Kathleen

For Chris’s information, Mr. Behe’s theories which you mentioned have been discredited by true scientists, and the notion the irreducible complexity somehow refutes the theory of evolution has also been debunked.

What confuses so many about science is that, unlike religion, it is not, nor does it claim to be a complete story or world view. It is the pursuit of knowledge, fact, and the organization of that knowledge into explanatory models. It has been hugely useful in improving our lives. It is the most reliable source of fact. It is not a religion not should it be confused with it.

Fundamentalism is an intellectual corruption which confuses faith with fact. It has poor consequences especially when it deceives its adherents into thinking they have absolute truth.

Within the church, at least the organized church, I would guess that the thinking is about 50/50 – with Christian evolutionists likely being the majority. I have scores of friends who feel otherwise. There are plenty of Christian evolutionists and they have their theories on reconciling scripture with evolution: the Gap Theory, Genesis’ use of Hebraic Poetry and Theistic Evolution to name a few. There are also many, many well known “old-earth” believers who are very well respected in their fields, Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project is one off the top of my head.

In the end grace rules. However, grace, as Paul continually argues, does not mean we just throw caution and reason to the wind. We are called to think – even if we do not end up at perfect consensus, the one who seeks will find. Ultimately, only God is able to judge and know man’s heart. He will divide accurately and He will do so based on our own understanding (see Luke 12 47-48). That is to say if evolution is indeed not true, it won’t be that one who believed its tenants but the one who uses those tenants as fuel for defiance towards God’s will who will be in danger.

Let me close by saying that my personal conviction is that there are severe cultural and spiritual consequences to adapting evolutionary thinking, but that if one chooses to do so it is their choice. My issue is that there is now a very large push in public policy to mandate the view and to punish those who dissent, that scares me.

Chris, get your own blog. Just kidding, I appreciate your very long and thoughtful comment and will have to repost that at some point as a regular post. I get your point–in some ways, it’s like if you remotely smell like a Christian thinker, you are immediately dismissed no matter the value of your critical thoughts. I would venture to guess that if Ben Carson were an atheist evolutionist, he would suddenly be qualified to speak on evolutionary theory.

Let me start by saying that your argument is very typical. I cannot count how many times I have seen, in articles, forums and commentaries this method of reasoning. Last I saw, I was at a liberal news site where the reporter had done, what seemed to me, a decent investigation and short write up about separation of church and state (which, while we’re on the subject, we all know is not in the US Constitution, right? see the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the first amendment for what is there – Nancy I know you know this, being a lawyer and all ;-). A reader told the reporter, rather smugly, they were not qualified to have an opinion on the US Constitution because the writer’s degree was in humanities(MS) and not constitutional law. Of course, the commentator also had no degree in constitutional law and so had no way, by his own argument, to qualify the writer’s assertions. In the bigger picture, this way of thinking tells one to do no such thing as to think for oneself. Further, it is a disservice to critical thinking, investigative reasoning and the general fruits of civil debate, and in the end adds to one’s own bias and ignorance as we may never question the authorities who feed us ideas – only listen to them.

Bill Maher, a comedian and adamant atheist, is he a scientist? No, and so by your own argument I can completely disregard his input and comments. At the same time, Ben Carson has extensively studied and mastered biology, chemistry, human anatomy and more from the brightest minds in medical science; however in your perspective that’s not enough to qualify him as a true scientist. Even so, by using your own method of reasoning, which argues we are just supposed to listen to “experts,” then it’s clearly Ben Carson over Bill Maher. In the end, we just end up trying to establish who is “more of an expert.” In this case the answer is clear, but it’s just a dangerous endless cycle that hinges on who is called the ultimate expert – a frightening position for anyone but God.

One may go on to argue that, well Bill Maher is talking about facts from “real scientists,” you know experts in the field of evolution. Could it be possible that Bill Maher has listened to more “real” evolutionary scientists in his lifetime than Ben Carson? Please. Ben Carson has undoubtedly logged, by thousands fold, more hours listening to lectures, studying books, reading peer reviews and just generally living his life in the field of medicine at the nation’s top universities, hospitals and academic circles. How could Bill Maher’s comedy, film/TV background out-qualify Ben Carson on statements of evolutionary thought? Again, this does not mean Ben Carson is the “ultimate expert” but I do take his thoughts with a good deal of respect and am not afraid to analyze them as possibilities inside my own frameworks.

I call this method of silencing skeptics the “never mind thinking, the experts say so” argument. It is a typical academic mode of operation wherein only “true experts” are qualified to think. The problem is that the academics define who is an “expert” and expect everyone to just mindlessly follow these demigods. Of course the similar to me effect is in full force when said academics qualify these “experts” (see Expelled: The Movie). They want us to shut-up, close our minds and be assimilated to godless thought. Should dare someone speak in opposition they are labeled a “non-expert” (again see Expelled: The Movie), or in the case of your argument not “sciency” enough… :) In the end they try to disqualify them from academic circles, so they can silence any dissent. This is called mind control.

Secondly, can Bill Maher back up his claim? Show me the signed petition of every scientist in the world stating there is consensus on Darwinism as true and accurate in every respect. When we shut our minds to reason and critique we become dangerous little puppets. Last time I checked there are thousands of PhD’d scientists from top universities and institutions around the world who have books, videos and research papers critical to evolutionary theory. In my own layman studies I have listened to lectures, read books and seen videos from PhDs from Stanford, NASA, Brown, Cornell and other top institutions, and that’s only off the top of my head and in my limited experience. You simply cannot tell me that “every scientist” thinks the same on this matter and get me to stop investigating, which is what people like Bill Maher, Al Gore and Richard Dawkins would really like – just take the blue pill, Neo. Maybe it’s the ignorance of those like Bill Maher who have shut their minds to any critical thinking of their own beliefs who are truly “uneducated.”

In the end, evolution lacks a lot of evidence, many are skeptical of that fact and are investigating alternative theories. Is this so wrong as to label people ignorant? Just because they are proposing alternative ideas? Is that just so amazingly dangerous? Is the wall of evidence for evolution so enormous that one cannot question it in any way? One need only look to the fossil record and/or laws of probability to answer that question. Sadly, most of those who side with the likes of someone like Bill Maher have never even watched a single Discovery Institute video, I recommend Unlocking The Mystery of Life – buy it here. Nor have they, in most situations, read a book like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. At the same time, the so called ignorants have been awash in evolutionary indoctrination of every kind their entire lives through media, education and secular culture. Take the red pill, Neo.

He is one of the 60% of Americans who don’t believe in evolution. Bill Maher put it well in comments on cnn.com today (2/13/09): “Yes, people disagree (on evolutionary theories). Scientists don’t disagree on evolution. There’s a consensus among scientists…”

So Dr. Carson’s disbelief of evolution is well within the mainstream of non-scientific Americans, but completely outside the mainstream of science. An accountant or a security guard or any other American who doesn’t work in a science field could just as easily be held up as an example of this belief. Dr. Carson is just more prominent and accomplished in his non-science field than these others — this doesn’t give him any special status for us to believe that his views on evolution are more credible than those of other non-scientific Americans.

Mandi, I was often thinking of “Expelled” as I researched this piece.

Elizabeth, of course you may link. Thanks so much for stopping by!