Debates Discussions
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:44 pm
I went to a debate last night and present some of my notes here. I thought it might be of interest and stir some debate here as well. I did not record it, so I couldn't go back and check on some things, but all this should be a good starter for discussing theistic evolution if anyone wishes.
Can a Christian Be a Darwinist?
with Karl Giberson and John West, presented by the Master of Arts Program in Science and Religion, Biola University; February 5, 2009
Karl Giberson, Ph.D. (physics), Eastern Nazarene College, theistic evolutionist, author of: Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
John West, Ph.D. (government), Associate Director of Center for Science & Culture, author of: Darwin Day in America.
Giberson. This debate was confusing to me at first. The reason? Dr. Giberson went first, and he presented, in general terms (which I think just about everyone knows here), why a person should believe evolution is true. He also presented theological reasons why we should consider evolution as compatible with the Christian faith. Cruelty in nature, coupled with examples of poor design, make God look like a sadist. So evolution lets God off the hook. He thought other issues, such as no actual Adam, were not that insurmountable. His presentation made it seem like a person has to accept evolution as true, and therefore one has to make the bible fit in with it; this is just the reality of it. New website with F. Collins (and Darrel Falk) will be fully functional in March: http://www.biologos.org.
West. Dr. West's presentation was so different that it made me think they asked the wrong person to speak. But, I realized later, West was presenting his case as to why you cannot be a Darwinist — or theistic evolutionist — he was not there to prove evolution true or false (although he cited an interesting new article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true ). He did contest two things, but not as much as I would have liked to see: common ancestry and blind evolution. This debate did not distinguish between theistic evolutionists who differ in their ideas about blind or directed evolution, although questions about this came up.
At any rate, West wanted to make two strong points about the Christian faith, and how they cannot be accepted by theistic evolutionists. One was that the doctrine of creation is central to the faith. Blind evolution cannot fit into creation doctrine. Two, the concept of the fall, and thus our need for redemption, is undermined with theistic evolution.
Giberson Rebuttal. He does not care about the fall doctrinal issue. He thinks that if we are sinful now, if we developed this concept of sin, then we need a redeemer.
West Response. The point is that theistic evolutionists don't believe in Christian doctrine, so they are not Christians. God created purposefully and lovingly. There was a fall and we need a redeemer. Many “bad designs” turn out later to not be bad. Junk DNA and pseudo genes are turning out to be myths. Darwin had given up his faith, and others that had been Christians often give up their faith after believing in evolution.
Giberson asks West about the creation account — it's like poetry. What does West think? West says he is not fundamentalist or even literalist, but he does believe in the concepts of God's creation and the fall (West is obviously not a young earth creationist). He says that even if it is written like poetry, it doesn't matter, as there is truth in it. What about carnivores before the fall, Giberson asks. West says he doesn't know and it matters not; some things are mysteries, in any case.
West asks Giberson about how blind evolution was. Is he like Ken Miller, who thinks God didn't really know how we'd turn out. We could have been big-brained mollusks. And Giberson agrees. Then West asks about the fall; if we just evolved/developed selfishly, how could there be a fall? Giberson says we just developed and there was no actual fall, he just uses the theological terminology (! — this was my best understanding of what he said — it seemed pretty clear). Giberson said the microevolution is a fact, but that it's true, macroevolution is an extrapolation of that. He thinks common ancestry is key, and that it's true, and that only fringe people think otherwise.
Questions from the audience — almost all for Giberson. He thinks that many of the characters and/or stories from the bible aren't real. He says that scripture is inspired, but not inerrant, and that each generation of believers makes the bible meaningful to them. West says that Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionary biologist and atheist, thinks the arguments put forth by Miller and Giberson are irrational, that they ruin both the science and the faith. West also adds that when reading criticisms of intelligent design, even by Francis Collins, it very much looks like the authors haven't even read what they're criticizing. One young man with a question (the last one) really was amazing, but I didn't write down all he said. It became very obvious from the young man's questions and Giberson's responses that Giberson did not at all have the same understanding of the bible and Jesus' work that Christians have.
Can a Christian Be a Darwinist?
with Karl Giberson and John West, presented by the Master of Arts Program in Science and Religion, Biola University; February 5, 2009
Karl Giberson, Ph.D. (physics), Eastern Nazarene College, theistic evolutionist, author of: Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
John West, Ph.D. (government), Associate Director of Center for Science & Culture, author of: Darwin Day in America.
Giberson. This debate was confusing to me at first. The reason? Dr. Giberson went first, and he presented, in general terms (which I think just about everyone knows here), why a person should believe evolution is true. He also presented theological reasons why we should consider evolution as compatible with the Christian faith. Cruelty in nature, coupled with examples of poor design, make God look like a sadist. So evolution lets God off the hook. He thought other issues, such as no actual Adam, were not that insurmountable. His presentation made it seem like a person has to accept evolution as true, and therefore one has to make the bible fit in with it; this is just the reality of it. New website with F. Collins (and Darrel Falk) will be fully functional in March: http://www.biologos.org.
West. Dr. West's presentation was so different that it made me think they asked the wrong person to speak. But, I realized later, West was presenting his case as to why you cannot be a Darwinist — or theistic evolutionist — he was not there to prove evolution true or false (although he cited an interesting new article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true ). He did contest two things, but not as much as I would have liked to see: common ancestry and blind evolution. This debate did not distinguish between theistic evolutionists who differ in their ideas about blind or directed evolution, although questions about this came up.
At any rate, West wanted to make two strong points about the Christian faith, and how they cannot be accepted by theistic evolutionists. One was that the doctrine of creation is central to the faith. Blind evolution cannot fit into creation doctrine. Two, the concept of the fall, and thus our need for redemption, is undermined with theistic evolution.
Giberson Rebuttal. He does not care about the fall doctrinal issue. He thinks that if we are sinful now, if we developed this concept of sin, then we need a redeemer.
West Response. The point is that theistic evolutionists don't believe in Christian doctrine, so they are not Christians. God created purposefully and lovingly. There was a fall and we need a redeemer. Many “bad designs” turn out later to not be bad. Junk DNA and pseudo genes are turning out to be myths. Darwin had given up his faith, and others that had been Christians often give up their faith after believing in evolution.
Giberson asks West about the creation account — it's like poetry. What does West think? West says he is not fundamentalist or even literalist, but he does believe in the concepts of God's creation and the fall (West is obviously not a young earth creationist). He says that even if it is written like poetry, it doesn't matter, as there is truth in it. What about carnivores before the fall, Giberson asks. West says he doesn't know and it matters not; some things are mysteries, in any case.
West asks Giberson about how blind evolution was. Is he like Ken Miller, who thinks God didn't really know how we'd turn out. We could have been big-brained mollusks. And Giberson agrees. Then West asks about the fall; if we just evolved/developed selfishly, how could there be a fall? Giberson says we just developed and there was no actual fall, he just uses the theological terminology (! — this was my best understanding of what he said — it seemed pretty clear). Giberson said the microevolution is a fact, but that it's true, macroevolution is an extrapolation of that. He thinks common ancestry is key, and that it's true, and that only fringe people think otherwise.
Questions from the audience — almost all for Giberson. He thinks that many of the characters and/or stories from the bible aren't real. He says that scripture is inspired, but not inerrant, and that each generation of believers makes the bible meaningful to them. West says that Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionary biologist and atheist, thinks the arguments put forth by Miller and Giberson are irrational, that they ruin both the science and the faith. West also adds that when reading criticisms of intelligent design, even by Francis Collins, it very much looks like the authors haven't even read what they're criticizing. One young man with a question (the last one) really was amazing, but I didn't write down all he said. It became very obvious from the young man's questions and Giberson's responses that Giberson did not at all have the same understanding of the bible and Jesus' work that Christians have.
