Perspectives

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Book-Recommendations/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

I am often asked, what's worth reading?  With respect to Christianity and the sciences, one of the sources I turn to is the Biologos Foundation.  If you're not familiar with Biologos, I encourage you to check them out.  A number of their writers and staffers compiled a list of top books for 2016.  I've included them below.  The compilers make the caveat that the list is entirely subjective, but based upon what I know of the group, particularly their scholarship, I think these are worthy of consideration. 

 

Brad Kramer

 

Finding God in the Waves: How I Lost My Faith and Found It Again Through Science by Mike McHargue, aka Science Mike (see https://www.amazon.com/Finding-God-Waves-Through-Science-ebook/dp/B01A4B1QIY)

 

Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science by Stacy Trasancos.   (see https://www.amazon.com/Particles-Faith-Catholic-Navigating-Science-ebook/dp/B01N6BGPG5/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1487720536&sr=1-1&keywords=particles+of+faith)

 

Jim Stump

 

 Enriching Our Vision of Reality: Theology and the Natural Sciences in Dialogue by Alister McGrath (see https://www.amazon.com/Enriching-our-Vision-Reality-Theology-ebook/dp/B01D5MPC1Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487720673&sr=1-1&keywords=enriching+our+vision+of+reality)

 

The Emergence of Personhood: A Quantum Leap? by Malcolm Jeeves (editor) (see https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Personhood-Quantum-Leap/dp/0802871925/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487720763&sr=1-1&keywords=emergence+of+personhood)

 

Mike Beidler

 

The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? by Carol Hill et al (editors) (see https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Canyon-Monument-Ancient-Earth/dp/0825444217/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487720965&sr=1-1&keywords=grand+canyon+monument+to+an+ancient+earth).  The title may be off-putting for some, but this is serious scholarship.  By the way, the authors conclude that Noah's Flood could not possibly explain the Grand Canyon.

 

The Crossroads of Science and Faith: Astronomy Through a Christian Worldview by Susan Benecchi et al. (see http://www.glimpseofhissplendor.com/). 

 

Ted Davis

 

Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues by James Stump (see http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118625277.html)

 

Casper Hesp

 

Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy by Michael Polanyi (see https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Knowledge-Towards-Post-Critical-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00XVQOPHO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487721586&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+polanyi+personal+knowledge).  This book was actually written in 1958, so not exactly new, but apparently there was a recent re-issue. 

 

The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by N.T. Wright (see https://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Scripture-Authority-God-Getting/dp/0060872616/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487721774&sr=1-1&keywords=wright+the+last+word%3A+beyond+the+bible).  This is also an older book, having been issued around 2005.

 

I hope from amongst these you find some worthwhile reading!  At the same time, if you know of a good book that addresses questions of science, technology and faith, please share it.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Darwin-Day/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

I wish each of you belated Happy Darwin Day!  Sorry I didn't mention this last week, for Sunday, February 12^th was Darwin Day, celebrating the 208^th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the formulator of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Oh, it wasn't on your calendar?  Truth be told, it wasn't on mine, either.  Probably not embarrassing at all to you, but I actually am a little embarrassed.  After all, I've been trying to study all things Darwin for a number of years – and I completely missed his birthday!  To my rescue came Jim Stump, Senior Editor at BioLogos, who mentioned it in a blog post this week.  Well, it could have been worse.  At least I didn't forget my wife's birthday!  I do have an excuse: I was in Ghana, getting ready to fly home to the USA; and like Jim Stump, I celebrated the day as I usually do each Sunday by going to a Christian Church.

Seriously, there is a movement afoot to celebrate Darwin's birthday.  It was first started by three Darwin enthusiasts.  Dr. Robert Stephens set up the first celebration in 1995 in Silicon Valley, followed by Prof. Massimo Piliucci at the University of Tennessee in 1997, and then by Amanda Chesworth in New Mexico in 2000.  Supporters even have their own website. 

The people behind Darwin Day want to turn it into a recognized holiday.  No doubt, Hallmark won't object.  However, Darwin was born the very day of someone whose birthday is already celebrated – Abraham Lincoln – though his birthday is now celebrated on President's Day, the 3^rd Monday of the month.  The "Darwin Day" advocates want us to remember the famous English scientist because, in their words, it "will inspire people throughout the world to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin."

            The website appears to me to have very much of a secular humanist bent; and the  implication, of course, is intellectual bravery and hunger for truth "other than Christianity".    In our fast-paced world, where everyone seeks simple, "either/or" answers, that type of thinking is appealing.  Traditional supporters of Darwin tend to think that if you believe in Darwin, then you must obviously reject Christianity; and on the other side, many conservative Christians believe that if you are a real Christian, then you can't possibly believe much, if anything, that Darwin has to say.  In my mind, very neat, very clean … and very wrong!

            Wrong to the point that I want to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  The prediction is, there will eventually be a Darwin Day, and it will be on the Christian Church calendar.  I say this because I think more and more Christians are going to come to the conclusion that not only is Darwin not antithetical to Christianity, his ideas actually are beneficial to Christians, and help reinforce things that Christians already hold dear.  That's the argument I've made in my book, The Unexpected Perspective.  The problem, of course, is to get people to reframe the issue.

            Christians, I believe, are coming to realize that embracing Darwin offers a number of benefits to them.  Let me share three of them in particular.  First, there is an increasing realization that original sin is the downside byproduct of evolution by natural selection.  Christian de Duve, a 1974 Nobel Prize in Medicine winner, drew that conclusion in his book Genetics of Original Sin (see my recent blog post on this), and I make a similar argument.  As I maintain in The Unexpected Perspective, original sin is the most basic doctrine in Christianity.  So Darwin's theory provides a modern day "bridge" to understand this ancient Christian concept.

            Second, Darwin can provide a "bridge" to help Christians evangelize the well educated.  Whereas for most of the past two thousand years, most educated people in the West were Christian, increasingly, that's not the case.  In fact, many well educated people seem to think the Bible is just a bunch of hocus-pocus.  It follows from the same type of  "either/or" thinking we see is increasingly common in all walks of life: if you're Chrstian, you must reject science in general and Darwin in particular; and if you reject science, then you must be stupid.  Darwin, I argue, can provide a bridge for Christians to have a serious, thoughtful conversation with well-educated non-Christians about science, Christianity and the Bible.

            Third, Darwin can provide a way to bridge the problem of how to teach science in the public schools.  For the past 100 years, many Christians have been fearful that if children in schools are taught Darwin's theories, they'll be on the road to rejecting Christianity.  In response, some Christians have sought to have alternative ideas such as Creationism or Intelligent Design taught, to the horror of scientists and many educators alike.  The result has often been that children aren't taught any science, to the detriment of all.  As I argue in The Unexpected Perspective, there is a way for Christians to embrace Darwin without fears that their children will be set on the path to atheism.  In fact, it may actually be the atheists who have to worry.

            The bottom line is that the idea of a Darwin versus the Bible and Christianity dichotomy really is a fiction.  Not only can Christians accept Darwinian science, they can love it.  They can love it for different reasons than do atheists.  If Christians can love it, they'll have a reason to celebrate Darwin, including the anniversary of his birth.  So it didn't happen this year, and it may still not happen next year, but pretty soon I predict, you'll see Darwin Day on the Christian calendar.    Charles Darwin, happy belated 208^th birthday!

 

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Genetics-of-Original-Sin/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

I recently read a book by the Nobel Prize winning Belgian scientist Christian de Duve titled Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity.  The author, who was a co-recipient of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Medicine, as well as the author of a number of other books, passed away not too long after this book was published.  He was, however, ninety five years old.

I recommend the book for a number of reasons, but two in particular.  First, it provides an excellent layman's overview of the science behind the theory of evolution by natural selection: sufficiently detailed and approachable, but not too technical.  Second, one of his key conclusions is the same one I reach in The Unexpected Perspective.  In his book he maintains "original sin is none other than the fault written into human genes by natural selection."  He concludes that natural selection "privileges all of the personal traits that contribute to the immediate success of individuals."  Further, he observes that natural selection favors cohesion of individuals within like groups and hostility to others, something that is obvious to all: we prefer to be with people who look and act like us, and distrust people who look different and who come from different backgrounds.

One particularly interesting thing he examines is the growth of the brain in mammals.  He notes that it took about 600 million years for the brains of animals to grow to 21.4 cubic inches, but that it only took 2 to 3 million years for human brains to grow from 21.4 to 82.4 cubic inches.  In other words, when viewed on a graph, the human brain's growth over time looks like a proverbial "hockey stick."  He further posits that the human brain only stopped growing beyond this because of limitations of female anatomy: a larger brain could not pass through the birth canal of a Homo sapiens female.

While both his book and mine link original sin to evolution by natural selection, de Duve's conclusions are dramatically different than mine.  De Duve's book is greatly concerned about the future prospects for humanity, embracing a Malthusian doomsday viewpoint.  Natural selection has caused humans to be shortsighted and selfish, and as a species, we have collectively brought the Earth to the bring of ruin. 

Though de Duve never explicitly stated it, he appears to have been either an atheist or a deist.  As such, he felt that it is up to mankind to save itself.  The latter part of the book then addresses the question, how can humanity overcome what natural selection has "gifted" to us as a species?  He lays out seven possible options for humans to save themselves:

• Option 1: do nothing
• Option 2: improve our genes
• Option 3: rewire the human brain to overcome the problem of original sin
• Option 4: call on religions to be more influential
• Option 5: protect the environment
• Option 6: give women an opportunity to play a greater role in human affairs
• Option 7: control population growth.

While he did not say it, I believe he felt the options with the greatest potential for success were numbers two and three.  He did not offer any specific way to accomplish this, but merely expressed how this would be desirable.  While I think only option 4 makes sense, it is interesting to see his thinking on the other options.

            The other reason I recommend his book is because I think it gives a good preview to the arguments that atheists and secular humanists will likely make in response to the idea that original sin is "baked in" to our genetics.  I think they will recommend options 2 and 3, too.  Are these options realistic?  While I do believe that humanity demonstrates incredible capacity to improve technology, I'm extremely skeptical that it can be done.  Further, even if it could be done, what is the chance that there will be lots of unintended consequences.  After all, Victor Frankenstein had only noble intentions, but look what he created?  While Frankenstein is but a fictional character, is it unreasonable to assume that even if options 2 and 3 might work, there would be a terrible toll to pay on the route to the destination?  De Duve's option 4, particular in the Christian flavor, sounds like a better choice to me.

/Blog/Carls-Blog/Perspectives/Christians-and-Climate-Change--Part-2/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

While Christians are exhorted by the Bible to care for the Earth, do religious views have any influence on views about climate science?  Pew Research has studied this question and concluded that the answer is "no".  According to Cary Funk and Becka Alper, "When it comes to people's beliefs about climate change, it is the religiously unaffiliated, not those who identify with a religious tradition, who are particularly likely to say the Earth is warming due to human activity. Hispanic Catholics, like Hispanics in general, are more likely to say the Earth is warming due to human activity. White evangelical Protestants stand out as least likely to have this view."  I encourage you to take a look at the Pew report at http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/religion-and-views-on-climate-and-energy-issues/.

 

While many perceive that evangelical Protestants often question the reality of climate change, evangelical churches, along with mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, have undertaken climate change initiatives.  A cross-denominational group called Interfaith Power and Light (www.interfaithpowerandlight.org) was started in 1998 and has operated continuously since to address the issue.

 

At the forefront for evangelicals is a group called The Evangelical Climate Initiative (www.christiansandclimate.org). It's composed of more than 300 senior evangelical leaders across the USA. 

 

Is any of this support for climate change initiatives by churches having an impact? It seems not.  Even though Christian churches have often expressed views in support of the idea of climate change, they don't seem to be a key factor affecting the views of those attending church.  According to the Pew researchers, "Just 6% of U.S. adults in the 2010 survey said religious beliefs have had the biggest influence on what they think about "tougher laws to protect the environment." More said the biggest influence on their views has been education (28%), the media (24%), personal experience (18%), or something else (11%). Another 6% said friends or family had the biggest influence on their views."

 

This tendency for Christians, particularly Protestants, to be skeptical of climate science seems to parallel skepticism about Darwin and evolution by natural selection.  The figures seem to be in parallel, with one interesting exception.  While black Protestants seem to be particularly skeptical of Darwin and evolution, they are comparatively strong supporters of the idea of human causes to climate change.  Fifty six percent of black Protestants believe that humans are causing climate change. 

 

So why, then, do white Catholics and mainline Protestants have a relatively low belief that humans are causing climate change (45% and 41% respectively), and white evangelical Protestants have an even lower support (28%)?  According to the researchers, the reason wasn't because of what churchgoers were hearing on Sunday. "A series of multivariate logistic regression analyses, not shown here, found no significant effect of church attendance on views either predicting that the Earth is warming or predicting that the Earth's warming is due to human activity, once other factors are controlled. Similarly, the major religious affiliation groups did not differ from the religiously unaffiliated in views about climate change."

 

Instead, the researchers concluded it had more to do with politics than religion.  "However, in multivariate statistical modeling, the major religious affiliation groups did not differ from the religiously unaffiliated in views about climate change. Political party identification and race and ethnicity are stronger predictors of views about climate change beliefs than are religious identity or observance."  Based upon this, the reasons white Catholics and Protestants are more likely than others to be climate change skeptics has less to do with religious beliefs than with their propensity to be Republicans.