11/22/2004 01:39:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|This is my response to an e-mail I got today about my "God gap" column. Wayne, You make several assumptions that I don't think are productive. By your numbers: 2. There are many disagreements, yes; but I believe the most profound is often between those who genuinely believe in God, and those who don't. They often have profoundly different worldviews. It is not remarkable that evangelical Christians have big differences of opinion on Iraq, any more than it is remarkable that white people do, or Americans, or Californians, or farmers. I wonder why you think this is remarkable. Should we all think the same about political issues? On abortion: I'm not in position to find it now, but yes, in Hebraic law there was a penalty for causing the death of a woman's unborn child. Some people use this to support their stance on abortion. I don't happen to be politically pro-life, but I don't think it's hard to imagine why religious people would have a problem with a society that condones abortion. You can disagree with them if you like, but it's hard for me to believe you can't understand their point of view. 3. Your rush to suggest patriarchy is, well, patronizing. Yes, there are many conservative evangelicals who use religion to support a male-dominated society (and there have been many who called themselves Christians and used religion to justify slavery and other evils). But you're smart enough not to be so simplistic in your application of Christian doctrine, I think. You obviously made assumptions about my all-male study group. I consider myself a feminist (or a pro-feminist, for those who believe it is impossible for men to be feminists), so I'm really prepared to defend my group structure without being defensive. It's a simplistic assumption that any gender-specific group is sexist. It so happens that my group addresses spiritual and societal issues that are specific to men. At the time when the men's group is meeting, a women's group is also meeting; there are times when the two groups engage each other. What you fail to consider is that there is a benefit in a husband talking about his marital difficulties and getting the perspective of a group of husbands, for instance. You're wrong to suggest that what we're doing is a "return" to an all-male group, turning back the clock on progress. Again, watch your assumptions. 4. You're talking about a different kind of gap. When I talk about a "God gap," I mean the sort of theological illiteracy that's often exhibited by people who have religious philosophy, but no firmly rooted belief in God. 5. Many people have been tortured. Actually, hundreds and thousands were whipped and crucified under the Roman empire. It would be inaccurate to assume that Christians believe that Jesus's manner of death was the most painful ever endured. The manner of the sacrifice, the reason for the sacrifice and the identity of the sacrifice combine to make it trancendentally significant. You ask how I'm different from Christians who have perpetrated evil acts throughout history. Well, that is an unfair question. How are you different from men or Americans or white people (if you are one; I'm black) who have perpetrated such acts? The first way you and I are different from those people is, we are not those people. If your point is that people with any type of strong belief -- religious or otherwise -- can be dangerous in a movement, I agree. They can also bring about wonderful benefits for society. And people lacking in strong belief can be dangerous as well. I believe the passive attitude of many Germans during the Holocaust is a perfect example. 6. Yes, the divorce rate among self-identified evangelicals is just as high as the population in general. And as I would say myself, the "moral values" political agenda has only passing resemblance to Christianity the way I experience it. None of that has anything to do with the God gap. I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the divorce rate among evangelicals "seems to give lie to the effectiveness of Christianity." Really? Come on, now. What kind of methodology is that? I mean, perhaps with more data you could make a convincing case. What you're saying is the equivalent of the twisted and despicable statement by some religious people that the AIDS epidemic was some sort of divine plague on the gay community -- you're using apparent correlation (or lack thereof) to presume causation. It sounds like you're looking at incomplete information, and seeing what you want to see. I do agree with you on this point: We all would do better to poner our failings than to arrogantly accuse others. When we're paying attention, we Christians learn that lesson from Christ. |W|P|110115613812011943|W|P|Response to a "God gap" reader: After the Republican "moral values" campaign, some are so hostile to a Christian worldview|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/22/2004 03:24:00 PM|W|P| David Tieche|W|P|I've had more than a few discussions as of late where a non-religious person has said that the most destructively evil force ever unleashed upon the earth is religion. The idea is that men who believe in God feel that they have divine justification for their actions, and therefore make them stronger agents of evil. More resilient to logic, more determined. The assumption, therefore, is that religion produces evil results.

This is just really bad logic.

The three biggest genocides in the 20th century, and some of the greatest atrocities in human history (Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) were committed under no religious flag, but under an explicitly secular one. Stalin and Pol Pot were specifically ANTI-Religious. You could make a darn compelling case (as Jon once did) that human intellectuallism is to blame for more evil in the world than any other force in the world.

And certainly, nobody's going to go around saying people shouldn't think.

Part of the point of Christianity, I think, is to make us think AND feel. And there have been scores of Christians through the ages whose deep sorrow for the brokenness of the world and deep love for the people that God made (even the so-called unloveable) have caused them to selflessly give up nearly all the waking hours of their life to serve people.

I guess you could call them religious extremists, too. And it's important for that witness not to be forgotten by people who are antagonistic toward "religious people."

I wonder if the distinction between "religious extremism" and "extremely religious" is the difference between being willing to die for one's beliefs as opposed to being willing to kill for them. And if more followers of Christ took seriously that whole "take up your cross and follow me" order, maybe there'd be more conversations about the power of "religious people" to do good.

Of course, that whole process starts with me. That's why I wancha ta know that I'm startin with the man in the mirror.

DAT11/15/2004 07:04:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|On Sunday I had my first Christian column in a mainstream publication, "God gap" blocks understanding of "moral values" phenomenon. Here's a representative sample of what I wrote: Let me say at the outset that if you're one of those people ready to scream because American sensibilities seem to be swinging hard to the religious right, your target is not evangelical Christianity, it's evangelical politics. The problem with missing the distinction: If the left keeps attacking and marginalizing the religion, it will only make things worse. That said, it is also true that conservatives are driving much of this evangelical movement, and are, in my view, warping some core religious beliefs. I think that the conservative influence is why evangelical Christianity seems to be focusing on just three issues associated with ``traditional morals,'' while giving less attention to such problems as poverty in America and to civil rights. For the rest, click here. As you might expect, reaction to my piece was mixed. On the supportive side: Thank you for the commentary on evangelical Christians (Perspective, Nov 14, 2004). Jon Fortt is absolutely correct how poorly many Americans understand evangelicals. The idea that evangelicals may have different opinions about the war in Iraq and other issues is mostly foreign to a public that views evangelicals as monolithic and incapable of appreciating nuance. My own church prides itself on tolerating diversity of belief but has difficulty accepting evangelical Christianity as part of religious diversity. And, yes, many Americans simply make fun of evangelicals. Evangelical Christians make similar mistakes. They often view themselves as pitted against a secular and otherwise immoral culture, and fail to see how they may contribute to that culture (it isnt just Hollywood). When evangelicals focus on a few hot-button issues like abortion, they implicitly choose to not focus on issues such as poverty, environmental destruction, or everyday street violence, which should be part of any moral world view. The "God gap" may have big political ramifications, but the more revealing point is that two groups of Americans are unable to talk to each other. On the anti side: I'd like to remind Jon Fortt that no matter how amiable he tries to make them appear, evangelical Christians have been responsible for some of the most shameful moments in our history. They found reasons in the Bible to support slavery and segregation. They opposed a woman's right to vote and inter-racial marriage. Using that same Bible, they've been the foundation of bigotry toward gay and lesbian people, refusing to acknowledge the productive, responsible gay lives all around them. Fortt would like to separate the religion from the politics, but he should know that for fundamentalists it doesn't work that way. In the words of Tom DeLay, the kingdom of God is not a democracy, it's a theocracy. (It seems to me the argument above could just as easily be used to bash white men. But plenty of that happens already.) If you read the piece, tell me what you think in comments below.|W|P|110057429452060632|W|P|My commentary in the Mercury News "outs" me as an evangelical, tries to separate politics from religion. Reaction is mixed.|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/16/2004 01:47:00 PM|W|P| Jonathan Ziman|W|P|Thanks Jon - I'm glad to see something in a mainstream newspaper highlighting the fact that the "problem" is not Christianity, it's evangelical politics. That's probably a radically new idea for most non-Christians.

However, as a Christian it makes me wonder, where are the voices of moderation within evangelical Christianity? Do we have a responsibility to reign in the more extreme views? Shouldn't there be more outrage (from Christians) when someone like James Dobson makes comments like this on TV?

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/james_dobson.htm

I know there's www.sojo.net and various blogs, but it sometimes seems like evangelicals as a group are terrified of being self-analytical in any way.

At least, that's the impression I get.11/08/2004 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|This thoughtful disagreement with the National Geographic article on evolution (11/04) comes from Ken VanMeter. It promises to be very useful as we continue to discuss evolution and creationism in the Christian context. Jon and readers, Let me begin by taking a close look at the actual words used by the author of the Nat’l Geo. (NG) article. The title claims “overwhelming evidence” for evolution, then for the next 31 pages spends most of the article with stories and perspectives and history rather than presenting actual evidence. Specifically: what is meant by ‘theory,’ critiquing creationists, defining his terms (good), using four branches of science (biogeography, paleontology, embryology and morphology) as being the prime categories of evidence, and telling us about Darwin and Wallace. There are also many excellent photos, a NG trademark. The overwhelming evidence is, to paraphrase Paul Harvey, only one side of the story. I do appreciate the author’s willingness (pg. 6) to concede that there might exist “severely conflicting data” and a “better explanation.” These will be topics for later posts. On page 6, Mr. Quammen refers to a vast body of supporting evidence. Where is it? Be specific. Beginning with page 11 and continuing on the first column of 12 Quammen (Q) present the evidence of biogeography. There are intriguing questions raised and some speculative answers quoted from Darwin, to wit: “We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time. This bond, on my theory is simply inheritance.” While a nice phrase, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE! It is broad jumping to a conclusion from a standing start across the Grand Canyon. It is not evidence. On page 12, Mr. Quammen approaches paleontology, truly the Achilles heel of evolution, and the subject of many books and remarkable quotes that disprove the theory far more than reinforce it. But to be specific, the only evidence used is the so-called “Horse series” which has been so thoroughly discredited in the secular, scientific press that the Smithsonian Institution has withdrawn this display from view. UPDATE: By way of checking the facts of my previous comment, I went on the Smithsonian Institution Website and need to retract one statement. Apparently, the Smithsonian still has a series of fossils representing the alleged "Horse series". Please accept my apology for not checking my sources more carefully. There will have to be further review and comments to prove my case that this supposed sequence is invalid. (please see http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/vt12.html If you will bear with me as I quote several researchers. If I may quote: “Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition: for example, the choice of the middle finger for further transformation, as opposed to the two middle fingers in the evolution of the artiodactyls; or the sudden transition from the four-toed to the three-toed foot with predominance of the third ray.” Dr. Richard Goldsmith (Professor of Genetics and Cytology, University of California) in the article “Evolution as viewed by one Geneticist” in the journal “American Scientist” Vol. 40 pg. 97, January 1952. A Swedish Professor states: “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of research it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses and the present day damans are horses. The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series.” Next is the “overwhelming evidence” from embryology: one paragraph that asks questions, another that sums up the issue. “Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile? The answer from Darwin is that “the embryo is the animal in its less modified state” and that state “reveals the structure of its progenitor.” The premise: “the embryo is the animal in its less modified state” is assumed to be true, and therefore a conclusion: “reveals the structure of its progenitor,” is considered valid. But, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that the premise is true! (sorry for shouting, but I get emphatic with bad logic). Can you see the unproved conclusion that follows the premise? Of course the embryo is the adult in its less modified state. That does not mean it reveals the structure of its progenitor! This concept, which carries the title “embryology recapitulates phylogeny,” was promoted most strongly by a German names Earnst Haeckle in the late 1800’s. He drew comparative sketches of the stages of development of animals from different classes (mammals, reptiles, amphibians etc.). These drawings have been proven to be a hoax, yet are still published in textbooks and NG articles today. Again, we are being given false and disproved concepts to support an idea. Last, the branch of morphology, including the concepts of vestigial characteristics, homology, and tiered resemblances is presented as part of the evidence. The key conclusion on page 13, near the top of the right column, states: “ The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage.” This is an interpretation of a series of observations; it is not evidence. The statement that biological diversity reflects unbroken descent from common ancestors is an assumption, and a biased one at that. There are no statements of proof or evidence. The hidden or unspoken prejudices or biases or assumptions that we bring to a body of facts (evidence if you will) to a large degree determine the conclusions at which we arrive. To me, these concepts of homology and morphology reveal a single-minded designer, not a shared lineage. My arguments here are taking too much space, so I will look forward to various responses, but want the readers to know that I am saving my strongest arguments of criticism of the article for another time. If you have access to the NG, please read carefully left column of page 21. What is presented as “there is no better or more immediate evidence supporting Darwinian theory” is about to be disputed and in my opinion, shredded. Thank you for your patience. Ken VanMeter (or VanMeter the Old) |W|P|109993303161107544|W|P|Christianity and evolution Part III: A guest response to National Geographic|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/08/2004 04:17:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|By way of checking the facts of my previous comment, I went on the Smithsonian Institution Website and need to retract one statement. Apparently, the Smithsonian still has a series of fossils representing the alleged "Horse series". Please accept my apology for not checking my sources more carefully. There will have to be further review and comments to prove my case that this supposed sequence is invalid. (please see http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/vt12.html If you will bear with me as I quote several researchers.

1. G.A,Kerkut, in his book "Implications of Evolution" (New York Pergamon Press, p. 149) In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states "Matthew has shown and insisted that Hyracotheriun (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definately equid than tapirid, rinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group"
In laymans terms, Hyracotherium (beginning of Smithsonians series)is not any more like a horse than it is similar to a tapir or rhinocerous, and thus just as justifiably it could have been chosen as the ancestral rhino or tapir. It seems then, that the objectivity of those involved in the construction of the phylogenetic tree of the horse was questionable from the very start, and that the "horse" on which the entire family tree of the horse rests was not a horse at all!
George Gaylord Simpson, (1902-1984) one of the the leading paleontologists of the 20th century and on the staff of the American Museum of Natural History for more then 30 years, and a leading supporter of darwinian evolution "has admitted that nowhere is this world is there a trace of a fossil that would close the large gap between Hyracotherium and the condylarthra, the order of mammals evolutionists have suggested as ascestral to Hyracotherium, and thus to all horses"
Readers, I have more, but space and time here precludes the presentation of further commentary revealing the contradictions and selective presentation of evidence typical of those with an agenda to convince and persuade rather than to enlighten and educate.11/10/2004 09:46:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|“There is no better or more immediate evidence supporting Darwinian theory”. This quote from the NG article refers to the alleged 'development' of new strains of drug resentant staph germs over the last half century as a result of various drugs, primarily antibiotics.

Lets think about this for a moment. Suppose we begin with a population of 1 million generic staphlococcus germs in 1945 at the end of WW2. With the widspread use of penicillin, 999,000 of these nasty fellas are destroyed. The remaining 1,000 happen to have a genetic combination (from their parents!) that is resistant to and able to survive the presence of penicillin. These then, over time, reproduce and there then exists a population of peniclillin resistant staph germs. The clever doctors recognize this, and develop aureomycin, cholormycetin, erythromycin etc. progressively over time. In each case, assume that 1% of the existing population has a resistance (which they too got from their parents!) to each successive antibiotic. What do we then have? A STAPH GERM that happens to be resistant to different drugs. This is not a new species, there is not new genetic information present in this population that was not already present in the parental genome, just a selected population of offspring. Most resistant strains of bacteria are actually natural unmutated varieties. They have always been there, but as the unresistant strains were reduced, the naturally resistant types increased in number for a time.
It has been shown that these variations did not arise because of exposure to antibiotics, but instead occurred spontaneously at a constant rate in the original population - regardless of whether or not the antibiotics were present.

But there is now even worse news: A few resistant strains were found to, indeed, be mutants. But is was obvious that these were always weaker and soon died out from natural causes other than the antibiotics. Regarding the mutated form: Doses of antibiotic reduce the number of the natural strain, and the mutated form takes over. Then, when the antibiotic treatment is stopped, the natural strain incresses and the resistant strain soon dies out - because, as a mutated form it never was strong.

the 'evolutionary' concept here is identical to the resistance of houseflies and mosquitos to DDT, or malathion. To quote C.P. Georghiou and others in an article titled "Housefly Resistance to Insecticides in the journal California Agriculture
"It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure in not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. these chemicals do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivorsto increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals.

The conclusion of these statements is basically that the resistance of certain strains of bacteria, flies, various moths and mosquitoes to DDT, pesticides or antibiotics in not evolution, any more that the breeding of new varieties of dogs and cats and pigeons is evolution.

Let's return to the beginning statement. “There is no better or more immediate evidence supporting Darwinian theory”. Readers, if this is the best and most immediate evidence supporting darwinian theory, in any of its forms, then in my opinion, it is a severly weakened theory and deserves thoughtful reconsideration as to its validity.
Please let me know what you think. If my reasoning or logic or science is incorrect, please let me know.
Ken Van Meter1/17/2005 01:29:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Or you could read the late Stephen Jay Gould's 1,433-page book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674006135/qid=1105997316/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-1666937-4565522?v=glance&s=books11/04/2004 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|When I launched this site in August, it was because I believe that the intersection of Christianity and politics is a defining one for this time in America. All signs point to that. Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, radical Islam -- all these issues pull on our moral and cultural fabric. There are deep questions we must ask ourselves about who we are and what we believe -- and even though this is by no means a Christian country in the devout sense of the word, I think many Americans identify with what they would call "traditional values" that are in some way associated with church-going people. (I posted related observations here and here.) Meanwhile the mainstream news media are failing miserably in educating the public about this trend. Religious people, particularly evangelical Christians, get treated like the lunatic fringe. As a Christian who has worked in a few newsrooms, I feel this; most journalists are so biased against religion that they don't see it as bias -- they see it as logic. So if I read one more story about Democrats being shocked – shocked! That moral issues defined this election, I think I might puke. What rock were the Democrats under where they thought moral issues weren't a big deal? Let me clarify that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm a journalist with my own unique combination of social and religious values, and in this divided time I don't want to ally myself with either party. But come on now, Democrats. Did you not see The Passion of the Christ and notice how many people across the country turned out for that movie? Did you not notice that Middle America is uncomfortable talking about homosexuality? What did you really think was going to happen here?|W|P|109958965139552487|W|P|Gay marriage, abortion, stem cells -- Democrats blindsided by moral issues in this election were bound to lose|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/06/2004 05:59:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I regret not having spoken out against all the marriage amendments more strongly.

They were so unnecessary.

They seem to reek of pride and prejudice. I'm not a lesbian; I'm just concerned about what such laws do to the nation's ability to be compassionate. I'm certainly not a liberal, because without clearly written laws, most people would not stop and think before they act.

Even with all the welfare and rights rules we have in the U.S., there is so little compassion among us.11/10/2004 11:27:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|abrittain does not speak for all christians. i'm a christian. a pastor's daughter, even. the bible is not clear, not at all, when you take it in historical context. (if you think it's clear on homosexuality, then you should try obeying the laws about shellfish and poly-cotton shirts and menstruating women.) not to mention jesus never spoke a word about gays one way or another. he just loved everyone.

further, regardless of personal beliefs, what right do you have to take away from another person's happiness?

but i don't mean to get into a big debate. jon, you're right, we (by we i mean dems) should have seen it coming. kerry wasn't a strong enough candidate in the ways it counted, and we got bush back as a result. i find this quite unfortunate, but perhaps we will learn our lesson eventually.

i could keep going, but i'll spare you... that's quite enough for now.

-renita11/13/2004 04:14:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|jon, i won't clog up your blog with endless debate, but i wanted one last reply to abrittain ... don't tell me i don't know what the bible says. i'm a pastor's daughter. i've read the verses. not only have i read them, i have studied them extensively. from both sides. i'm inclined to believe you've only read the anti-gay side. the verses are not clear, especially when taken in a larger historical context. and especially when considering that the men - men!, not God - who wrote the bible did not have the knowledge of science that we have, nor the understanding of the GLBT community and the ability of said persons to maintain loving, committed relationships.3/07/2005 02:06:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I want everyone who is hsa blogged on this site to ask themselves, who would Jesus have voted for. In my opinion he wouldnt have voted. Niether candidate in the previous election truly lives by the standards of the bible. Bush is a money hungry oil tycoon who cares more about his stocks the the OVERALL rich and poor well being of this country. But we elected him. I don't think Jesus would have. And for all of you who are saying that you know the word of God because you study the bible...You study a human interpretation of the bible and until these new Christian groups that seem to be coming out of the woodwork can all speak archaic Hebrew stop throwing bible versus in everyone's faces and ask yourself how you can take a modern translation of the bible literally.11/03/2004 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|This is a continuation of the discussion from yesterday's post on evolution. We'll start with Josh's response, then my reply. To see how it all began click the link above. Feel free to join in with comments on either post. I am going to have to jump on the Ben band wagon and completely disagree. I don’t believe that you can accept evolution on the macro level and believe in the bible also. The idea that human beings are no more than a random chance species, instead of people created in the image of God, not only doesn’t fit with the bible message, but (and I say this as lovingly as possible) is a heresy. Furthermore, referring to the bible as some complicated text beyond our understanding dismissed the power of the holy spirit. To whom was the bible written? Not to an elite few to interpret, but to mankind as a love letter. If we hold the bible as infallible and inerrant then we have to see the Genesis account as factual and from what I know of our God that would be of very little effort. -- Josh Josh, Heresy? What you're saying sounds dangerously close to the church's response to Galileo. And what I'm saying isn't heresy. It's honesty. I don't understand everything in the Bible. What's more, if I meet any Christian who claims to understand the whole Bible (including the apocalyptic visions in Daniel and Revelation), I'm going to view that person henceforth with extreme skepticism. Maybe there are people out there who understand the whole thing, but I don't know any. You're right that the Bible is a love letter to mankind - but we can't even fathom God's love, much less understand His whole letter. The Bible says that God's thoughts are above our thoughts, and his ways above our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). It also says that our understanding now is like looking into a fogged-over mirror (1 Corinthians 13:12) - not until the next life will we understand things clearly. I am not saying that I don't believe the Genesis account of creation. I do, because I believe God. But I also don't understand it. For example, when we say we believe that God made Eve out of Adam's rib (Genesis 2:21-22) - literally out of a piece of bone - what do we mean? Was Adam's rib so massive that it contained enough matter to form another person? Did God use the rib as raw material and build around it? Did Adam and Eve share the same DNA? If we're honest, we'll admit that we don't know. We can't explain how God did it, we just trust that He did. Moving forward, when you say you don't believe that macro-evolution and the Bible are compatible, how do you know? I think if you consider the above Adam's rib example honestly, you'll admit that there's a lot about the creation account that you don't understand. For example, how is it that God created the day and night on the first day (Genesis 1:3-5), before He made the sun and moon on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19)? How did God mark days without the sun? They couldn't be Earth days as we know them - were they some other type of day? If so, how long were they? Did time and hours and days even have the same meaning that we now understand them to have? So you don't understand creation, I think you'll admit. Isn't it also true that you don't understand evolution? I'll bet you don't, because scientists don't even understand it, really. They see the evidence of it, and they're trying to understand it better. You suggest that believing in macro-evolution would be believing that humans are a random chance species. Why must that be the case? That would be like saying you believe you are a random-chance person because you're the result of the sperm that "randomly" happened to get to the egg first. Isn't it possible that God is orchestrating seemingly random events? I think that idea is an important part of design theory. I am not saying that I believe in macro-evolution. What I am saying is that I am unwilling to say that it's an either-or thing - either believe in the Bible or in macro-evolution. I don't know anyone who understands the Bible, or macro-evolution, well enough to say whether the two are compatible or not.|W|P|109953730728523076|W|P| Christianity and evolution Part II: National Geographic tries to combat the anti-Darwin religious right|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/04/2004 12:21:00 AM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Josh,

You and I are not coming from such different places on this. But I'll have to revisit some things from your response:

1. Isaiah 55:6-9. Whatever the context, this means that God is smarter than we are. Yes, the Holy Spirit counsels and teaches us. But again, that still has not led anyone I know to a crystal-clear understanding of the Bible. Proverbs 2 states that God gives wisdom; it does not state that each of us is given a complete understanding of all scripture. You mention Solomon, but I'm not sure what scripture you're talking about that suggests I should be able to completely understand all scripture.

2. You state that the "Hebrew day," according to the author's original intent, means 24 hours? How do you know this? This site, for instance, has different interpretations of the day in Genesis. I'm not saying who's right -- I'm saying I don't know. I'd be surprised if you can state with certainty the original intent of the author of Genesis. That would be a big deal.

3. You'll note that I never said I believe in macro-evolution. But I am also unwilling to declare that macro-evolution is by definition at odds with creation. Are we willing to say that it is impossible that any creature ever evolved from another? Are we ruling that out as an instrument of God's creative process? I'm unwilling to do that. It reminds me too much of the people who said it was impossible that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.11/04/2004 09:17:00 AM|W|P| BenandJess|W|P|Thanks, Jon for keeping us on course. I think I misinterpreted some things written by Dave and yourself yesterday which offended me. But you continue to make the correct point - We don't know how God works.

And I think the ongoing discussion with Josh makes the case. Two educated, Christian men can discuss scientific processes and the scriptures and still arrive at different interpretations.

My frustration is this, as a creationist I'm often accused of ignoring evidence or of scientific ignorance. I suppose your frustration is this, as an evolutionist you're often accused of biblical heresy or of religious ignorance.

When I became defensive yesterday, I let these frustrations be realized. Instead, I think we agree that the details of God's creative work are unknown. So I should have simply said - I can't accuse you of dead reason, please don't accuse me of blind faith.11/04/2004 09:51:00 AM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Ben,

Well said. I think you capture our frustrations well -- though I'll admit that I do cringe at being called an "evolutionist." I think I'm more of a creationist than an evolutionist. My creationism is attached to my faith, while my belief in evolution is based on the limited information available at the present moment. Ha. Shows how complex this whole thing gets ....11/05/2004 04:06:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Gentlemen, If I may be permitted to jump in to the conversation? This is van meter the Old, who learned of the discussion at dinner with the enthusiastic Josh. Your comments and discussion are enlightening and you are all to be commended for your willingness to opine or bloviate as Bill O'reilly might say.
First, let's agree this is not a salvation issue. I have been exactly where John is, thoroughly in love with Jesus, believing the bible and evolution to both be true. After all, I had a science degree from Cal! I accepted the prevailing "scientific" perspective that increasing complexity (molecules to man) was a result of spontaneous generation followed by anagenesis, natural selection and speciation. All these terms are taken from the nat'l Geographic article referred to at the beginning of the blog.
Jon, i am a lifetime subscriber to Nat'. Geo and have read the article carefully twice. I believe I have some light to shed if you are open-minded and open hearted to recieve what may be uncomfortable to accept. My points will be scientific not scriptural in nature and I would like permission to use quotes from respected scientists if I use the exact reference. my intentions is to reveal the fallacious and specious arguments and statements in the Quammen article.
It is my conclusion, not from Scripture or Faith but from a truly objective examination of ALL the evidence of nature (paleontology, morphology, embryology, biogeography as well as taxonomy, zoology, botany, information science, genetics and biochemistry) that any form of darwinian, or neo-darwinian evolution is impossible and i have the statistics to prove it.May I proceed?11/05/2004 04:37:00 PM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Please do! As a matter of fact, I might just make your comment a separate post, to make it more prominent. As I (hope I) said, my FAITH is in scripture. Evolution makes sense at the moment, but I'm always willing to learn more -- or to learn different. Please proceed!11/16/2004 06:49:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Hi, I've never really heard this subject addressed, but it is my own main reason for being a creationist. Why would any species "evolve" into a creature that requires nearly 20 years of love and nuture in a family atmosphere to become a capable independent, as well as an individual with qualities necessary for the survival of that species? Anyone would agree that humans left to fend for themselves at a young age would not survive as a species. Yet the long term loving and nurturing that this species requires is not a physical tangable item that science can even discuss. Is this as black and white to anyone else as it is to me? Thanks, Dave11/02/2004 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|This month’s evolution-themed National Geographic, which hit newsstands yesterday, probably will receive scant attention with everyone scrambling to the polls and then breathlessly dissecting election results. At first, I considered not mentioning it, since this is a Christianity/Politics blog and we’re in the midst of a presidential election. Then I got over myself and remembered that if you want to read the latest about the presidential race, you’re probably not reading my blog as your sole source of information anyway. “Evolution.” A mere mention of the word conjures images of atheist scientists and fundamentalist parents. Many of us are aware of the parent groups that have pressured schools to teach creationism alongside or instead of evolution. This month’s National Geographic hopes to settle the argument, and I recommend that any Christian (and anyone else) pick up a copy. In its opening pages, the article – bearing the conciliatory title, “Was Darwin Wrong?” – notes that a 2001 study found that 45 percent of U.S. adults don’t believe in evolution. Forty-five percent. You can almost smell the incredulousness rising off the magazine pages. (On the next page, the editors deliver the title’s answer: NO. And then they launch into evidence. Alas, I can’t help thinking that a pro-evolution article in National Geographic is preaching to the choir.) The scientific establishment likes to believe that only backwoods religious kooks doubt evolution. I used to think this, too. But I have since met several evangelical Christians – smart people – who have given impassioned lectures arguing against evolution. I have met middle-America types who are not that religious, but who believe in God and Adam and Eve from Sunday School class. Before I go any further, let me be clear: I believe in evolution. I also believe God created everything. I consider myself an evangelical Christian, though other evangelicals probably would call me a maverick, or disown me altogether. I believe the Bible is true, and that it is the word of God. I also believe that the Bible is too complicated for us to understand entirely, precisely because it is the word of God, and because God is a lot smarter than we are. To say it another way, I believe it’s entirely reasonable for a person to believe both that the Bible is true, and that evolution happens. Why do I believe in evolution? The same reason I believe that the Earth goes around the Sun, that we live on a globe and not a flat square, and that the square of the longest side of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of its other two sides. It’s pretty much observable. I do not claim to know exactly (or even approximately) how old the planet is, or exactly how biological processes and time combined to give us the human species we now have. But evolution is pretty easy, people. You can see it in a Petri dish. Fruit flies acted it out for us in high school biology. Not believing in evolution is sort of like not believing in germs. I mean, you can argue that position if you want. But why would you? Do we really have to ignore evidence to be followers of Christ? God forbid.|W|P|109942119809094394|W|P|Christianity and evolution: National Geographic tries to combat the anti-Darwin religious right|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/03/2004 10:11:00 AM|W|P| BenandJess|W|P|Jon, you have some great points. I think you best noted that the Bible is too complicated for us to understand entirely, but so is this universe. As a believer in creation, I'm most often turned off by evolution because it is presented as fact. You'll never find a physicist who claims to fully understand the nature of matter and energy. So why do biologists claim to understand the history of organisms? Indeed when I consider the world around me in its present condition, evolution makes good sense. But that doesn't mean its a fact.

Science does tell us that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and it does tell us that we live on a globe. But it does not attempt to tell us that the Earth has always revolved around the Sun or that our planet has always been round. That would be speculation. Even Pythagoras's equation is still called a theorem. We all saw fruit flies mutate in high school biology, but so far the one species has not evolved into an entirely seperate species.

The evidence is simlar for creation. Jesus regenerated legs, arms, and eyes instantly, so we have observed that he has creative ability. But that doesn't prove that he created man within a 24 hour day. In fact neither evolution nor creation is observable.

As a follower of Christ believing in creation, I'm not ignoring any evidence, I'm just considering what it factually concludes. You and I both believe in something, but the scientific evidence is circumstantial for both sides.

It's unsettling to me that the educated, like those at National Geographic, push evolution as truth, when in fact that is beyond the bounds of science. They are as guilty of presuming evidence as the religious are of ignoring evidence. So why is it that only creationists are called narrow-minded?11/03/2004 10:45:00 AM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Ben,

Just about everything in science is presented as a theory. That usually means that scientists are as sure about it as they can be about anything. To quote from the National Geographic article:

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.I really do recommend the article, because it's a very interesting read. (Since we know each other in the real world, you can come by my place and peruse it.) It details the type of overwhelming circumstantial evidence that suggests evolution is more than something we can observe in a petri dish -- it's something that truly has influenced the development of certain species. I'll leave the conclusions up to different individuals, but encourage everyone to allow their faith to exist in harmony with evidence, not just in opposition to it.11/03/2004 10:51:00 AM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|I just re-read your post, and wanted to make sure you realize that I know we agree. I guess the only point where we differ is that I'm not annoyed when science treats evolution as fact. Science has always treated the best theory of the moment as fact, and I guess I see that as par for the course. Historically, religious groups have been more certain of their conclusions than science, not less. So I guess I'm willing to cut science some slack.11/03/2004 11:18:00 AM|W|P| David Tieche|W|P|There’s a play that’s taught in a lot of high schools called “Inherit the Wind.” It’s a play about the Scopes Monkey Trial in July of 1925. In the play, people who believe in the Bible are presented as ridiculous, unthinking fools who blindly hold to their beliefs in the face of insurmountable evidence.

Now I think that the reason why this play is taught so often in classrooms across the nation is probably to show how blind, unthinking faith results in destructive, anti-intellectual behavior. Which it most often does. Probably even results in mob-mentality and maybe even hysteria.

Think Salem Witch trials.

But.

But. An un-intended consequence of this play is that it makes anyone who believes in miracles or God or the "unobservable" or "unprovable" look like the Village Idiot. Faith and Science are presented as opposite, opposing and contradictory ideas. Science, of course, is based on rational thought and curious inquiry, while "faith" clings to what it believes, even in the face of insurmountable factual evidence, like a two-year old throwing a tantrum. Or Courtney Love.

Take, for example, this scene in Act III. The scene culminates when Henry Drummond, the lawyer defending the young man on trial for teaching evolution, questions Matthew Harrison Brady, the "Bible expert" (meant to represent William Jennings Bryan).


DRUMMOND:
Now, as an expert, you tell me that’s as true as the Jonah business. Right? That’s a pretty neat trick. You suppose Houdini could do it?

BRADY:
I do not question or scoff at the miracles of the Lord – as do ye of little faith.

DRUMMOND:
Have you ever pondered just what would naturally happen to the earth if the sun stood still?

BRADY:
I have faith in the Bible!

DRUMMOND:
You don’t have much faith in the solar system.

BRADY:
The sun stopped.

DRUMMOND:
Good. Now if what you say factually happened, if Joshua halted the sun in the sky – that means the earth stopped spinning on its axis; continents toppled over each other, mountains flew into outer space. And the Earth, arrested in its orbit, shriveleved into a cinder and crashed into the sun. How come they missed this tidbit of news.

BRADY:
They missed it because it didn’t happen.

DRUMMOND:
It must’ve happened! According to natural law! Or don’t you believe in natural law, Colonel?

My friend Rob Iverson, who is a science teacher here at Gunderson, says that the word “theory” is the most often misused word in the English language. People say all the time, “I have a theory..." all the time. What they really mean, Rob claims, is that they have a “hypothesis.” Which is different. A hypothesis is a statement that may or may not be true. It’s tentative, and it awaits validation from facts.

The National Geographic article Jon referenced started off with a clarification about the definition of the word “theory.” In science, a theory is much firmer. Oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water molecules is an example of a theory. You don’t argue with a theory unless you want to look dumber than Jessica Simpson.

I think where this discussion breaks down is not in the definition of the word “theory” but in the definition of the word “evolution.” By no means am I am sort of expert, but I’ve been at some forums and read some interesting stuff on it. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_01.html)

I’ve heard it put this way: Micro-evolution is the morphing of species within the species based on favorable genetic traits. George Mendel discovered this when he found variation in species based on genetic mechanisms. Birds become bigger birds, or rabbits develop coats that change colors seasonally.

Macro-evolution is different. It’s a way of explaining how all life got started. It talks about common ancestors, and often says that all of life came from simple amino acids (often called the primordial soup) electrified by pre-historic electrical storms that created life. It’s a way of explaining how things got here. It’s big picture. Foundational.

Jon's right: not believing in micro-evolution is like not believing in germs.

However, Macro-evolution is far, far trickier. Many scientists say that the fossil record really shows no links between the fossil groups (amphibians, birds, mammals, etc).

I think most people interpret the question “Do you believe in evolution” to mean “Do you believe that God has nothing to do with the Creation of the natural world.” It’s seen, I would imagine, as one or the other.

How else do you explain 45 percent? It must be the question.

That said: it’s important for Christians not to try to pretend as though the Bible is some sort of science textbook. And it’s equally important for scientists to not overstate what the evidence does or does not prove.

And more important that parents not leave National Geographic laying around the house because those naked tribal pictures can frighten small children.11/03/2004 12:58:00 PM|W|P| BenandJess|W|P|First of all, my good friends, I'll admit I'm getting a bit defensive. But not without reason. Your words are quite offensive. You imply that I am unfamiliar with science or that I am acting like a two-year-old.

Second of all, I don't think it'll do any use to get into the science of it. I've got plenty of arguments for a young Earth and other logical steps to show the implausibility of evolutionary theory.

My point is this. People like me base their argument for creation on the evidence before them. National Geographic bases their argument for (micro)evolution based on the evidence before them. Neither party observed the actual process. Once the evidence is considered, one party places slightly more stock in revelation, the other in speculation. It's about where you place your confidence. It's not about education or maturity, my friends.

Therefore I resent being labled as ignorant or close-minded for rejecting evolution. It's no worse for me to default to the limitless power of God than it is for you to default to the limited powers of human reason.11/03/2004 03:52:00 PM|W|P| David Tieche|W|P|So I suck at writing clearly, apparently.

I was a bit rushed in my last post, so let me clarify.

I said that this book I used to teach called "Inherit the Wind" makes people of faith look like fools, like two-year olds throwing a tantrum. I am not only resistant to this somewhat bigoted characterization, but I think the implication is dead wrong. I guess that didn't come across.

So...clearly I needed to be more clear in my post because it looks like I've accidentally offended some folks.

Also, my post submitted that the idea of macro-evolution is a LOT more gray than some scientists claim. And that when you get into origin theory, you're climbing the same mountain as theologians. Nobody was there, as Ben said. And you're getting into a lot of areas where science, which is predicated on observation and replication, can't really go.

I also tacitly reject the idea that miracles aren't scientifically possible, which was the purpose of the quote from the play, where the "Bible scholar" is mocked for believing in such a thing.

So I'm agreeing with "Ben" on those issues as well.

Sorry about the confusion and apparently bad writing. And sorry about the offense.

I need a good English teacher. Wonder where I can find one.11/03/2004 07:03:00 PM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Interesting.

I've put my reponse in a new post, which is just after this one.11/02/2004 09:52:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|As you've noticed, dear reader, I have my opinions but I don't tend to make endorsements. This day will be no different. I'm not going to tell you how to vote. I just want you to go and vote. This Cross blog is about the intersection of Christianity and politics, and therefore it is simultaneously Christian and American. As a Christian, I want you to pray before you vote, and to vote with wisdom. As an American, I want you to participate in this democracy, and thus lend your consent to the government of this free society. And then I want you to bug other people about voting. This Web site makes it easy by helping you text-message your friends and family to give them friendly reminders.|W|P|109941796027947952|W|P|Go vote. (And then prod your friends with didyouvote.org.)|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com