A few years ago, on my old Blogger site, I had many a debate (e.g., see here and here) with an atheist believer in natural process evolution who went by the handle of DarkSyde (aka ~DS~). While he did have a lot to contribute to the dialog around here (as well as at Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost, and Matt Powell's Wheat & Chaff), he was prone to fundamentalist rants, especially with regards to his disdain for those things related to evangelical Christianity (e.g., here) or Intelligent Design. He eventually ceased stopping by and he soon became a contributor at the radical left-wing blog Daily Kos.
Now, it seems, he has toned down his harshness, and revealed his identity (per Ed Brayton) in an op-ed for the Austin American Statesman. Steven Andrew (aka DarkSyde) has written an op-ed titled, When science and faith find common ground.
Let's take a look at what Andrew has to say, after the fold.
He begins with,
The age-old, simmering conflict between science and religion is threatening to boil over in Texas with the usual battle lines being drawn around evolutionary biology and public education science standards. Here's a thought: Instead of a long and potentially bitter stand-off between science advocates and creationist proponents, why doesn't Texas skip that mess and go straight to a reasonable compromise? Instead of arguing about fossils, radiometric dating methods or constitutional law, I'd ask those skeptical of evolution what better natural evidence for the brilliance of a Creator could there be than myriad complex processes unfolding over billions of years through countless steps in exquisite order spanning the entire cosmos?
Immediately, Andrew attempts to frame the debate as that between an old universe and a "young" universe. In essence, he pits the young earth creationists against the natural process evolutionists. Now, certainly the YEC crowd is opposed to natural process evolution, yet such a characterization ignores the criticisms of natural process evolution levied from other schools of thought, namely, old earth creationism. But what is potentially more disconcerting is his insertion of the conciliatory proposition that the natural evidence of complex processes demonstrates, not the lack of a Creator, but the brilliance of a Creator! This is a not so subtle attempt to sneak natural process evolution in the back door. While there are certainly those Christians who believe in theistic evolution, namely, that God has directed the process of the evolution of life, there are many within the natural process evolutionist community (of whom, I would argue, Andrew is included) who despise the notion of belief in the supernatural. Reason, they posit, dictates belief in the natural only. So, be forewarned.
Further on, Andrew states,
Some of the most popular forms of Creationism attack not just biology, but geology, astronomy and physics with an endless array of recycled talking points, most of which were refuted before most of us were born. In that vein, we could discuss the fossil evidence for transitions between major classes of creatures; the difference in science between a theory, hypothesis, and fact; the genetic evidence for common descent engraved in the nuclei of every chromosome of every living thing; the evidence from geology and astronomy that we live on an ancient planet in grand universe stretching billions of light-years across space and time. But Creationism in all its many forms ignores that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found find great comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science. There are great benefits when science and faith respect one another and find a common meeting ground. Parents wouldn't have to worry their child's beliefs might be undercut by science, or over written by a state- mandated religion. Moreover, it's far from a fringe idea. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the age of the universe and the validity of evolution. Similar statements have been made by the United Methodist Church, the American Jewish Congress, the United Presbyterian Church, and many others. Most importantly, these Christians find enormous inspiration for their beliefs in the mysteries science reveals and resolves.
At this point Andrew is being a bit vague. Just which "recycled talking points" have been "refuted"? And, pray tell, could there be talking points that have not been refuted? I'm assuming, of course, that Andrew knows the difference between the acts "refuting" and "responding". It is interesting that Andrew reaches for support from the millions of Christians who find "great comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science". Well, I guess I'd be one of those millions, because I have continually posited that the God of the Bible (Andrew's "Creator") is not only consistent with science, but is the author of the natural laws! You can't get much more consistent with science, real science, than by being the actual Creator of the natural realm.
Yet, why reach for backup from a selective list of religious denominations? Wouldn't that be like me reaching for backup from a selective group of scientists who happen to criticize natural process evolution? Oh yeah, I forgot, it doesn't work in that direction. For one, the number of scientists that believe in natural process evolution is much greater than the number that don't. So, I guess it must boil down to who has the bigger army. Still, I have to wonder just why Andrew would mention the Roman Catholic Church - I mean - I'd be interested in what he thinks of their stance on, say, abortion?
Andrew continues,
If I were religious, I might find cause to feel honored and humble at being descended from a long line of God's wondrous creations and for sharing the amazingly complex biochemical processes those ancestral benefactors endowed us with. The technical skill and artistic vision of such is to be admired in awe, and in that context evolution should be worthy of consideration, maybe even respect. I'd praise our evolutionary lineage and thank our Linnaean cousins from the primates to the microbes. For the evidence indicates that through them, God crafted and then willed to us the finest physical possessions we will ever know: this planet, our bodies, and our brains.
Well, the thing is, Andrew, unless you've drastically changed from the DarkSyde who commented on my blog in years past, you're not religious. In fact, based on my interactions with you, you're hostile to evangelical Christianity. So, why should anyone follow the line of logic you propose you would have, were your worldview the complete antithesis of what it truly is?
Yet, within Andrew's closing statements, there lies the seed for understanding this complex Creator. If I, as a believer in the fact that God created the heavens and the earth, were to attempt to describe the wondrous qualities that would evidence the work of a creator, I would be hard pressed to come up with a better description than the one Andrew has given us in the paragraph referenced above. That he, as a believer in natural process evolution (an atheist believer at that!), should speak of complexity, technical skill, artistic vision, crafting, and will, is a wonderful testament that, even to the atheist, God's existence cannot be hidden.
Of course, Andrew would probably counter that he was speaking hypothetically. Regardless, the fact remains that to engineer, by will, is not a mindless process, but the process of a mind.
Recent Comments