Don’t blame doctrine
We are an atheist and a Christian who think that the complex relations between science and religion call for something a little more sober than the entertaining diatribe by Ms. Kung (“It’s time to evolve beyond religious dogma”).
Precisely what conclusion she is trying to argue for is a little hard to say. Part of the issue seems to be whether the theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory or not. But determining that would require a careful account of what a scientific theory is and how scientific theories are related to other sorts of theories, philosophical theories for instance. Unfortunately, there is none of that in Ms. Kung’s editorial.
Part of the issue seems to be the quite different one of whether the theory of intelligent design is actually correct (not all correct theories are scientific). This of course would involve a serious engagement with the actual arguments; but there is not much of that in the editorial either.
Ms. Kung’s essay also seems to be concerned with whether intelligent design should be taught in high school biology classes. This is to some extent a separate issue. Even if the theory is a straightforwardly biological one, we do not teach every existent biological theory in biology classes. We make selections, based on quite complicated issues about, for instance, the nature of education and the limits of democracy. But, again, there is no discussion of those issues in the editorial.
The real driving force of Ms. Kung’s editorial seems to be an animus against religion, or at least Christianity. If so, it may be worth remarking on one familiar fallacy in her article: Nothing follows from the good or ill uses to which religious doctrines have been put about the truth or reasonableness of those doctrines. Religious institutions may or may not have stood in the way of scientific development (a matter, by the way, about which historians differ); they may or may not have been used to manipulate the masses, or whatever other evil one cares to think of. But this tells us nothing about the truth or reasonableness of those doctrines. Just as good people can do bad things, so true (or false) doctrines can be put to ill usage.
As we said, all of these issues call for sober debate rather than the strident and polarized tones that often characterize the American debate on these matters. That is why we, along with Dr. Brian Cassel from the VCU Health System and Dr. Thomas Huff, Provost of Life Sciences, are organizing a major series of talks and debates next year by prestigious scholars on both sides of these issues. We can assure you that none of these scholars has stopped using his brain. The series, “Science, Reason and Faith,” will be well advertised throughout the university and the greater Richmond community. We hope to see Ms. Kung there, and look forward to her sober and reasoned contribution to the debates.
– Professors Anthony Ellis and Donald Smith
VCU Department of Philosophy
Faith is not ignorance
First let me say that my intent here is not to make a case for the teaching of creationism in public schools but rather to clear up some of what I believe to be misinterpreted facts on the part of Ms. Kung in her article, “It’s time to evolve beyond religious dogma.” So far the debate over creation or evolution has been made by several individuals, each of whom have been for a particular theory either from a purely scientific or faith-based viewpoint. I think that perhaps I can add a bit to the conversation in that I have been Christian and in love with the Lord God for some time now. I have also wanted to be a scientist all of my life, and I am currently pursing my Ph.D. in chemistry here at VCU. Thus some might feel that I and others like me would have some modicum of intelligence, and it is for this reason that I was interested that you would use the word “ignorant” to describe those who believe that there is a God of creation.
Ms. Kung, please don’t confuse faith for willful ignorance. In fact, ignorance is not expected at all from a biblical stand point. For example, 2 Timothy 2:15 says, “Study to shew thyself approved.” Daniel 1:17 says, “God gave these four young men knowledge and skill in all literature and wisdom.” Proverbs 24:5 says, “A wise man is strong, yes a man of knowledge increases strength.” So, you see, ignorance is not at all what God wants from his people.
If you want to use the fall of man to defend this idea of willful ignorance being a staple of a person’s belief in God let me fill out the rest of the story for those who may not know it. You are correct in saying that Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden for eating from the tree of knowledge, but what you failed to mention was that it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So in reading, any logical person (a scientist like myself) would conclude that of course a loving God would not want his creations to be exposed to things that are evil. God knew what bad things would happen once evil was introduced to the hearts of man (Ephesians 1:5 says “…He (God) predestined us (Man)…”). Everything that has happened and will happen was all in his plans. So, you see, faith in God should never be confused with willful ignorance and that knowledge and the seeking of knowledge is advocated for in the Bible and often bestowed upon those who seek it from God.
There are other things that I wanted to touch on. As a scientist I completely understand the scientific method. I carry it out everyday in my lab. I also know that science can’t and won’t ever be able to explain everything that happens in life. Any theory – be it from biology, chemistry, or any other science for that matter – at any time can be proven wrong with new data. For the sake of keeping things simple, a theory is nothing more than an educated guess to try and explain what is happening in the world around us. All any scientist can do, be they a creationist or evolutionist, is try and design experiments to either strengthen or weaken their theories.
But on this particular matter you can’t experiment on the creation of the universe. You can only observe the remnants of past events here in the present and then evaluate the facts. The thing that separates creationists and evolutionists is the framework in which they interpret the facts, and contrary to popular opinion we all have and use the same facts. For example an evolutionist might say, “We must have evolved from a common ancestor because our DNA can be compared with remarkable similarity to many of the animals (apes) around us.” A creation scientist would say, “I agree and can’t argue with the fact that we have DNA in common with many of the animals around us and I agree that we all came from the same place. “Let me show you how I can say this and have it fall in line with the Word of God.” Look with me if you will at Genesis 2:19. “Lord God had formed out of the ground all of the beasts of the field and all of the birds of the air.” If we look at Genesis 2:7, “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.” Thus, since the beast of the field the birds of the air and man were all formed from the ground it would make perfect sense that we have a common point of origin: the ground from which we were made.”
So, you see, it is the framework in which we interpret the facts that makes the difference. And just as there are responsible and irresponsible scientists who correctly or incorrectly interpret or falsify facts for that matter (revisit the recent fraudulent reports of Gerald Schatten and co-workers involving their cloning experiments) there are responsible and irresponsible creation scientists who correctly or incorrectly interpret or falsify the facts. And just to throw this out there, many scientists have said before that the absence of proof is not proof. So what does this mean? It means that just because you can’t prove scientifically that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
The last point that I would like to touch on is your statement concerning the opinion that the less zealous we have become in our religious beliefs the more we have advanced in our moral philosophies. So I guess the ever increasing murder rate across the country is an improvement in your opinion on our becoming less zealous in following the Sixth Commandment, Exodus 20:13: “Thou shalt not kill.” The increasing reports of wives being beaten by their husbands is an improvement in your opinion on our becoming less zealous in following Ephesians 5:25: Husbands love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave up his life for it. “The increasing problems of racism and prejudice are improvements in your opinion on our becoming less zealous in following.” Hebrews 13:1: “Keep on loving each other as brothers do not forget to entertain strangers.” The increasing number of children being abused and in constant conflict with their parents is an improvement in your opinion on our becoming less zealous in following Ephesians 6:1-4 (you can look that up for yourself).
So, you see, contrary to what you have said in your article, the Bible lays down many moral principles that if followed would make the world a much better place to live in. But why listen to me? We each must study to show ourselves approved. We should each look these things up and read them for ourselves and ask God to give us the proper understanding of his word.
All in all, each day science continually proves itself wrong and seeks to improve on new and existing theories. There are problems in science that man has been working on that will most likely never be solved, and because you can’t experiment on the past and the “mystery” that is the origin of life it will be left to each person to interpret the facts within the framework of their choosing. So to end, just like the Rosetta stone was the key to understanding the language of the ancient Egyptians and other languages, faith is the key that unlocks the door into understanding the things of a spiritual nature. Hebrews 11:1 asks, “What is faith?” It is the confident assurance that we hope for what is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.
– Dwight A. Williams