Perspectives

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Christians-and-Climate-Change/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

It's hard to read the newspaper or other sources of news without hearing about the issue of climate change and care of the environment.  Some people believe this is one of the most important issues, if not the most important one.  Conversely, some people say this isn't a particularly important issue.  Moreover, at least some people question whether the issue of climate change is real or not.

What should Christians think about the issue?  Is there any guidance in the Bible about it?  I believe the answer is "yes", that humans are commanded to care for the environment.  Assuming so, how can we humans best care for the environment?  The answer to that question, I believe, depends at least to some extent on science and technology.  As "The Unexpected Perspective" is focused on the intersection of Christianity, Science and Technology, I believe this is a relevant topic. 

To begin a discussion on this, let's turn to what the Bible has to say.   Here is a link to seven Bible verses, both from the Old and New Testaments, on the subject.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/06/23/top-7-bible-verses-about-taking-care-of-the-earth/.   These verses definitely suggest that Christians need to be concerned about the environment.

Given what appears to be a Biblical imperative, what then should Christians be doing?   Attention to the environment has been steadily growing since the very first Earth Day in April, 1970, and steps have been taken, both by all levels of government and through private initiative, to clean the water and air.  The results are impressive!  The water is generally much cleaner than it used to be, the air is certainly less obviously polluted, and far greater attention is being paid to care for the environment. 

And it shows. I remember while in high school reading reports about literal fires on Lake Erie near Cleveland.   There certainly weren't any fish living in the water.  Today, the situation has completely changed!  And at the same time, there appears to be greater concern today about a potential environmental catastrophe, than ever before.  It appears the vast majority of scientists believe that excessive "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide are creating conditions for irreversible climate change.

Why am I bringing up this topic?  The reason is because it is very much at the intersection of Christianity and science.  As noted above, the Bible exhorts Christians to be good stewards of the environment.  Assuming Christians can agree on that, the question becomes, what things should we be doing to be good, or better, stewards?    Because the issue of climate change is very much rooted in science, I believe its very relevant for "The Unexpected Perspective."

So what should Christians think about climate science and climate change?  It appears we need to be concerned about the environment but, as I argue in my book, the Bible is clearly not a science text book and should not be used to address matters of science.  John Calvin told his followers that if they wanted to learn something about astronomy, they should not rely on the Bible to inform them.  I'd make the same argument about climate science: to understand that subject, we should listen to climate scientists, just as I argue that when it comes to understanding the emergence of humankind, we should study astronomy, biology, paleontology and related subjects, not what the Bible says on the subject.

I say this with certain qualifications.  In the case of the study of evolution and human origins, I think we should study what the scientists study, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily draw the exact same conclusions.  As an example, I agree pretty much with everything Richard Dawkins says about the science of humankind's emergence from lower life forms, but I certainly don't agree with him that it happened outside of the control of God.   We can agree upon the same set of scientific observations, but still interpret things in different ways, and also draw different conclusions.

How does that apply to the question of climate change?  Just as many Christians reject scientific data that seem to point to macroevolution, so do some people (Christians and non-Christians both) reject data that points towards climate change.   In the case of evolution by natural selection and climate change, the following seems to be happening:

• The majority of scientists believe in both (i.e., macroevolution and climate change) while a group of conservative Christians appear to be highly skeptical of both
• In both cases, the skeptics point towards specific limitations in the data as evidence that the theories are wrong
• In both cases, the skeptics have failed to develop an overall scientific theory that could explain the data.  In the case of evolution, Intelligent Design is a series of objections to Darwin, but not a fleshed out theory; and in the case of climate change, skeptics dismiss the evidence as "natural, normal variation."

So what am I suggesting?  First, I believe it's important for Christians to take the issue of climate change seriously.  The data and analysis should both be taken seriously.  Perhaps the starting point is to go back and re-read those Biblical passages that exhort us to care for the environment, then realize that just as throwing toxic chemicals in our water supply is highly damaging, so is dumping high levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

To be clear, many Christians are very concerned about this topic. In fact a group called the Evangelical Climate Initiative has emerged (see http://www.christiansandclimate.org). 

Just as Christians who believe that macroevolution is correct don't need to reach the same conclusions that Richard Dawkins does, so can Christians accept the reality of climate change without necessarily agreeing with some of the proposed solutions.  This is where I believe the real problem is: embracing some of the proposed "solutions".  One of the reasons some people object to this entire subject is because they believe it is simply another excuse for governments to intrude upon their lives with burdensome controls.

Many believe the only way to prevent irreparable, irreversible climate change is to adopt some pretty extreme measures.  But are these proposed solutions the only ones?   While I don't question the reality of climate change, I question the wisdom of some of the proposed solutions. 

I definitely believe that we need to be good stewards of the Earth that God has given us.  That stewardship includes taking care to control the level of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere.  As for how to solve the problem, I think Christians need to do two things.  First, we should encourage our leaders to confront the problem, not spending our time saying that it is imaginary, or some type of "hoax".  I'm afraid all that is doing is to reinforce old stereotypes that Christians are anti-science and that Christians are stupid.

Second, the other thing we should do is to be skeptical of some of the proposed solutions.  Previous Malthusian "doomsday" scenarios failed to materialize because technology improved.  In this case, I think we should encourage our leaders to pursue ways to improve technology, as well as identify ways to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases through better technology.  Instead of spending our time questioning the science, let's question whether we've pushed hard enough to develop the best possible solutions to avoid or overcome the effects of greenhouse gases.  I believe that would be far more productive.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Third-Reason-Its-Important/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

THIRD REASON IT'S IMPORTANT

In the previous two posts I've offered two reasons why it's important for Christians either to accept or embrace Charles Darwin and the Big Bang Theory OR come up with a viable and coherent alternative scientific theory that most everyone, including non-Christians, can also embrace.  So far, the only alternative raised - Intelligent Design – is neither a fleshed out scientific theory nor something that an be embraced by most conventional scientists.

In this post I offer a third reason why this is important: Christians need to be perceived by non-Christians as both intelligent in general, as well as intelligent about science.    In an earlier post, I pointed out that both Christians and non-Christians seem to agree on the stereotype that Christians are not good at science.  Here's a link to that study: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/14/463010075/researchers-probe-stereotype-christians-and-science-dont-get-a-long.  Here's a link to the actual research paper cited in the NPR story: http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/08/Rios-Cheng-Trotton-Shariff-2015.pdf.

Christians, of course, are not trying to win a popularity contest.  From the earliest days of the church, Christians have been more than willing to go against the grain to stand up for their beliefs, sometimes to the point of martyrdom.  We admire and praise these Christians for doing that.  So why am I suggesting that Christians re-examine some of their beliefs, particularly so those beliefs might be more acceptable to non-Christians?

Recall in my earlier post that for the better part of 1500 years Christians claimed that the Bible was saying the Sun and the other planets revolved around the Earth, Ptolemy's theory of geo-centrism.  Turns out, while we Christians were absolutely sincere in our beliefs, we were flat wrong – the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun – what's referred to as heliocentrism.  Further, while we made that mistake for 1500 years, we came to realize the mistake, but also realized that the Bible wasn't wrong, merely our interpretation of the Bible had been wrong.  As in that case, I still don't think the Bible is wrong, but how we may be interpreting the Bible may be wrong.

Thus, I think Christians need to re-examine what they think the Bible is, or isn't, saying about science.  More than that, given that we live in a world that is increasingly focused on science and technology, Christians need to be respected leaders at the forefront of science and technology.  Non-Christians may not agree with us on matters of faith, but there is no reason they should dis-respect us in matters of science and technology.
But here's the bigger reason, possibly the biggest reason of all, why Christians need to resolve this issue: Jesus commanded Christians to spread the good news to all of the world.  Evangelism is truly important, and we're expected to evangelize people of all backgrounds and places.  But if we're perceived as anti-science, even anti-intellectual, how do we ever hope to reach either the scientifically inclined or even the well-educated in general?  If well-educated people perceive that Christians are "stupid about science", do we really expect they're going to listen to us when we talk about faith and religion?  Here's what I think that means:

• For young people who grow up as believers, we want them to be able to off to study science and not feel that because they are embracing science and technology (or other intellectual pursuits, for that matter) that they can't continue to be believers;
• For those who didn't grow up as believers, but who are scientifically inclined or otherwise well educated, do we want to prevent them from considering Christianity simply because in their minds they perceive Christianity as anti-intellectual in general and anti-science in particular?

I think the average Christian would say, no, I want non-believers to be open to the Christian message, and I don't want to do anything that will prematurely drive people away.  At the same time, that average Christian will say, I also don't want to compromise the Christian message just to make it more palatable to non-believers.

I absolutely agree with that sentiment: don't compromise beliefs.  At the same time, however, I think we have created a false choice here, between belief and science.

So I've presented three very good reasons why Christians need to come up with a resolution to this problem: 1) to help reduce the exodus of young people from the church; 2) to make sure that Christians are "heard" in matters where science and ethics collide; and 3) to avoid the problem of unnecessarily driving away the scientifically inclined and otherwise well-educated from belief.

 

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Second-Reason-Its-Importnat/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

SECOND REASON IT'S IMPORTANT

In my previous post I said that even though there are lots of issues facing the Christian church today, trying to come up with a good solution to the problem of Charles Darwin is a very important one.  The first reason I offered was because evidence shows many people, especially the young, have left the church over the issue.  More continue to leave.  Today, I offer a second reason why this is an important issue for Christians.

The second reason is what I call the "limited bandwidth" problem.  We're all bombarded countless times each day by people seeking our attention.   Ask yourself, do you have lots of extra time to absorb another message from someone?  Most likely, the answer is no.  Even for really important issues, most of us only have so much "mental bandwidth."  As a way to picture the problem, envision a shelf of about five feet in length (1.5 meters), and the shelf is open on either side.  Now line up a row of cans, side by side on the shelf.  Fill the shelf so the edge of the can on the left goes all the way to the end and the can on the right goes all the way to the end.  Think of each one of the cans as a message presented to you by someone who wants your attention.  Okay, now imagine that someone wants to provide you an additional message, so they go and try to add one more can on the shelf.  What happens?  As you add one more can to one end of the shelf, the can on the far side of the shelf falls off.

The average person only has so much mental bandwidth allocated to the church.  To the extent that the available space on the shelf is taken up by Darwin, then there won't be any space to talk about another important issue.

So imagine that there is an important issue on science that the church needs to address.   Let me suggest a few "science and technology" issues that probably ought to be of concern to Christians:

Stem cell research
Stem cells may hold tremendous potential for finding cures to a broad range of diseases that affect Christians and non-Christians alike.  There are, however, many ethical issues associated with doing this type of research.  One aspect that gets a lot of attention is using aborted fetal tissue, but this isn't the only issue.  When, and under what circumstances, should stem cell research be okay, and where is the line that should not be crossed?

• Genetic testing

Genetic testing holds much promise for dealing with many medical issues, but there are a whole range of ethical issues associated with it.  

• Genetically modified organisms (GMO's)

Increasingly, scientists are using GMO's.  Again, this issue has numerous scientific implications.  Christians ought to be part of the discussion.

• Crispr-CAS9

In the past several years a new gene splicing technology called Crispr-CAS9 has emerged.  You're going to hear more and more about this.  This is a technology to "edit" the genome.  If there is a problem with certain genes, the idea is to go and "edit" the genome, thus changing the organism's genetics.  Some might call that "playing God."   Crispr-CAS9 has tremendous potential, but as one of the technology's developers has cautioned, "it could really get out of hand."  Christians need to be part of the debate to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

• Climate change

There appears to be growing evidence, and even a scientific consensus, that humans are causing undesirable changes in our climate.  Irrespective of your position on this, the issue has many important, complex scientific implications.

• Abortion

Abortion is certainly a highly charged issue for Christians.  While most Christians abhor it, they also tend to draw lines that permit it in certain situations.  As an example, a very high percentage of Christians say that abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is at stake, or in the case of rape.  There are important scientific, ethical and moral dimensions to where to lines are drawn, and Christians need to be part of those debates.

• Genetic aspects of homosexuality

An argument is being made that there are significant genetic aspects of homosexuality.  While Christians traditionally have viewed homosexuality as purely a matter of choice,  other evidence suggests it may not be a matter of choice.  Without a doubt, Christians should be part of this scientific debate.

These are just some of the science and technology issues that have ethical and moral implications.  Christians need to be part of any debate about these issues.  However, if bandwidth is limited, to the extent that Christians use their available bandwidth to argue about Darwin and "origins", just that much less time is available to talk about these other, very important scientific matters.

Of course, some will argue that Christians can talk about both issues – evolution, as well as these other scientific matters.  I'm highly skeptical.  Moreover, I'm also afraid that unless Christians can come up with a good answer about evolution, non-Christians will tend to dismiss anything Christians have to say about science.  That's the third reason this is an important issue, so we'll discuss that in the next blog post.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/First-Reason-This-Important/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

FIRST REASON THIS IMPORTANT 

Christians and non-Christians have been arguing about Charles Darwin ever since The Origin of Species was published in 1859.

One could say that for 150 years, we've agreed to disagree.  So what?  Why should anyone but particularly committed, evangelical Christians care about this? Given all the other issues facing the church and society, why should attention be focused on this one? Beyond a largely academic debate, does it matter to the average person? Christians have always argued they were not in the business of winning a popularity contest. The New Testament cites numerous examples of how early Christians were persecuted by society for adhering to the Christian view. In that sense, for Christians to go against the grain is not necessarily bad and standing up for what one believes is quite admirable. Many see this rejection of science because of its perceived inconsistency with what the Bible appears to reveal as just another challenge for committed Christians to meet. Further, just as first-century Christians didn't compromise their positions to gain acceptance by the non-Christian majority, so should Christians today reject the "evidence" of science because it is seen to be inconsistent with the Bible and therefore wrong.
This is especially the case in the minds of many who perceive that the Darwinian theory is in effect just a convenient creation story for atheists. For many, this is reason enough to stand firm in spite of mounting scientific evidence to the contrary and reject concepts such as Darwin and the big bang theory.

I believe there are three solid reasons Christians, especially committed evangelical ones, ought to care deeply about this. Ultimately, these three reasons are the point of all of this.  There may be additional ones, but these are three very important ones.  In this post we'll talk about the first reason for caring about the issue.

It probably is no surprise that many Christians are leaving the church.  Overall, that's true, but the evangelical side of Christianity seems to have avoided this problem.   In fact, many evangelicals have trumpeted this, using it as a justification for holding firm to traditional doctrines, avoiding what they perceive as a failure on the part of the traditional, mainline Protestant denominations to stand up.  But a funny thing is happening.  There's increasing evidence that younger people are leaving the church, even in the evangelical branches.  The Barna Group, the foremost experts in surveying churches, has found this to be a key issue. According to Barna, One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is "Christians are too confident they know all the answers" (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that "churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in" (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that "Christianity is anti-science" (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have "been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.." Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

Barna has found this as one of the top three reasons that nearly 60 percent of young people disconnect from their churches after age fifteen. 

Conservative and evangelical Christians are confronted with the following unappealing scenario of increasing numbers of Christians, particularly young people, are leaving the church because they can't reconcile their faith with science.

Now many people will counter, saying that it is common for young people to become somewhat dis-connected from the church as they mature, by they tend to come back once they're ready to settle down.  Yes, that is an old and familiar story, but the story appears to be changing this time.  Increasingly, the evidence suggests they will leave the church and not come back.

At the same time, the church is also seeking to evangelize the un-churched.  After all, we Christians are offered The Great Commandment in the 28th chapter of Matthew.  But what is the likelihood of success if the church is perceived to be anti-science, and the Bible as inconsistent with observed science?  Those who are scientifically inclined, and otherwise well educated, simply aren't open to hearing the message.  Evangelicals can wax forth all day that these people are short sighted and foolish, but the fact remains, because they perceive Christians to be anti-science, and they perceive the Bible to be inconsistent with observable scientific reality, they aren't open to hearing anything else.

I'm not suggesting that Christians change their beliefs simply to appeal to unbelievers.  Nothing of the sort!  It's much more complicated than that, but there is clearly a giant stumbling block that needs to be overcome in order to deal with the twin problems described here.  All I'm saying is that there is a significant problem here that Christians need to confront.   The traditional response – if non-Christians would just be more open-minded, read the Bible, and listen to what is saying to them – just isn't going to happen.  
    I think we should set that discussion aside, however, at least for the time being.  There are at least two other key reasons Christians should be concerned about this issue.  In the next post, we'll discuss the second reason.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/New-Years-Resolutions--An-Unexpected-Perspective/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

As we gather with friends and family, raise glasses in toasts, and sing Auld Lang Syne, many of us are likely to pursue another year end ritual – the New Year's resolution.  Without a doubt, many of us have great plans for 2017, and we'll begin the year resolutely intending to follow through. 

 

Okay, you probably know where this is going.  Unfortunately, if it's like the typical New Year's resolution, that will be "nowhere".  I've seen reports that no more than 8% of New Year's resolutions are ever kept, meaning more than 9 in 10 get absolutely nowhere.  Well, actually, that isn't always true, for many broken New Year's resolutions complete their journeys at a place called "Disappointment and Frustration".

 

As you might expect, I have a different, and possibly unexpected perspective on this subject.  Recently I saw a great posting by a fellow named Ben Hardy.  Ben told his readers they shouldn't be making resolutions for 2017, they should be for 2018, maybe beyond.  You can read what Ben has to say at https://medium.com/the-mission/why-you-should-be-planning-for-2018-not-2017-7c8fea3e2e52?inf_contact_key=731fa0711f8dd6b9946eed9fba12b245192ace21e19a34469eff7458a4705271#.sldvofl2k. 

 

I think Ben is right, but his timeframe maybe even a little to short: planning a year out may simply be too brief a time horizon.  Huh? 

 

Seriously, your planning horizon for your New Year's resolution should probably be much more than one or two years out.  This is because, like Ben Hardy, I think your plans for New Year's resolutions should actually be based upon life goals – things you want to make sure you achieve sometime in your life.   Hardy provides some excellent examples, one being the Harry Potter series author, J.K. Rowling, and Star Wars creator, George Lucas.  In the case of Rowling, it was to write about seven years at Hogwarts School, not simply a single story.  In the case of Lucas, it was to start with a plan for six films in series, and start the story at episode four.

 

Unlike J.K. Rowling or George Lucas, you don't need to plan for a multi-volume book series, or multi-movie project spanning 15 or more years.  But what Hardy is proposing is something all of us can do. 

 

Stephen Covey, the renowned author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, as well as numerous other books, said the first habit we should all develop is to "Begin With  the End in Mind."  Covey wasn't just being figurative in his phrasing, he actually said you should think about what you might want someone to say at your eulogy.   Of course, the purpose of a eulogy is to help the living to remember to deceased.  Covey's point was simply this: if you want to be remembered for something, you ought to make sure you're taking steps to be that person, or to act like that person.  So ask yourself, are you the person you want to be remembered in that way in the eulogy?  For pretty much all of us, the answer isn't just "no", it's a "resounding no"!

 

So for Covey, and others like him, the starting point is either what you might want someone to say during your eulogy, or some specific lifetime goals.  A number of people have created what's called a "Bucket List".  Usually, it's a set of things they want to accomplish before they die.  Quite often, however, the proverbial bucket list is not quite the same as Covey's eulogy.  After all, do you want your eulogist to recite what you checked off your bucket list?  One of my personal bucket list items is to attend a game at every one of the 30 Major League Baseball parks around the country.  I'm about half way to the goal, and I have a very good chance of accomplishing the goal, but I rather doubt I want my future eulogist to remember me for accomplishing the goal if I do!

 

But here's one I really do hope the eulogist can mention.  One of my lifetime goals is to gather on the 6^th of June in 2046 with my wife, Lina, and our family and friends so Lina and I can celebrate our 65^th wedding anniversary.  I've read that only about 1% of marriages ever make it 65 years.  God willing, that's the one percent of which I wish to be part.   Of course, getting to that day will require a number of things: a) we both have to live until then (we'll be in our 90's); b) we'll have to stay married; and c) happily at that if there is to be any sort of celebration.

 

This, obviously, isn't a whimsical goal.  In my mind, it's very worthwhile, but it will take a lot of concerted effort.  Which brings me back to those New Year's resolutions.  The point that Ben Hardy, Stephen Covey, and I are making is that the perspective of the resolution is not so much "from today forward", it's "from the goal back to today".  Thus, before making any type of resolution, one should ask oneself, what's truly important to me; what could I work on that might really make a difference to me, and the people about whom I care?  Don't even think about a resolution, or trying to make some type of change, until you answer that type of question.  In other words, don't focus your improvement efforts from the perspective of where you stand today, focus them from where you want to be at a future point, then work backwards.

 

Anyone who has ever undertaken a "change program", or tried to improve himself/herself, knows how tough it can be, especially about a month or two into the program.  Someone once described it as the "drying out" period: your initial surge of enthusiasm has ended, now all you can look at is a tough road.  No wonder most New Year's resolutions never see a page of the February calendar.  The reversed perspective, I believe, is key.  Instead of looking forward, focus on the real goal, and what the real goal will mean, then work backwards to determine what you need to be doing today to help get there. 

 

Here's a simple example.  Lots of people make a New Year's resolution to quit smoking.  It's a tough thing to accomplish, particularly because tobacco is highly addictive.  Of course, it can definitely be done, as millions have successfully quit smoking.  I'm fond of telling people that if they'll quit smoking the day their child, or grandchild, is born, and if they'll just put the money they spent on smoking in the bank, they'll end up with a lot of money.  How much?  Well, if the smoker has a pack a day habit and quits the day his child or her grandchild is born, and deposits the money for one pack each day in the bank, by the time the child graduates from high school, the bank account should have over $ 40,000! That's enough to give that child a quality four year education at a public university.  Is the thought of providing your child or grandchild a college education motivating?  Could it help get you through the "dog days" of withdrawal?  The image of your child or grandchild standing on stage, receiving the diploma that your action made possible, should be highly motivating!

 

Now you might need an intermediate goal, too.  The intermediate goal should be something related to your real goal, but something to achieve this calendar year.  In other words, if your real goal is a long ways way, say 31 years from now like mine is, you need an intermediate goal, probably 31 December 2017.  You might break that down even further.  Once you have that December, 2017 goal, you're ready to make your New Year's resolution.  Actually, it won't really be a resolution, it will be your New Year's plan to achieve your 2017 goal, which will bring you one step closer to your real goal. 

 

Of course, this is truly all easier said that done.  But if you don't ever take the time to stop and think it through, you're likely never to get to another destination than "Disappointment and Frustration."  Once you get there, your frustration will be magnified as the turnstiles are backed up because the station is incredibly crowded! 

 

So instead of making a resolution this New Year's, don't plan anything until you've taken time to think more deeply about this, particularly by looking at what's really important to you, then working backwards.  Take the unexpected perspective.

 

Now, back to your celebration!  May the year 2017 bring you and your loved ones many blessings and much happiness.

 

 

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/A-Message-of-Hope-in-the-Christmas-Season/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

There aren't too many things in life that I intensely dislike, much less despise.  One thing, however, that does fit in that category is political correctness.  I REALLY dislike it!  Surprisingly, I find that a broad range of people, both liberals and conservatives, say the very same thing – they really dislike political correctness.  Now I'm not suggesting one should be insensitive or hateful.  We can simultaneously avoid being PC, as well as insensitive or hateful.

 

So with that in mind, let me be very politically incorrect and say, especially to my fellow Christians, "Merry Christmas".  For my Jewish friends, "Happy Chanukah".    If you celebrate neither, then let me say, "Happy Solstice".  I hope you celebrated the shortest day of the year on December 21s (or the longest day of the year, in case you happen to be reading this south of the Equator).

 

Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus for a 12 day period beginning on December 25^th.  Most of us have come to abbreviate the celebration to the day of the 25th.  Other Christians, focus on January 6^th, the day of Epiphany, recognizing the day the Three Wise Men arrived to worship the new child, as well as to bring gifts.

 

In the spirit of the arrival of Jesus as a message of hope to a fallen world, as well as the arrival of the Three Wise Men bearing gifts, let me offer a message of hope that may well become a gift for some.  In the spirit of my book and blog, it will come from an unexpected perspective.

 

I had occasion to stop in a "dollar store" the other day, and it provided me an important reminder that there really are two different Americas.  The America of many, maybe most, "dollar store" shoppers looks fairly bleak: job opportunities are limited, and many wish to bring back the America they remember from the past. 

 

Unfortunately for many of those "dollar store" shoppers, the jobs that have disappeared aren't going to come back, irrespective of US trade and tax policy, or the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC (aka the White House).  But that doesn't mean those "dollar store" shoppers should despair.  Increasingly, I'm seeing evidence that entirely new classes of good paying blue collar jobs are appearing, a seemingly unexpected result.

 

For example, Clive Thompson has written in the December, 2016 issue of Wired magazine of a truly unexpected example of this - software coding.  When we think of software development, we tend to think of Silicon Valley.  Most people think software development requires high levels of education and training and is out of reach to most.  Thompson, however, notes that only about 8% of software development jobs are in Silicon Valley, the remaining 92% spread across the country.  Thompson and others, however, believe a high percentage of those other 92% of jobs are accessible to those who have had their jobs displaced in older, dying industries: people can be retrained to do a lot of software development jobs.  The really good news is that the average pay in IT is $ 81,000/year.  Moreover, the job category is expected to grow by 12%/year until 2024.

                             

Thompson says that there are numerous programs around the country focused on re-training people like former coal miners to become software coders.  A persistent problem in Appalachia has been lost jobs, as well as a population resistant to moving out of the region.  Well, why not transform it from the land of coal to the land of code?  While this sounds like a crazy idea, it really isn't so crazy.  There are lots of other types of jobs that can pay good wages and are accessible to those at the lower end of the economic scale.  We don't have to try to bring back the jobs of the past.  Instead, we should bring the jobs of the future, particularly the one's that will be a gift, a message of hope, to the very people we encounter at the "dollar store".

 

While all kinds of people celebrate Christmas as a gift giving occasion, the underlying reason is to celebrate God's gift of Jesus, a message of hope to a fallen people – the birth of a savior.  Jesus is not the only savior I've heard about at this time of year.  Back at Christmas in 2008, I heard lots of people celebrating the arrival of another "savior" – Barack Obama as President of the USA.  However, because expectations were so high, and in many cases unrealistic, the results were not up to expectations, and many are now disappointed. 

 

A funny thing is happening now.  Just as hope was placed in Obama to be a "savior", the same is now happening to Donald Trump, the President Elect.  I hate to say it, but I fully expect that many people are going to be disappointed, just as many were disappointed about Obama.  Now these are likely to be two very different sets of people, but the underlying process is the same. 

 

Barack Obama and Donald Trump, like the 43 men who preceded them as President of the United State of America, are mere mortals.  They have each brought varying messages of hope.  I truly wish the new president much success, exactly as I did for President Obama at the end of 2008.  Ultimately, however, our expectations should be tempered.  I would certainly enjoy the idea of being pleasantly surprised, but even if I am, I know that the President can only do so much. 

 

When all is said and done, there is only so much that government can accomplish.  Rather than rely upon government to help "save" the down and out, we should first look to what individuals, businesses, and non-governmental institutions can do.  The unexpected perspective is that the "gift" of better jobs like software coding can be provided irrespective of the occupant of the White House or the party that controls Congress. 

 

While we can provide some measure of hope to the world, Christians believe the real message of hope is the one borne by Jesus Christ, whose birth we now celebrate.  So let us celebrate this occasion by bringing gifts to one another, and let us focus our attention on ways we can bring a message of hope to those who are down and out, and truly need our help.

 

I wish everyone joyous times during the twelve days of Christmas. 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/How-Darwin-Reinforces-Basic-Christian-Doctrines/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

REINFORCING BASIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

 

In previous posts, as well as my book, The Unexpected Perspective, I've made the argument that Christians should love Darwin's theory of evolution because it actually reinforces three basic doctrines of Christianity:

 

• Original sin, first committed by Adam and Eve, but from which all humans suffer
• The reality of the Garden of Eden
• The imperfectability of man (i.e., mankind cannot overcome its moral and character flaws, and cannot "save" itself).

 

The underlying reason, I believe, is because of a concept in biology called antagonistic pleiotropy (pronounced PLY-ot-tro-pee).   Pleiotropy is the idea that individual genes  perform multiple functions, something that is well documented.  In other words, a particular gene doesn't just do one thing, it typically is involved in multiple different things.  Thus, for a particular human trait such as eye color or height, one can't point to a single gene and say that it is the reason.  Usually, multiple genes are involved.  Likewise, any given gene performs multiple functions, so one won't find a specific gene whose only function is to determine eye color, for example. 

 

Darwin's theory predicts that undesirable traits will eventually die out because they leave the organism/animal ill equipped for its environment.  Based upon this, one should expect that certain terrible diseases would eventually disappear because they certainly don't help better adapt the disease victim to the environment.  The thing is, however, terrible diseases seem to persist.  The reason certain diseases don't disappear may be because of the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy.  I've described pleiotropy in the previous paragraph, so what is antagonistic pleiotropy?

 

Antagonistic pleiotropy is an idea that was formulated about 60 years ago to explain the biological causes of aging.  It's also been employed to help explain why certain diseases don't disappear, as Darwin's theory would predict.  A perfect example is a disease called sickle cell anemia.  Sickle cell, which mainly affects blacks, is a terrible disease that disables its victims, as well as shortens the lives of those who have it.   The reason sickle cell anemia doesn't disappear from the gene pool, in spite of the terrible destruction is causes, is because it has the peculiar characteristic of providing resistance to malaria.  If one lives in a malarial zone such as Africa, that malarial resistance is very beneficial.  Thus, the genes that cause sickle cell disease have both positive and negative aspects.  Antagonistic pleiotropy is the idea that given genes have both positive and negative characteristics, and sickle cell is a perfect example.  Scientists are finding other examples of antagonistic pleiotropy in nature.  Thus, those who carry the sickle cell trait are more likely than others to have resistance to malaria, so they survive long enough to reproduce and pass the sickle cell genetic material on to their children.

 

I'd like you to think of antagonistic pleiotropy in general, and sickle cell disease in particular, as a metaphor for human behavior.  I believe a high percentage of human behaviors fit the metaphor of sickle cell disease (i.e., having both positive and negative aspects), meaning that each behavior has both a positive side and a negative side, much as every coin has both a head and a tail.  When considering sickle cell disease, think of the head of the coin as resistance to malaria (the positive side) and the tail of the coin as the disease manifesting itself (the negative side).  Now, think of typical human behaviors the same way.  Good examples are lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, and lust.  Every one of these behaviors fits the coin analogy because there is a positive side to each of these behaviors as well as a negative side. 

 

Here's a good example.  Nearly everyone, including me, thinks that bullying is wrong.  The funny thing is there is plenty of evidence to show that it has persisted in both human and non-human populations because it is evolutionarily beneficial: the best bullies tend to become dominant in the population, gain access to females, and tend to reproduce dis-proportionately more.  This is clearly observable in the natural world.  The head and the tail of the behavior are inextricably linked.  The same is true in the human world: those who are good bullies, at least throughout most of human history, tend to become dominant and, therefore, tend to gain preferred access to females and reproduce more than less successful bullies.  Thus bullying, despite being bad in certain respects, is evolutionarily beneficial.  Social attitudes about bullying have certainly changed, but only recently.

 

This will tend to explain something that those who observe the non-human animal world – these animals exhibit many of the kinds of behavior that we label as sin, or at least bad, in humans.  The argument is that these bad behaviors have positive analogues that help the animals succeed and reproduce.  For example, there's lots of evidence that monkeys deceive one another and steal from one another.  These behaviors help individual monkeys to survive and, because over time they have tended survive more than other monkeys, reproduce, passing genes on to the next generation.

 

The skeptical among you may say, that's fine and well with respect to non-human animals, but humans are different.  I totally agree, humans are different – WE'RE WORSE!  The reason we're worse is because of the key difference between humans and all other species.  In short, we humans have:

 

• Consciousness
• Agency (meaning the ability to make choices and take action)
• Capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
• Ability to do the wrong thing even when we know it is wrong.

 

The reason we can do this is because we have bigger and more sophisticated brains, and possibly some other differentiating factors.  The Darwinian argument is that primates all have a common ancestor who lived about 100 million years ago.  Think of a giant tree with a trunk and multiple branches.  Humans are one branch of the tree, gorillas are another, chimpanzees still another.  It appears we humans have a lot of genetic material in common with these other species.  Humans need not worry that we are descendants from monkeys, but Darwinian scientists say we do appear to have a common ancestor.   According to Darwin's theory, at various points over the past 100 million years, various primates have split off from the others to form new branches on the tree. 

 

Why is this important?  First, the theory suggests that because the common ancestor to all of us, the one at the trunk of the tree, is the source of our behaviors that have both positive and negative sides.  All of the creatures on this giant genetic tree possess them, because they are evolutionarily beneficial.

 

Second, our human branch is a little different than all of the other branches, because of our larger brains.  Those larger brains have given us consciousness, agency, the capacity to know right from wrong, and the ability to do wrong when we know the difference.  Monkeys, for example, deceive and steal, but so far as we know, they lack sufficient consciousness to understand the idea of right and wrong, much less the ability to make a choice.  Presumably, monkeys deceive and steal because it works (i.e., it helps then get food and avoid being eaten), thus helping them to survive.

 

Which leads me to the Garden of Eden.  The Garden of Eden is the story of the earliest humans and their encounter with God.  These creatures were different than all other creatures because either they had evolved the four capacities I noted above, or God had provided them a special endowment.  Their behavior fit the "coin" model I described above: the positive side of the behavior was the ability to act and think independently, thus giving them seeming dominion over the natural world; and the negative side was their defiance of God.  My argument is that they were merely representative of all humans.

 

Thus, antagonistic pleiotropy can provide us a useful model for why Christians should love Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is because it offers:

 

• An explanation for the linkage of positive and negative behaviors
• An explanation for nonhuman animals manifesting "sinful" behavior
• A mechanism for transmission of sinful behavior from one generation to the next
• An explanation for the imperfectability of mankind, because the negative behaviors are inextricably linked to the positive ones.  The "bad" must come along with the "good".

 

It thus provides a way to explain the emergence of humanity without requiring God to have made a special creation of humans.    If you're a Christian like me, please understand, that doesn't mean God couldn't have made humans as a special creation, simply that it would not have been necessary.  This "simpler" explanation offers Christians some additional benefits, which I'll explain in a later post.

 

But the Garden of Eden is not the end of the story, merely a waypoint.  The story evokes different reactions.  The key differentiator, I believe, is the reaction of God.  What we don't often think about is that God had a choice, too.  His reaction to Adam and Eve's disobedience might have been the following:

 

• This is one small corner of a giant universe.  After all, there are an estimated , 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, so who cares if the creatures on one planet in one tiny corner of this universe have gone "rogue"?
• "I'm outta here!  I don't need these people!"

 

Sounds funny, but if we truly are made in the image of God, perhaps that thought crossed God's mind, just as it probably would have if someone had done to us what Adam and Eve did to God.  In fact, one could make the argument that that is precisely the conclusion Deists have reached, that God more or less "bailed" on Adam and Eve, leaving the world alone, leaving humans to their own devices.

 

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share the Garden of Eden story, but each religion looks at the story a little differently.  In contrast to Deism, all three are built upon the belief that God's response was not "I'm outta' here!", it was, I care about my creation and I will become involved.  

 

The Christian Bible includes an Old Testament of 39 books and a New Testament of 27 books.  The story of the Garden of Eden occurs in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis, the very first book, so the latter 47 chapters of Genesis, as well as the remaining 65 books of the Bible (1,189 chapters in total), describe God's engagement with his creation.  Christians believe God was anything but "outta' here!", particularly because of His relationship with the Israelites, as well as the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

The foundation of Christianity, however, is those core doctrines of original sin, and the inability of humans to overcome their moral shortcomings on their own.  Christians hold views that differ from Islam and Judaism on these.  Combining Darwin's theory with the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy provides a way to explain the reality upon which Christianity is based.  As such, Christians should not simply reconcile themselves to Darwin, they should absolutely love it!

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Unexpected-Perspectives-on-Politics/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

UNEXPECTED PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS

I normally restrict my comments to matters of science, technology and the Bible, but today I want to depart from that by addressing the recent US Presidential election.  I'm doing this because the election outcome highlights the problem not simply of political division, but that those on each side seem incapable of appreciating the perspectives of those on the other side.  This is truly unfortunate.  Let me offer two examples, one that shows how conservatives often fail to appreciate the perspective of liberals and progressives, and one that shows how liberals and progressives fail to appreciate the perspective of conservatives.

            Let's start with an example of how conservatives fail to appreciate the perspective of liberals and progressives.  Donald Trump, the incoming US President, ran on the slogan "Make America Great Again".  This idea clearly appealed to a large percentage of his base of voters, many of whom feel that the United States has gone off course and is no longer the pre-eminent country it once was.  Many liberals and progressives are troubled by the slogan.  What makes the slogan troubling for many was captured in a recent interview I heard on National Public Radio.  The interview was of a group of voters in Pennsylvania, some Democratic and some Republican, some white and some non-white.  The blacks who were interviewed said the problem with the slogan is the word "Again".  They said that while many white Americans might wish to go back to what they remember America was in the past, for the blacks, that might mean going back to Jim Crow laws, as well as a much less hospitable America.  Women, gays, and other minorities surely would say the same.  Hearing that, one of the white women present said, "I never considered that before."  Obviously, a different perspective.

Now let's consider the same thing from the other side of the political divide.  Many people are troubled by the fact that Trump won the election but lost the popular vote.  The reason Trump was elected was because of the Electoral College.  The Electoral College allocates votes to each state and the District of Columbia based upon the number of Senators and Congressmen that the state has.  Thus, the Electoral College has 538 votes, representing 100 Senators, 435 members of the US House of Representatives, and 3 votes for the District Columbia (as though the latter had 2 Senators and 1 Congressman).  To win the election, one must get 270 of the Electoral College votes.  Thus, while Clinton won the popular vote, Trump earned more than 270 Electoral College votes.  He accomplished this because while Clinton won large majorities in a relatively few states, a significant majority of the 50 states actually voted for Trump.  For many people, this outcome was unfair, because "the will of the people" is not being respected.

There is, however, a different perspective about the Electoral College.  Richard Posner, a distinguished appeals court judge and economist, has written a defense of the Electoral College (see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html.)  Among the benefits of the Electoral College is that it provides protections to minorities, as well as assures that smaller states have an important voice.  It has been argued that if the Electoral College were abolished, national elections would be decided mainly on the heavily populated coasts of the country, with little or no voice for the middle of the country.  Moreover, it's been argued that this system ensures a bigger voice for minorities, including blacks and Hispanics.  Liberals and Progressives are very concerned to protect the rights of minorities, so if anyone should appreciate the Electoral College, it should be them, yet in this case they seem to be complaining the loudest of how "unfair" it is.

I bring this up because it is an excellent example of the problem of we all seem to face: we're focused on our own particular viewpoints; we tend to surround ourselves only with those of the same, or very similar viewpoints; we fail to appreciate the perspective of others from different backgrounds and viewpoints; but if we'll take time to listen, we can each learn something valuable from those on the opposite side.  In the case of the white voter cited above, it was the surprising realization that "Make America Great Again" might have some unexpected baggage, particularly for minorities; and in the case of the Electoral College, it was that those concerned about protecting minorities might actually want to embrace the Electoral College.

My book, The Unexpected Perspective, describes reasons why Christians might want to reconsider their opposition to Darwin because Darwin provides some unexpected benefits to Christians.  That becomes possible only if one is willing to listen to the other side.  Likewise, wherever you might be on the political spectrum, I encourage you to consider some of the views of your political opponents, then consider the possibility that your political opponents might have some useful insight from which you can benefit. 

I'm not simply asking others to do this, I'm trying to do it myself.  One of the issues about which I am passionate is free trade.  You might say that I never met a free trade agreement I didn't like.  But I've now come to realize that unabashed support may not be a good idea; maybe those who are opposed to free trade have something worthwhile to say, and maybe they'll even have some ideas that I'll find very appealing, if only I take time to listen to what they have to say.  The question for every one of us is, are we willing to step out of our personal "belief bubbles", take time to listen to what someone on the other side has to say, then seek to understand how and why those ideas ought to be given some serious consideration. 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Mechanism-of-Transmission/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

MECHANISM OF TRANSMISSION

A core belief of Christianity is that Adam and Eve sinned, and their sin has been transmitted to a humans who lived after them. Of course, the big question is, how was that sinful nature transmitted to everyone else?  The two traditional ways that Christians have explained it is by the concepts of traducianism and creationism.  In each case, some type of ethereal substance is transmitted from one person to the next.  For many people, particularly the skeptical, that just seems like a lot of hocus pocus.  Could there be a simpler explanation?

Yes, I think there is.  In order to arrive at it, however, we need to take a look at our nearest genetic cousins – chimpanzees, gorillas, and apes.  We share about 97% of our DNA with them.  Now the first objection lots of skeptics in evolution have is that they don't believe humans are descendants of these animals.  I agree, we're not.  What the evidence suggests, however, is that all of us share a common ancestor – that's the reason we share so much DNA.  What is hypothesized is that at some point in the distant past, humans split off and started a new branch.  The branch continues to this day.  Gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates went off in a slightly different direction.

A very interesting set of discoveries has been made in the last few years.  Primatologists, the people who study non-human primates, have come to realize that our genetic cousins share our ability to cheat, steal, deceive, and even murder others.  In other words, non-human primates have the capacity to do exactly what we refer to as sin in humans.  So the obvious question is, where did that come from?

Based upon the way we've traditionally read the book of Genesis, sinful behavior began with Adam and Eve.  But if non-human primates seem to do the same sinful things that we attribute to humans, does that mean that non-human primates are descendants of Adam and Eve?  Certainly not!  So where did that capacity come from?  Was there some type of Garden of Eden event for gorillas, chimpanzees and apes?  I highly doubt it!

This is where one can construct a plausible explanation for both the Garden of Eden and observable science.  First, humans and non-human primates share a common ancestor, the source of all of that common DNA.  It is from that common ancestor that we inherited the capacity to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and do other bad things.  But there is an important difference between this bad behavior in non-human primates and the same bad behavior in humans: in the case of humans, we call it "sin" but in the case of the non-human primates, we don't call it sin.  So what is the distinction?  Is it a distinction with any meaningful difference?

Think about the difference between a human who steals and a chimpanzee that steals.  While the act is the same, there are three critical differences.  First, the human has a level of consciousness, as well as the capacity to know that stealing is wrong. The chimpanzee, so far as we know, does not have that capacity.  Second, not only does the human know stealing is wrong, he/she also realizes there is a choice to be made.  Third, the human occasionally decides to make the choice to do what is wrong.

When you get down to it, isn't that exactly what the Garden of Eden was about?  Adam and Eve, the first humans, had sufficient consciousness and capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.  They knew that God had told them not to eat from the one particular tree.  Moreover, they knew they had a choice.  Most importantly, they decided to make the wrong choice.  Non-human primates can't do that.

If that's the distinction, then Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides a perfect explanation for this.  Darwin theorized that animals evolved, slowly but surely.  Humans branched off from other non-human primates.  Over time their capabilities increased.  They evolved the capacity for consciousness.  Change happened imperceptibly slowly, but finally a certain threshold was crossed: Adam and Eve.  Thus, the Garden of Eden represented the point at which a new milestone was achieved: creatures that possessed not only consciousness, but the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, the capacity to make choices, and the capacity to make the wrong choice.  

Looked at in this light, there is no need to explain the transmission of sin by an ethereal doctrine such as traducianism: the mechanism of transmission is clear and straightforward … and it comes courtesy of Charles Darwin!  Thus, original sin, the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, can be explained in terms of a natural transition that occurred when the first humans emerged.

So let's think about this in terms of why Christians ought not just to accept Charles Darwin, we ought to love his ideas!  It's because we can provide a simple, natural explanation for what Christians believe is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity.  Even better, it's something that non-Christians, particularly atheists, readily accept – they've been trying to get Christians to buy into the concept for a long time.  We haven't because we oftentimes didn't understand the implications of what Darwin was saying.  Now atheists and other non-Christians will agree that an important transition occurred between non-human primates and humans, but they won't accept the "sin" part of the narrative.  That will likely take some persuasion on the part of Christians, but we've been trying to persuade non-Christians of this narrative more nearly two millennia.  Now we can explain it using the scientific framework that non-Christians accept.

Now all of this discussion has begged an important question: just why do non-human primates and other animals lie, cheat, steal and murder?  Let's explore that idea in upcoming posts.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Are-There-Really-Only-Two-Choices/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

         Have you ever noticed that when a controversial topic comes up, all the attention goes to those with the most extreme views?  That's certainly true when it comes to political issues.  It probably shouldn't be surprising.  After all, the most extreme and shocking views are the ones that seem to garner attention.

         At the same time, everyone's busy.  We don't usually have lots of time to think deeply about certain issues.  Because of this, we all have a tendency to try to make things as simple and neat as possible, especially complicated things.  Nothing at all surprising about that.  The result is the following:

• Complex topics are described in simple, black and white terms
• All of the attention goes to those with the most extreme views at opposite ends of the spectrum
• Any nuance, and any views in the middle of the spectrum, tend to get lost.

This certainly applies to politics ° in fact I think you can say this applies to every imaginable political issue – from abortion rights ° to climate change ° to gun control ° to tax reform;  and it also applies to religion ° especially when it comes to talking about how religion relates to science.

         Something else that isn't very surprising: most people don't spend their days thinking about any of these issues.  Not that they don't care, it's just that they have more pressing matters to deal with, like doing a good job at work or school, putting food on the table for dinner, and making rent or mortgage payments; so it really shouldn't be any surprise that the average person doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about how the world was created.  But some people do, and they're usually the people who hold the most extreme views. Let's take a look at the two extremes concerning how the world was created.

         On one extreme are people who believe there is no God and that the world has no purpose.  The famous British scientist Richard Dawkins is representative of this group.  Dawkins believes that the world was created along the lines described by Charles Darwin and that the account of creation contained in the Bible is nonsensical.

         On the other extreme are Christians who believe not only that the world was created by God, but that it happened pretty much literally as described in the book of Genesis.  In fact, they believe that God created the world in seven 24 days and that the world is only about 6,000 years old.  These people are often referred to as young earth creationists.  There's also a group of people called old earth creationists.  They acknowledge that the universe is a lot older than 6,000 years, but they still tend to reject the theory of evolution, and also believe the Genesis account is essentially correct, so they're pretty close to the young earth creationists.

         The funny thing is that while these two groups (i.e., atheists and creationists) are pretty much polar opposites, they actually share some ideas in common.  One is that science and religion do not, and cannot mix.  Each group would like you to believe that if you believe in science or you believe in religion, you can't believe in the other, at least in terms of how the world came to be: Dawkins would like you to believe that if you believe in science, you can't believe in God, and you certainly can't believe in the Bible.  At the same time, young earth creationists would like you to conclude that if you believe in Darwin's concept of evolution, you're more or less consorting with the Devil.  Both extremes tend to think that any attempt to combine science and religion is pretty much a fool's errand – after all, it's a black and white world!

         In terms of creation, much of the world seems to have bought into this view of a black and white world.  As an example, consider the dictionary definition for creationism. It says, "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."  Thus, in the popular mind, there become just two possibilities:

• Possibility A: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is correct; or
• Possibility B: creationism, meaning that the world was literally created as described in the first chapters of Genesis.

Needless to say, there's a pretty wide gap between possibility A and possibility B.  So the two opposing groups wish the average person to make a choice: either believe the scientific evidence and, therefore, rejection the Bible; or, believe the Bible and reject modern science. 

         But you know what?  It really ISN'T a black a white world!  Why not?  Well, first of all, just as I've said in my book, The Unexpected Perspective, the Bible isn't a science textbook, and never was intended to be one.  In fact, when you read the Bible, you should be careful not to try to draw scientific conclusions about what it's saying.  What that means is that the Bible can be completely true without ever saying anything about science.  That has important implications for the two extreme groups:

• People like Richard Dawkins should stop trying to say the Bible is rubbish because the science it describes is wrong.  Well, the Bible isn't trying to say anything about science, so it's unreasonable to reject the Bible because the so-called science in the text isn't correct;
• And precisely because the Bible isn't a science text book, young earth creationists should stop trying to draw scientific conclusions about the age of the earth or about how the earth was created.

The other conclusion to draw is that one can simultaneously embrace both modern science and the message of the Bible – a position that is somewhere in between the two extremes I described.  That's the position I take in my book – what is referred to by some as evolutionary creationism:

• It's evolutionary because it embraces all of the same science that people like Richard Dawkins embrace;
• And it's creationism because it also embraces the idea that God was behind the creation of the world, just as described in the Bible.

Now the two extreme groups I described earlier both believe you can't hold this type of view.  I strongly disagree.  Let's take a quick look why.

         People like Dawkins would like you to believe that because you can't prove the existence of God by some scientific means, then God cannot exist.  I, and lots of others, reject this line of reasoning.  The existence or non-existence of God is a matter of faith and isn't subject to empirical testing.  As a Christian, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge this.  I'm just asking atheists to acknowledge the same.  Just as I can't prove that God exists, an atheist can't prove the non-existence of God.  If one accepts that idea, it's not at all hard to believe that the process of evolution can be both real ° AND simultaneously under the ultimate control of God – the concept called evolutionary creationism.

         Now let's look at the question from the other side – can you be a faithful Christian who accepts that the Bible is correct and still believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?  If you're willing to accept the idea that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it really shouldn't be difficult at all.  In fact, I believe one can simultaneously embrace the Bible on one hand and Darwin and the Big Bang Theory on the other hand.   

         So what do people in fact believe?  Pew Research last looked at this in 2013.  When questioning adult Americans, they found the following responses:

"Humans have existed in present

form since creation"                       33%

"Humans have evolved over time"   60%

No opinion                                      7%

That suggests that fully a third of the population believes either in young earth or old earth creationism, but three in five believe in evolution.  Sounds exactly like the black and white world I was describing above.  But they also found that 24% accepted the following: "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today."  That would mean that nearly half (i.e., 24%/60%) of those believing in evolution also believe that it was somehow guided by a supreme being, the balance believing it was guided by natural processes only.  They also found significant percentages of people who described themselves as religious also saying they believed that humans evolved over time by natural processes, exactly the category in which Richard Dawkins falls.  Not quite such a black and white world after all!

         As I said at the outset, we have a tendency to try to reduce complicated issues to simple black and white choices.  Furthermore, for pretty much every issue, the people at the extremes want the issue to be simplified that way, and force people to take one side or the other.   But for issue and after issue, the black and white choice is a false one.  It isn't black and white at all. In the case of science and the Bible, it definitely isn't black and white.  One can both believe in Darwin and believe in the Bible – evolutionary creationism is a realistic alternative.

         Whether you agree with me or not, please share your thoughts ° and if you'd like to see more, subscribe to my blog.