A Christian Conservative Goes to College, part 4 (“The man does not even believe in evolution.”)
“I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and [it can explain] the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”[1]
“I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and [it can explain] the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”[1]
It was in English 102, near the end of my second semester, that the following conversation occurred. It was a class where we did a lot of talking… and most of it had nothing to do with English (except, of course, most of us were speaking it to some degree or another). The old professor—I’ll call her Mrs. Sabbatical—never really taught us anything. I think the class was, for her, a means of entertainment; it was her main social life. She would sit up front, not move from her desk, not write a thing on the board, and she would tell us all about her day. She would tell us about getting her husband “Poppy” from the old folk’s home and taking him to “Hooters” which seemed to make him happy. This is what occurred in each class. And, as far as I know, she is still “teaching” at the school. After all, at the end of the semester the students get the anonymous rate the teacher forms: “Would you take another class with this professor?” Oh yes they would. And they also recommend her to all their friends: “Do you have to take English? Make sure you get Mrs. Sabbatical. You won’t have to do anything in that class and you’ll get an A.” Anyway, one day Mrs. Sabbatical brought in the movie Oedipus Rex and put it on for the class to watch. The sleeping and the conversations thus commenced. And this is where our story begins.
A conversation ensured between the pretty woman behind me and a studious girl next to me. (By the way, the two are not always mutually exclusive, so do not read too deeply into my comment.) I was half watching Oedipus 1957 and half listening to the girls talking. At some point the Miss Pretty[2] said that she hoped the next president (after GWB) would not be a Republican. “Everyone is sick of Bush,” she said. She went on with the usual ad-hominem attacks of GWB saying he was an idiot and a moron. As if to prove her point she then said, “The man does not even believe in evolution.”
Cue Steve Drain’s undivided attention and cue his full entrance into the conversation: “I don’t believe in evolution, either,” I said. (The opening of this can of worms reminds me of a scene in the homage-to-high-school movie, The Breakfast Club, when Brian, the brainiac student, waxing eloquent about classes and grades said, “Have you seen some of the dopes that take Shop [Class]?”
“I take Shop” replied Bender, the criminal student. And it was on…)
So I said to her, “You know there’s a reason it’s called a theory.”[3]
“Hello,” she said, with the most sincere sarcasm. “There’s not any doubt. It’s not like the jury is out on this one. The Scopes Trial was a long time ago.”
So I asked her about fossil records, about transitional species, about how entropy worked, etc. Certainly I am not an expert in science, but I know there are questions and holes in the theory of evolution. I could have gotten into the idea that science is based upon improvable assumptions or presuppositions, things like materialism and uniformitarianism. In other words, like all systems, it is a faith-based system at its very foundation. We Christians admit that we have faith. The scientists avoid talking about their faith. They tell us their faith is fact, until it is proven otherwise; yet they say that Christian faith is blind faith.
“Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight” (Isaiah 5:21, NASB).
“Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what wisdom do they really have?” (Jeremiah 8:9).
Still, my argument with this woman consisted mostly in asking questions. I consider this a good approach since it is less antagonistic and more conversational; it allows the other person to do a lot of the talking, while allowing me to, perhaps, let reasonable doubt arise in the other’s mind.
I asked her whether or not she adhered to a belief in materialism. She wasn’t sure what I was talking about. She might have thought that I was asking whether she was “materialistic,” a person that was in to stuff, but when I explained it as materialism the philosophy she then said that was, in fact, what she believed. “People are just another species of animal,” she said. (Sounds like she’d taken Biology.)
Miss Studious (the girl beside me) jumped into the conversation for a second: “Our pinky fingers used to be longer than they are now.” (So they’d both taken Biology.)
“Yeah,” said Miss Pretty, “and humans are taller than we used to be. We have a coccyx bone where our tails used to be. And what is our appendix for?”
She believed that all that exists is the material world, physical matter.
I should have asked her—“Are thoughts physical matter?” I once annoyed my agnostic-evolutionist friend, Nate, by asking him this same question. As he was making his pro-evolution argument talking about methodological naturalism, about the scientific method and how “it works,” etc., I said to him, “Do me a favor and don’t talk for a few seconds. Think about what you’re going to say next.”
“OK,” he said and paused. (Nice of him.)
A moment later I asked, “Did you do it?”
“Yeah.”
“You were thinking?”
“Yeah.”
“Did that thought exist?”
“What?”
“Did your thought exist? Was it a real thing?”
“What’s the question?”
“You had a thought. But it was not physical, correct? Could you taste, touch, see, smell, or hear your thought? Did I just prove to you that something outside of the physical exists, something that cannot be proven by methodological naturalism or by experimentation,[4] or the five senses; yet you know it exists? Do you think that it’s very possible that God has provided us at every moment of our lives, proof that the supernatural exists? That we, us, ourselves, our very thoughts are, very possibly, supernatural, or outside of nature, outside of the physical? They cannot be measured. They cannot be duplicated in a lab by experimentation. Yet you know by intuition that they exist…”
“That’s ridiculous.”
“I don’t know. Sounds like this might simply underscore what Paul wrote in Romans chapter one….”
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-22).
Note: I realize there are Christian believers who believe evolution and the Genesis account can fit together. I have made no definite statement about that here. I have simply brought forth some questions that exist about the theory of evolution. And while Christians who are scientists may use methodological naturalism, there, obviously, can be no Christians who actually believe in naturalism or materialism as a philosophy, since Christianity and materialism are mutually exclusive.
[1] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, © renewed 1976, published by HarperCollins, page 140.
[2] Not her actual name… 😉
[3] Yeah, I know, I know. Scientific theory is much, much more than a theory (as the scientists and professors and textbooks will tell us). “It’s the truth as far as we know it until it is improved upon or proven wrong by further scientific evidence.” In other words, “We say it’s true until we say something else is true. Of course, whether it’s true or not always depends on us…” It’s the high priesthood of Science. (Cue Gregorian Chants.)
[4] Provable to Science, if I am not mistaken, means that it can be duplicated by experimentation… Thus, again if I am not mistaken, even historic events like the Battle of the Bulge, for example, cannot be measured by Science. Did it exist? Did it happen? Without a doubt. But Science, here, can tell us nothing. Thus Science fails to account for reality as a whole. In his essay Is Theology Poetry, quoted at the opening of this blog, C.S. Lewis said that Theology can allow Science in, but Science, on the other hand, cannot fit in Christianity. In fact, he believes scientific cosmology cannot even allow Science itself in…. but you will have to read it for yourself to understand why he says this. Enjoy!
J Drain
"Rescued, ransomed, and saved because of the love of God the Father, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, thanks to faithful preachers and teachers of the Word, attained by the perfect life and merit of Jesus the Messiah, His substitutionary death and physical resurrection from the dead. Completely undeserved and gifted to me." The author would label himself a Christ follower, an Evangelical Christian with strong Reformed beliefs. He loves discussing and debating the two "taboo" subjects: Politics and Religion. He tries to read and listen to a minimum of fifty books a year and realizes that no matter what topic or genre, whether Bible, theology, Christianity, history, biography, philosophy, political, social commentary, pop-culture, or even fiction, they all tie together in the spider's web of worldview. His favorite authors are C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, James R. White, Gregory Koukl, R.C. Sproul, J. Gresham Machen, G.K. Chesterton, J. Budziszewski, and Peter Kreeft. He loves Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and Dwight L. Moody. He enjoys watching the YouTube channels of John Cooper at Cooper Stuff, Doug Wilson at Blog and Mablog, Alisa Childers, Allen Parr at The Beat, and Melissa Dougherty. His hobbies are generally reading and writing, music, hiking, and laughing. He has been writing songs/lyrics since the age of eight and has played in a few Christian Rock bands. He has written poetry, several biblical studies over the past decades, and has one finished book manuscript entitled, “Shaken Faith: When God Has Let You Down”. He has also written for the now defunct Examiner website as the Philadelphia Christian Perspectives Examiner. He wishes he could write some fiction.
9 Comments
Elliott
Pearls before swine
I loved your story of serving as a Christian apologist. Make sure Christ guides your speech and has your back.
Matthew 20:6: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
I look forward to following your adventures in the Wonderland of postmodern higher eduation. Our higher education is to the common good as higher criticism is to the person of Christ.
nate629
0o
i suppose we can continue this discussion but you really do need a better understanding of the Theory of Evolution before you dismiss it. it explains life as we "see" it "best" at this point. btw, how about gravity…i found this post [ http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p67.htm%5D to be quite amusing, and similar to things you believe about the Theory of Evolution. you really should read it…but i'm quite sure you won't. like the following:
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
lol…anyway, i suppose that all i really want to ask is why you suspect there to be more than a naturalist does? there is absolutely zero evidence for the supernatural, but yet you maintain w/ absolute certainty that it exists. But you don't stop there. then you maintain [w/ absolute certainty] that your particular supernatural entity is the only "true" one, and the creator of everything. despite any flaws that you may find w/ scientific theories, they represent our best empirical understanding of the world around us. they are based on physical evidence, not abstract thought. this is necessarily from a subjective human perspective which then negates objective "absolute" certainty, but so it must be.i know that makes you uncomfortable, but that's a fact jack, so i see no need in discussing it as it applies to us all…that's scientific "theories", and religious "theologies". I choose to accept the one that best fits what i can observe for basing my worldview on. you choose to pick one that you cannot observe, and that there remains no physical evidence for. explain that.
btw, i'm not sure why you think thoughts represent some higher plane of being. i'm fairly certain they can be quantified as electrical pulses if that makes you feel any better. i really don't find it to be important.
notiaz
The thought was a physical
The thought was a physical thing. Do you think it was unexplainable magic? It was composed of, probably, the effect of a lot of biological components and energies. It existed and prompted other existing parts of you body. Stop trying to fool intelligent people because you have an imaginary Dad. You are the scum of humanity.
Lance Ponder
God Created Natural Law
God created the heavens and the earth. In the totality of everything that includes natural law as well as moral law. God created more than life or theology. As the author of natural law, it stands to reason that searching to know creation would lead us utlimately to the Creator. To believe creation is the product of luck or chance, that organization comes from chaos on its own, that gravity came to be out of nothing, is to believe in the ether of human intelligence alone. Such human arrogance does not anger me, it causes me to pity the blind in the faith in the blind watchmaker we romanticize as Lady Chance.
Stephen J. Drain
Response from the Scum of Humanity
Dear Notiaz,
You write, "The thought was a physical thing."
So if thoughts are physical things, they have physical causes correct? Thus they are solely based upon chemicals and electrical impulses, what you ate for breakfast, environment, and a hundred, thousand, million, billion causes prior to that. If this is true, your belief in evolution, or in no Daddy in the sky, is just as valid as mine. Neither is right and neither is wrong. It is as though I coughed and you sneezed and you said my cough was ridiculous but your sneeze has validity. The causes and pathways that led to my caused thoughts are simply different than the causes and pathways that caused yours. In the purely materialistic worldview there can be no right or wrong thought or idea.
As C.S. Lewis would say, "Such was the origin of [Notiaz's comment]. What we should speak of as his 'thoughts' were merely the last link of a causal chain in which all the previous links were irrational. He spoke as he did because the matter of his brain was behaving a certain way and the whole history of the universe up to that moment had forced it to behave in that way. What we called his thought was essentially a phenomenon of the same sort as his other secretions" (from his essay entitled "Religion Without Dogma?").
Secondly, why the hostility? Is it a hatred for Creationists, Theists, Christians, or all of the above?
Stephen J. Drain
Response to Nate
Well Nate, as you know, most Christians do not doubt gravity, since we see and experience it every day. We do not doubt that "it explains life as we 'see' it 'best' at this point." What most Creationists and Christians do not see is evidence of evolution here at this moment… and the more scientific minded might say, "You cannot say that anything you observe now can be extrapolated to several hundred million years ago. THAT is unobservable and thus would be faith-based."
You write, "There is absolutely zero evidence for the supernatural…" I think my column above suggested one possible proof. You would also discount all attestations of the miraculous from ancient documents from all sources past… as well as any purported miraculous events now. IF they were real, then you have discarded them out of hand based upon a presupposition.
You write, "But you don't stop there. then you maintain [w/ absolute certainty] that your particular supernatural entity is the only "true" one, and the creator of everything." I think it would be difficult for anyone to say they knew anything with absolute certainty. You can't accuse me of having absolute certainty and in having faith. That wouldn't make sense. I admit I have faith. Of course, I think what I believe is plausible, that it can stand up philosophically, and that it is the best explanation to everything we see and to many of the questions we all have about life. As Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
You write, "despite any flaws that you may find w/ scientific theories, they represent our best empirical understanding of the world around us. they are based on physical evidence…"
Empirical defined as "derived from or guided by experience or experiment" but as this column posited, you know you think, but it is not empirical. Thus the flaw in the system.
You write, "this is necessarily from a subjective human perspective which then negates objective "absolute" certainty, but so it must be." No problem here. Scientific observations are subjective. There is a degree of faith involved. Christian belief also involves faith. So we have two worldviews based on faith. So your next thing will be to say, "But our works!" Sure it does, when Science works on curing a disease or sending man into space. Accusing Christians of having a problem with this is simply a straw man.
You write, "I choose to accept the one that best fits what i can observe for basing my worldview on. you choose to pick one that you cannot observe, and that there remains no physical evidence for. explain that." Not many will see what you just did, but you just tried to force me/Christians into your framework by telling us to prove something to you by physical evidence. "Physical evidence alone" is your framework/worldview/assumption not ours. We believe there are proofs beyond… Thus the whole premise of the "thought" part of this column. (More on this in a moment.) But stop with that argument. It's like a person living in a one dimensional world asking someone to prove three dimensions; how can it happen until you enter the three dimensional world?
I also choose to accept the belief system that best fits what I observe: I observe, without and within, humanity's questioning "why?" which Science cannot answer, but Theology can. I see, without and within, the evil and the good, which does not exist in Scientific cosmology; yet Theology does not deny them. I THINK (have thoughts), and I suspect that you do as well, but materialistic Science cannot make this anything but a biological by-product; thus Science destroys its own foundation. I see beauty and artistry in the world and I give thanks and praise to the Maker of it all, but Science does not.
So we have both chosen to have faith in something… since you have said its all subjective and can never be proven to be absolute. So then we stand on equal ground, correct?
"No," you will say, "I stand where we see evidence…" but only subjective faith-based evidence. Since there are no absolutes, you choose to believe something that cannot possibly be 100% correct, in fact, it may be incorrect… but you'll roll with it. Ok, I understant that. But I think Science stands there covering it's "ears" shouting "I can't hear you, God!"
You start with an assumption that only the Scientific Method offers proof. But how can you prove that the Scientific Method is the only method of proof. You can't. You begin there. If you try to prove the Scientific Method by the Scientific Method you have nothing but circular reasoning. Whereas we Christians accept the Scientific Method as being one method, "intuition" another (for lack of a better word-see Romans 1:19 and Romans 2:15 for instance), revelation as being another…
All for now my agnostic brother.
nate629
Reply
wow…
to start, the scientific method offers objectivity. there is no objecftivity in "revelation". one can claim whatever one wants and there is no way to refute it. in otherwords, "revelation" is everything, and thusly nothing. btw, if you can come up w/ a more objective way of "knowing" than the scientific method, please do, the nobel prize would be yours for certain.
before we move forward let's discuss "objectivity". when i pointed out that all our observations necessarily come from a subjective "human" perspective, the intention was to point out that there is no way of knowing anything absolutely, or even objectively for that matter. there is a built in subjectivity that goes along w/ the human condition. for the sake of discussion it's important that we take human observations as valid, despite the fact that they cannot be proven absolutely valid. i will never make an absolute claim[because of the human condition], but i will claim w/ certainty from the human perspective.
we definitely do not "stand on equal ground", as you put it, w/ respect to faith. since i am really not concerned w/ absolutes, i don't need faith. some people live life under the assumption that what they perceive through their senses is absolute reality. of course, this is wrong, and would require faith. a simple illustration is that the sky is not absolutely blue. i live w/ the awareness that my senses are subjective. w/in this "framework of subjectivity" absolute statements can be made, but they cannot be adequately defended outside of the framework. arguments that bring us outside of this framework seem a bit ridiculous however. theories like, we could all just be part of "the matrix". nonetheless, it remains impossible to invalidate that hypothesis. science does a fine job of understanding the physical world around us. one proof of this? the progress. if our observations were not valid[despite their subjective nature], could we cure disease w/ medication, perform surgeries, build towers, boats, airplanes, or send people into outter space? it seems that a human understanding of our environment ain't so bad after all. our senses evolved so that we could survie in our environment, not so that we could identify the absolute nature of it. scientific methodologies help to nullify the subjectivity of our senses, and give us a glimpse into objective reality. i don't see how this requires faith.
how is it that you think there is valid evidence besides physical? are you speaking of circumstantial? I'll accept circumstantial as valid, but technically it's also based on physical evidence anyway. oh, that's right, "revelation". please do explain how "revelation" is somehow a logical means of evidence. would you like our justice system to start accepting it as so?
but you do seem to have absolute certainty AND faith. you have faith that your conception of god exists. you are certain that your conception of god is the
"true" one. if not, you're in even more of a pickle. either way, because you have "faith" it is wrong of you to talk about the absolute nature of anything. it is also wrong of you to impose these faith based beliefs of yours on others through legislation. this is precisely why there is a seperation of church and state. it's freedom from religion too, not just of. you might relize that better if you weren't part of the majority.
as far as thoughts go, i don't see the relevance. they can be quantified as chemical reactions and electrical impulses. your vision can also be quantified as light rays being refracted and the millions of impulses read by your brain. this hardly describes what it is like to see. thoughts are electrical impulses and chemical reactions, but that doesn't mean that is what it is like to think. you'd be remiss to talk much more about what a thought is or isn't anyway. the brain remains quite a mystery to neuroscientists, let alone layman. it's funny how you would ask me to explain a "thought", knowing full well that i am not an expert in that area, and then take that as some sort of validation for your beliefs. you are doing exactly what you do w/ evolution. there is plenty of published material that answers your questions, you just don't care to read it. seems a bit disingenuous to me. all this aside, why would you care anyway? as a calvinist, you can't even argue out of the "hole" that you attempted to dig for me.
the reason you accept gravity w/o studying it isn't really important. you are accepting a theory which you are ignorant of, because it seems to you to be quite obviously correct. really, that's a bad reason to accept anything…but. evolution is a theory too, you are just ignorant to the specifics of it. if you were not, i'm quite certain you would accept it as I do. i realize the Theory of Evolution interferes w/ some of your biases, and that the Theory of Gravity does not, but that's no reason to favor one and not the other. educate yourself, it's a more logical way to arrive at a decision than "faith"…which by definition is quite illogical. especially when you are rejecting a scientific theory that has volumes of evidence supporting it, based on your narrow interpretation of scriptures which you readily admit could be incorrect. talk about logic again…
probably more i should have addressed, but i'm tired of writing now. cheers
oh, quickly. the Theory of Evolution is not based on extrapolation. evolution does not proceed "clean" enough for that. how is it that you think anyone is extrapolating backwards anyway, when they are in reality collecting physical evidence.
nate629
Response to Lance
"lady chance" has nothing to do w/ it. one would think that the term "natural selection" might allude to this very point. it seems to me that "selection" and "chance" are nearly antonyms. the "chance" part of the Theory of Evolution only applies to variation on the genetic lvl. should you find the time to actually understand the Theory of Evolution before you criticize it, you won't sound so ignorant.
perhaps actually read the blind watchmaker. dawkins is quite an eloquent author btw, and very good at making complex scientific ideas accessible to the layperson. you might learn something, or does that frighten you?
Lance Ponder
Dear Nate
First, I am sufficiently familiar with Richard Dawkins. Eloquence does equal truth. Eloquent people are wrong about certain things just as blunt people are. Fear not him who can kill the body but fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell.
Second, natural selection is a mechanism of conservation of existing order, not morphism into new order. Natural selection best describes the way nature abhors the biological error. Mutations, even "beneficial" are generally rejected by nature. Darwin popularized this notion of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution and it has held sway ever since, yet his appropriation of the term was an error of such profound order that I stand in amazement at the forocity with which Darwinists hold onto it.
You make it clear that I am ignorant in your view, but what you say against me says more about you than it does about me. God loves you. Turn to him and repent of your sins and be forgiven. Eternal life awaits. Believe.