persons” –as a bad thing, regardless of whether one group (fundamentalist Islam) promotes violence and the other (Bible believers) denounces it.

Then note Sullivan’s belief that ultimate truth will always elude us, in contrast to the uncompromising words of the Jesus he claims to be illuminated by: “I am the truth. No one comes to the Father except by me.” Note too his readiness to accept “history and science” as well as revelation in his “journey of faith” – as if God’s revelation in the Bible were not enough. In contrast, the Bible claims that all we need for salvation and truth is revealed by God in its pages – and condemns anyone who would seek to add to it.

But liberal Christians like Sullivan have already made themselves vulnerable to Wright’s kind of “religious reform” by losing faith in the authority of the Bible, so it’s not surprising that they should go along with his ideas. In fact, Sullivan is exactly the sort of believer that Wright aims to attract to his ultimately secularist cause. But Wright waits till nearly half way through his book to reveal the real aim of his argument: "Today globalisation has made the planet too small to peacefully accommodate large religions that are at odds. If the Abrahamic God—the God of Jews and the God of Christians and the God of Muslims—doesn't foster tolerance, then we're all in trouble. We need a god whose sympathies correspond to the scale of social organisation, the global scale" (p. 205).

Just like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris, Wright believes that loyal Jews, Christians and Muslims threaten world peace because their religions give them non-negotiable beliefs. As another reviewer, Dr Benjamin Wiker, explains, “Rather than eliminate these intractable religions, Wright engages in a grand strategy of co-opting all three by vacuuming them up into a larger, comprehensive evolutionary-historical argument, wherein their particularities are magically being transformed into a deity he can countenance—[which is] more or less, Wright himself writ large, a god of universal niceness whose one command is ‘Thou shalt be tolerant of all gods before me, or no gods, or anything in between. Or whatever. Just don't fight.’ “This isn't a real god, as Wright himself admits: ‘The god I've been describing is a god in quotation marks, a god that exists in people's heads.’”

And how should this new god of tolerance be imposed on the world? Well, ironically for a liberal, Wright suggests what can only be described as a totalitarian route: moving from national to international rule. In the interests of world peace, there must be a universal world government that promotes Wright’s new type of monotheism. As Wiker says, Wright’s philosophy is: “One government, one god, and his name is Tolerance… It is wishful thinking of the worst kind: ‘I wish God would go away, but since he won't, let's at least make him useful.’”

But if history and evolution are moving human beings inexorably towards this goal of one ‘god’ of niceness, as Wright claims, why does he need to argue for it? Why not just sit back and let it evolve? Maybe because it’s not happening – human morality is not evolving towards niceness, and Wright needs to persuade us to accept a one-world government to impose this tolerance on all of us (by force if necessary, one assumes). But we have already seen what happens when a global movement to make everybody conform to the same beliefs tries to impose those beliefs by political power – it was called Communism. And not only did it not defeat religion, it moved morally backwards, not forwards. It was responsible for the most un-nice, intolerant, human rights abuses in human history.

Using implausible Darwinian theory as scant cover, Wright basically argues for a political solution to a religious problem. And just as natural selection kills off those unfit for the environment, so Wright’s so-called tolerant utopia will weed out the religious misfits who happen to disagree with him.

Haven’t we heard all this before somewhere? Well, yes. It’s all written in the Book of Revelation in the Bible, where an anti-Christ sets up a one-world government by deceiving the inhabitants of the earth. This anti-Christ will allow only one religion and “cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed” (13:15).

Those, like Wright, who try to hasten the arrival of a ‘new world order’ in the name of peace will find it only ushers in this most terrible dictator of all.

Thankfully, the return of Christ himself will end the reign of this ultimate tyrant, and reveal the Truth in all his glory.
Andrew Halloway www.christianeditor.co.uk

Evolution and cartoons

Apparently children's cartoons, such as The Flintstones and Barney and Friends, are the reason why they do not accept evolution. This is according to James Williams who is a lecturer in education at the University of Sussex.

There is some irony that secular evolutionists are very happy to use iconography when in suits the cause, and only object when harmless cartoons hinder that cause. Sir Ambrose Fleming was complaining about the Illustrated News back in the 1920s and 1930s, which for instance turned a pig's tooth from Nebraska into our ancestor. Perhaps the reason many are sceptical of Darwinism is because of an apparent catalogue of abuse in science that keeps generating failed icons, thus forming a pattern from Bathybius to Piltdown Man to Microraptor. I would suggest that if science is disneyfied it is solely the work of the Darwinists.

One lesson from some Christian parents' experience of trying to ban popular cartoons from children is that it is often counter productive. If Dr Williams wishes to ban Barney and Friends from children, I can assure him that those children will not love or accept evolution more.
Evolution of confusion: Pupils take dinosaur fiction for fact - Academic says failure to teach young children scientific truth plays into creationists’ hands, TES, 3rd July 09

Peppered moths back to form

The Daily Mail is reporting that the peppered moth, Biston betularia is now reverting back to its light form because of improvements to the environment. Of course this story is presented as evidence of evolution, but in reality it is just a change in the ratio of the numbers of the light and dark form. In other words, evidence of natural selection on pre existing genetic material, not an example of evolution at work.

The Daily Mail account can be read here

Other factors may also be involved. Judith Hooper's book 'Of Moths and Men' provided some interesting discussion about environmental factors that may change the moths colouration during the caterpillar stage.

Intelligent Design in the Telegraph

An interesting article has recently appeared in the Daily Telegraph about 'biomimicry' - 8th June 2009 by Sanjida O'Connell.

Telegraph - Biomimicry: why the world is full of intelligent design

The Gecko for instance has specially adapted feet for climbing, technology that has been put to good use by the Pentagon.

Are animal experiments about to end?

Those concerned about experimentation on living animals may find the following news encouraging. According to The Times advances in science mean that new drugs will soon be able to be tested on virtual computer systems, and on cultures of cells. Read the news story at the following link.
Sam Lister at The Times - Animals experiments could end in a generation
Andrew Sibley

The 'fiasco' of Ida. Has the BBC helped deminish science?

The repercussions over Ida continue. Although I have as yet only seen the first few minutes of the BBC programme about Ida, a telling statement by Attenborough raises concern about the way the science behind Ida is being conducted. Attenborough commented that scientists had been working in secret, but are now going public in a big way on how important this find is, that is before peer review has even begun in a meaningful way. Brian Switek writes as follows.

" If Ida does turn out be more closely related to lemurs than to humans, creationists may use the hype to paint evolutionary scientists as glory hounds who care more about publicity than accuracy. Ida would not be an “icon of evolution”, as Dr Hurum hopes, but a public embarrassment that creationists would surely use to sow further doubt about evolution. Likening Ida to the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark only compounds the problem; creationists will undoubtedly argue that these metaphors reveal that evolution is a religion with its own holy relics.

What could have been a unique opportunity to communicate science has quickly developed into a fiasco. Science proceeds through discovery and debate, and hypotheses do not become accepted by flooding the media with press releases. Scientific scrutiny of Ida has only just begun, and regardless of who her closest living relatives are, I hope the debate surrounding her will not sink away from sight. She truly is an amazing find, but for now I think that she has taught us more about science communication than our ancestry."

See: The dangerous link between science and hype - Brian Switek - The Times

See also
Origin of the Specious - Ida the fossil was hailed as the ‘missing link’ in our evolution. Don’t believe the hype - Leake and Harlow - The Times

The following was place on the Uncommondescent blog a few days ago.
Ida the Lemur and media manipulation

Ida the Lemur-like creature, has had some high praise from leading Darwinists. David Attenborough announced with confidence that the missing link ‘is no longer missing,’ but the way the evidence has been presented and handled has raised questions about media manipulation, especially from the London Times science correspondent Mark Henderson; he seems quite miffed.

More on Ida; overblown claims and a worrying precedent

Mark Henderson reports that doubts have arisen now that others have finally been given access to the fossil and suggests that Ida is related to ‘nothing that exists today.’ Although Ida is an important fossil, he writes that ‘she isn’t all that’ and complains that the researchers haven’t provided sufficient evidence to justify their claims. He argues that this is…

‘…especially serious given the publicity blitz behind Ida…a popular book, a documentary, a website and an exhibition have been launched on the back of this find, before it has received full scientific scrutiny.’

Henderson comments that the researchers appear to have rushed their work ‘to fit with the media schedule.’ Rights were sold to some media outlets, including the BBC, and this has shaped the way the evidence has been conducted and presented. Science journalists without that privileged access to data were given insufficient time to properly evaluate the story. Henderson writes;

‘Is it really right that full embargoed access to important and controversial research findings should be restricted on the say-so of the authors, to media that best suit their publicity strategy? Especially when money has changed hands?’

Henderson ends by correcting a previous statement;

‘there was an unfortunate error in the graphic accompanying my piece in the paper. An early draft was printed by mistake. Darwinius masillae is not a direct ancestor of both lemurs/lorises and apes/monkeys. It seems to lie on the ape/monkey branch, after the last common ancestor of both groups, and it may well be a direct ancestor of nothing at all that exists today.’ (emphasis added)