Recently in Weekly Feature Category

Recently BioLogos' Karl Giberson was interviewed by Marcio Campos for the Brazilian newspaper Gazeta do Povo's Tubo De Ensaio (i.e. "Test tube") section. What follows is a translated transcript of that interview, which we will be posting in three installments. Here is the first.

Campos: Starting on more of a lighter note, when I read the subtitle "How to be a Christian and believe in Evolution," I remembered an article by Pepperdine professor Douglas Swartzendruber, published last July, saying that we don't "believe" in evolution the way we "believe" in God, angels or Santa Claus. Yet that's how people are asked in polls: "do you believe in evolution?" I'd like you to comment on this choice of words. Has evolution become a "belief"?

Giberson: Your question spotlights a significant issue in this whole controversy--what do people think the words we are using really mean? Many people think "evolution" means "an atheistic story of origins." If you ask a religious person do they believe in evolution, many thus feel bound to respond "Of course not."

There are two senses of the word "believe" that I think are relevant here. In the literal sense, "believe" can simply mean to "accept as true." We all "believe" that 2 plus 2 is 4. This bland sense of belief would apply, I think, even to people who believe in God but for whom that belief has no consequences. My guess would be that many deists believe in God like they believe in the laws of physics--something "out there" that exists but does not really engage them at any deep level.

But there is a sense--and I am sure this is what Swartzendruber is getting at--in which "believe" carries a more substantial meaning. My "belief" in God engages me in meaningful ways that my belief in gravity does not. However--and here I might depart from Swartzendruber--I think that belief in evolution can also engage one in deeply personal ways that go beyond mere assent. My belief in evolution motivates me to reflect on how I am related to all of life; how I am embedded in the natural history of the universe; how I should treat animals; what I should think about primates; and so on. I think evolution has a sort of transforming power that can change the way one relates to the world around them--in ways that are not unlike belief in God.

Campos: A recent Pew Forum research on how Americans and scientists view evolution and the science-religion relationship says that while 31% of the general public claim that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time and 32% say they evolved over time due to natural processes, other 22% say they evolved over time "guided by a supreme being". How to analyze this last number? Is this "guided evolution" possible, or do you see this expression as a disguise for ID or similar views?

Giberson: ID is not really a particular viewpoint. Their "big tent" is so big it includes people that have very little in common: 1) interventionists who accept evolution as long as God tinkers from time to time in detectable ways; 2) young earth creationists; 3) old earth creationists; 4) and even people who don't believe in God. The most recent ID book, Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, argues that God created the first cell and then natural selection took over and did the rest--a sort of "biological deism." ID is really more of a political movement where anti-evolutionists have agreed to set aside their considerable differences and join forces to wage war on evolution. The political character of ID is becoming increasingly apparent and there are signs the movement may be dying.

"Guided evolution" is accepted by many people, especially scientifically informed Christians. It appears under different labels like "theistic evolution," "evolutionary creationism," and "BioLogos" the term we are using for our project--chosen to get out from under the negative baggage associated with the word "evolution."

The idea of God guiding evolution is actually very complex. To be meaningful, we cannot simply accept the secular story and say "God did it." We need to make some theologically sensible claim about what God is doing and how God is involved in the process.

So let me respond with a helpful anecdote. When I teach evolution to evangelical students at Eastern Nazarene College they are often uncomfortable with the idea that God might work, somewhat invisibly, "through" the laws of nature. This does not seem like the God of the Bible who speaks from burning bushes, makes Eve from Adam's rib, and rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. I always ask my students "How many of you believe that God guided you to Eastern Nazarene College?" Most of the hands go up. Then I ask "How many of you received this guidance through dramatic, supernatural interruptions of the natural course of events?" All the hands go down.

The conclusion is obvious: if God can "guide" people by working "through" the normal course of every-day events, then most certainly God can guide natural history by working through the laws of nature. This differs in one important way from all the ID positions--it does not require that God interrupt the natural course of events to "occasionally" do some of the creative work. Rather it views God as inhabiting the entire process.

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk.

This past Tuesday marked the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, undoubtedly one of the most influential books of all time. It seems there have been dozens of Darwin conferences this year commemorating not just the publication of the book, but also the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth on February 12, 1809. Most biologists, including myself, would likely consider Darwin to be the most thorough and insightful biologist in history. As a biologist, and as a Christian committed to seeking truth, I believe there is much to celebrate during this anniversary year.

On the day before the official anniversary, I was talking with a friend who had attended one of the Darwin conferences. The meeting had included some of America's most well-known experts, who weighed in on the social ramifications of the 150 year old evolution/creation debate. My friend told me that the experts at this conference had been somewhat stumped when someone in the audience asked how it could be that when faced with the enormous amount of data in support of Darwin's theory, good honest thinkers could remain young earth creationists--a line of thought so out of touch with scientific reality. I was somewhat incredulous that the experts would have been stumped by this question. Perhaps I'm the one who is naïve, but to me the answer is simple. As I see it, all it takes is a couple of one-on-one dinner conversations with a couple of articulate persons and I think you come to understand their dilemma.

I am going to discuss three people with extremely impressive academic scientific credentials who believe in a young earth. They all have something in common and, even though these three individuals know the science much better than most in our society, I think they epitomize why millions of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians refuse to blink in the face of the mass of scientific data. Since some of what I will write is based on informal conversations over a meal, I have decided not to name them. I hope you will see that I deeply respect each one of them.

I met Person A at a conference in Kansas City eleven years ago. He was the only young earth creationist in attendance and I admired his courage to stand up for what he believed to be right, even though he was the only one who thought that way. "A" obtained his Ph.D. in paleontology at the nation's most prestigious university with one of its most prestigious scholars. He knows the science very well and he knows how compelling the scientific data is. However, at this Kansas City conference he told us that no matter how strong the scientific data seemed to be, he was confident that it would eventually prove to be false. "Right now, we who hold the young earth perspective are losing," he said, but he was staking his life and career on the premise that eventually the tide would turn. His faith in the literalness of the Genesis account trumped all else. Why? He told us that all that brought him meaning was grounded in the literalness of Scripture. Change the interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, he believes, and the entire Bible disintegrates, and with that disintegration so also goes all aspects of his purpose in life. So from his perspective when the Bible and science disagree, it is science that will eventually be shown to be incomplete, not the Bible.

Person B, like "A," has extremely impressive academic credentials. He is well-trained in the field of population genetics and served as a professor in plant genetics at a university which has a long tradition of being the world leader in this discipline. He is also the inventor of a very important biotechnology tool. I had a most enjoyable dinner conversation with "B" as part of a small one day meeting we attended in Pittsburg in July, 2008. "B" told me of his journey from agnosticism/atheism to theistic evolution, to "big tent" intelligent design, until he finally ended up as a young earth creationist. "In essence," he told me, "I choose young earth creationism because it allows me to engage the Bible in a manner that results in my feeling closer to God." Like "A," he acknowledges there is overwhelming supportive data for an old earth and evolution. Like "A," he believes it will be possible to identify holes in the evolution arguments and he is working optimistically at identifying them. I loved being with "B," for reasons that had nothing to do with his science, but everything to do with his warm Christian spirit. Except for my feelings about the quality of his science, being with "B" was a wholly positive experience. "B" has ultimately decided that God speaks through scripture in ways that are literal and not figurative. If we try to force the Bible to conform to scientific interpretations, he feels, we gain credibility with the world, but we lose the faith element that holds us close to God. He chooses the latter, and is convinced that the data will eventually catch up to the Bible.

Person C is another young earth creationist with very strong credentials. He has a Ph.D, in the history of science from another of the world's best universities. "C" was one of about 16 persons at a small one-day meeting I attended in Chicago in July 2007. I didn't have the good fortune of sitting down for a meal with him like I did with "B, or going for a short one-on-one walk as I did with "A." However, I did sit across a table from him for several hours and felt that I came to understand his heart, as well as his mind through the words that he spoke. At one point, the tears started to flow as "C" described that his one and only desire was to be thinking in a way and acting in the a manner consistent with what he sensed God wanted of him. Choked with emotion and unable to talk for awhile, he eventually told us he would step away from his position in a "second," if he became convinced that is what God wanted of him. I have no doubt he would. With theological reasons as his motivation, he genuinely thinks that he can find flaws in the scientific data. Theology and his personal relationship with God trump the science. The science, as he sees it, will eventually come around.

Each of these individuals believe as they do, not because of scientific data--they all realize how strong it is--it is their view of the Bible and the concomitant theology which drives their thinking. Their purpose and meaning in life is deeply embedded in a particular view of Scripture. Their relationship with God is deeply embedded in that view. Their hopes and dreams for their children and grandchildren are steeped in the view provided by this tradition. If you rip that view away from them, you rip away their compass and they would have nowhere else to turn.

So I am a little surprised that leading secular scholars find it difficult to understand why these individuals and their many followers hold fast. Each of us need to get up in the morning with some sense of purpose, and even these three individuals with minds that are as sharp as the secular scholars themselves are convinced that they have had a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ consistent with what is revealed to them through Scripture. They know of no way to hold on to that conviction while at the same time accepting the science that seems to contradict. Given that choice, they choose Scripture over science. They are more certain of their relationship with Christ, as grounded in Scripture, than they are of the findings of science.

So we at The BioLogos Foundation cannot focus purely on the "Science" in Science and the Sacred, nor can we focus purely on the "Bio" in BioLogos. Every bit as important to our discussion is the "Sacred" is the "Logos." We have to show people in ways that really make sense that the tenets of evangelicalism don't stand or fall on whether we accept 150 years of data from evolutionary biology and 180 years of data from geology. With that in mind, we are delighted to announce that beginning tomorrow, Harvard-educated evangelical biblical scholar Dr. Peter Enns is officially joining the BioLogos team and will be especially involved in working with us on our Science and the Sacred blog. Clearly there are two important components to our work. One is to communicate the solidity of the scientific data. Together with our many scientific colleagues, Karl and I will continue to work on that. The other, however, is every bit as important. We want to remain faithful to Scripture as the inspired Word of God and to the living Christ through whom all things are created and in whom all things are held together. We need a biblical scholar to help us communicate this message well. Welcome Pete. We believe your availability is not just happenstance, and we are delighted to work alongside of you.

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson.

"Christianity," wrote someone who likes to comment under the cover of an alias on the Science and the Sacred blogs, "is extremely anti-science. Every single Christian belief, especially the disgusting childish belief in the Resurrection, is scientifically impossible."

"The choice is Christianity or science," wrote this poster who prefers his world black and white. "A normal person couldn't possibly accept both."

This reaction is standard "New Atheist" fare and we hear it from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers and countless other self-appointed watchdogs of rationality.

I would be the first to say that science and Christianity are very different and, certainly, if one goes at Christianity with scientific tools, it certainly does not do as well as, say, magnetism, which holds up very nicely under scientific scrutiny. But Christianity is not like magnetism.

Accepting both science and Christianity is a bit like accepting that the earth is both round and in the Milky Way galaxy. For most of human history we did not know about galaxies; as they gradually came into view a century ago, we learned that there is much more to reality than we thought. So we brought some new ideas into our worldview.

The belief that the earth is both round and in the Milky Way is not contradictory because they are different sorts of claims. One is a claim about shape, the other about location.

To be a Christian is to accept that there is another layer of reality that lies beyond the purely scientific. The evidence for this other layer is, of course, not like the evidence for magnetism or the shape of the earth. But it is not an unfounded belief, even from a scientific point of view.

Consider belief in God. Almost everyone throughout history, from Plato to Darwin believed in God, although Darwin developed some famous doubts along the way. Most people today believe in God, including a great many intellectuals. There are legitimate arguments for God's existence, some of which are present on the BioLogos website. One may not find the arguments convincing--Sam Harris certainly does not--but many smart people who, unlike Sam Harris, actually finished their graduate degrees, do find these arguments helpful.

If God exists, then all kinds of things become possible. The reality of God implies that the scientific picture is not all there is. Once we know that reality extends beyond science, new questions emerge: What is this reality that we call "God" like? Is God a super-intelligence? Can God communicate with beings like us? Is God powerful? Is God personal?

A reality that includes God is very different from one that does not. Consider the following analogy. Suppose you were the first human explorer on Mars. You examine terrain and weather and soil. But you are puzzled by what look like gardens and at night you hear what sounds vaguely like singing. Sometimes you find perfectly round granite marbles. These puzzling features of your experience make no sense.

But now suppose you come across the brow of a hill and discover a village, populated with creatures that are scurrying about in purposeful ways. Martian reality has just expanded dramatically. All manner of things have just become possible. Those gardens actually were gardens, those spheres were indeed artificially produced and that singing was singing.

The kinds of things that can happen in any world, from fictitious places like Hogwarts, Middle Earth, or Narnia, to real places like Mars or Earth, depends, in a detailed way, on what exists in those worlds. Narnia did not have airplanes so the children could not fly back and forth. Earth does not have time machines, and Mars probably does not have creatures that would cultivate gardens. But Narnia did have an Ice Queen, the earth does have jumbo jets, and Mars has a rover that NASA has sent there.

What is the nature of our reality if God exists? What kinds of new things are possible? What puzzling and unbelievable stories from the past become plausible if God exists? What claims made by people today have to be taken seriously if God is real?

The central idea of Christianity--that God raised Jesus from the dead--is, as our critic above has claimed "scientifically impossible." In fact, I think our mystery critic may not be aware that this is hardly a controversial claim. I am unaware of anyone who does not think the resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible. In a world where science is the only reality, such an event would indeed be impossible. Likewise, on a planet with no creatures it would be impossible to encounter gardens, marbles and music.

But, if God exists, might there be events that science cannot explain? The answer is obvious. So, when we read in the Bible that some people in the first century saw a resurrected Jesus and concluded that God had worked a miracle, we must not dismiss this as "childish." The biblical accounts certainly do not sound childish. First century Palestine is not Narnia.

This is not to say, of course, that God's existence provides a license for unbridled speculation, or somehow validates all past and present claims of miracles. It does, however, open reality to possibilities that go beyond what science can explain.

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk.

In my last posting I wrote that my greatest joy is being with family and how sentiment extends to the family of God, regardless of how individual members view creation. At that time, I had no idea that two weeks later, I would feel compelled to write again on the same theme. I knew there was a special event coming up, but what I didn't know was the extent to which the feelings I wrote about two weeks ago would be experienced to an even greater degree throughout this event.

I have just returned home from a workshop titled "In Search of a Theology of Celebration." In the history of North American evangelicalism, there has never been a meeting like this. Gathered together at the Harvard Club in New York City were about 55 leading evangelical pastors, theologians, scientists, and other scholars. We were also privileged to have a small number of lay observers, who were especially important in our informal reflections. We spent two days in worship, study, prayer, and fellowship.

The scientists likely all held the position that God has created life in a manner that is consistent with the findings of mainstream science. Many of the others in attendance were not sure what to think, but amazingly--given the schedules of people in leadership positions--they were willing to come from all over the country (and beyond) to spend two days helping us understand the theological and pastoral ramifications of the science which we are so convinced is true. They were so gracious, not just in how they helped to inform us about theology and pastoral care, but especially as they listened to us talk about science. We, the scientists, described the evidence for evolution and attempted to show why it is so important for the Church hear what mainstream biology has to say about creation. They listened, and we were deeply moved by the spirit with which they listened.

The meeting title, "In Search of a Theology of Celebration," reflects the fact that one thing we all have in common is a sense of awe at the beauty of creation. We all want to celebrate. We all worship the same Creator. There is a sense in which looking at nature through the tools of science makes us all a little like the shepherd, David, as he looked out at nature from his Hebrew hillside in the days before he became a king (see Psalm 19, for example). Like him we, three thousand years later, still find that the heavens declare the glory of God. We find that day after day that which we see through our microscopes pours forth speech, and night after night that which we explore with our telescopes displays knowledge. Truly there is no speech or language, no culture or era, where the voice of God, through nature, is not heard. And, just as David went on to say those millennia ago, we still find that, "the precepts of the Lord are right." They do give joy to the heart, and they do evoke a response of praise. Nature, especially as we explore it at the level of sophistication we are able to do today, draws us into worship. Hence, the theme for the workshop: the meeting was a celebration. We began each day in song, in reading Psalms together, and in prayer.

We then proceeded to consider a series of papers that focused on issues like the history of evangelicalism's conflict between faith and science. We discussed the biological data. We considered the barriers which evangelical theologians and parishioners face as they consider the implications of mainstream biology. We talked about how evangelicalism's approach to the science/faith issue has sometimes served as an artificial barrier that blocks some from entering the realm of faith, and we discussed the harm that is done by those who misuse science to try to advance their own atheistic philosophical agenda. Each of the white papers in which the discussion was grounded will go up on the BioLogos website once the papers have been edited and prepared for uploading so you too can think along with us.

As each day came to a close we considered the majesty and beauty of creation as we looked out through the Hubble telescope and we looked in through the marvelous tools that allow us to see the inner machinery of life's smallest structures.

The workshop came to a close with much discussion about next steps. We all acknowledged that it will not be easy and will not come quickly. We all admitted that we weren't sure yet how the evangelical church will eventually be shaped by the findings of 20th and 21st century science. But because of the fact that we are a single family, there was a sense in which it was almost beside the point. We are the church of Jesus Christ. We are bonded in Christ, not in a particular view of how to interpret scientific data, nor even in a particular view of how to interpret Scripture. We are a family. We are brothers and sisters, who live our lives in communication with the same Father. We all want nothing more than for our lives to bring glory to our Father.

The very last thing we did together was to sing a hymn that acknowledges that the Church is not grounded in the fickleness of human frailty. The Church has persevered since those days of its emergence in ancient Israel, not because of human ingenuity, but because it is undergirded by a Foundation with an eternal dimension. I have never heard a richer, more meaningfully sung rendition of "How Firm a Foundation", than the one I heard as the meeting came to a close. As you read three of the verses we sang together, I suggest you read them remembering we are members of a single family. True, this song applies to us as individuals, but as we live the Christian life, we are not meant to live it as individuals who are all alone. We are a family, a family rooted and grounded in a Foundation that will endure. As you read the following words, keep in mind that they poignantly apply to the Family, to the Church, just as they do to us as individuals.

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who to Jesus for refuge have fled?

Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I'll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I'll never, no never, no never forsake.

After singing this hymn in a firm voice of solidarity, we got ready to leave and we said our good-byes. My final memory in leaving the meeting room is looking across to the other side and seeing a biologist whom I deeply admire and a theologian I hold in the highest esteem warmly bidding one another farewell. The Church will endure not because of articulate words or persuasive arguments. The Church will endure because of what the Church is. It is the Body of Christ united in love. It is the Family of the eternal God.

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson.

In my last blog post I addressed some questions of logic that had been raised on a popular anti-evolutionary blog, and how scientific arguments are often caricatured to make them appear to be committing logical fallacies.

In this post, I examine another example of the misuse of logic and evidence by the opponents of evolution. I want to suggest that anti-evolutionists don't actually use evidence as evidence. Rather they use evidence as rhetoric--a debating tool designed to score points in arguments. Evidence is not, by these defocused lights, a pointer toward truth. Rather evidence is a distraction, undermining truth.

There are several examples we could look at but I think one of the best relates to the dinosaurs. I was reminded of this recently when I had dinner with an enthusiastic young earth creationist and witnessed firsthand how comfortably he wielded the arguments against the well-established scientific consensus that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before humans first appeared.

There are four arguments that creationists use against the scientific picture of dinosaurs, all of which came up in my dinner conversation:

1. Dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in a riverbed in Texas.
2. There are cave paintings of dinosaurs that could not have been made unless the human artists had seen dinosaurs.
3. Dinosaur soft tissue/blood cells have been discovered that cannot be millions of years old.
4. Worldwide legends of fire-breathing dragons are based on human encounters with dinosaurs.

In a discussion about evolution, the age of the earth, or even the general reliability of science these "arguments" are launched into the conversation as if they prove something significant that scientists don't understand. But most people wielding these arguments have no clue about them. Consider the following:

1. The dinosaur and human footprint argument has been so thoroughly repudiated that even the two leading young earth creationist organizations have repudiated it. The head of the Institute for Creation Research, geologist John Morris, has written an article about the collapse of this "evidence" and Answers in Genesis includes this logical clinker on its list of "arguments that should be avoided."
2. Cave paintings contain a vast roster of interesting and inexplicable patterns, not unlike contemporary museums of modern art. Just as people see clouds that really do resemble Homer Simpson, or smears on windows that look like the Madonna, we should not be surprised that cave art contains things that look like dinosaurs--and unicorns and flying horses and space ships and various monsters. But here we have to ask a question: what is the best explanation for a cave drawing that resembles a dinosaur? Let me offer some possibilities: a) a cave-dad is using visual aids to tell cave-kids a horror story about giant lizards; b) a cave artist is drawing a picture of an actual lizard; c) cave artists are being creative; d) a cave artist is drawing a picture of an actual animal he saw. Is "d" really the most reasonable explanation?
3. The dinosaur "blood" that can't possibly be 70 million years old was a highly speculative inference and far from conclusive. A recent analysis concludes "What previously had been identified as fragments of blood cells due to the presence of iron were actually microscopic spheres containing iron, known as framboids." To jump on this isolated a curious fact as "conclusive" is far from scientific. And to suppose that it refutes the entire geological column, which clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs were long gone before we got here, is absurd.
4. The "dragons were dinosaurs" argument is incredibly fanciful and unbelievable on so many fronts. For starters, dragons are only one of a roster of mythical beasts. Are unicorns and griffins also real, because folklore speaks often of them? How about abominable snowmen? Men on the moon? Flying horses? In the days before cameras, people relied on stories from travelers about fascinating creatures from afar. Very few medieval Europeans ever saw a lion, and yet they all believed in lions based on stories they heard. Some people told stories of dragons and, not knowing what existed beyond their horizons, people accepted these stories as real, and passed them on.

All four of these arguments circulate with vigor in anti-evolutionary circles. I have heard them many times, most recently over dinner. Web sites proclaim them. The "true believers" that wield them as arguments against evolution, however, don't understand them and are blissfully unaware that they are simply irrelevant.

The most peculiar feature of this phenomenon, however, is the selective endorsement of science. If a scientist reports that he has found evidence--like soft dinosaur tissue--that dinosaurs are not as old as we thought, that scientific conclusion is treated respectfully by the anti-evolutionists because it agrees with their interpretation of the Bible. But when those same scientists report later that there may be a better explanation for the data--one that is compatible with evolution--this evidence is rejected as a part of the "conspiracy" to suppress the evidence against evolution. Science, it would appear, lacks integrity, except when it is undermining evolution.