Kirk Brower, "List of Five Questions on ID, creationism and Christianity" (2005)

Unpublished.

LIST OF FIVE QUESTIONS, TO LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

(used by permission) updated 1-05-05

1. Who are the 100 men/women that have placed their names on the list you spoke of laying claim to their position of design?

2. What material, publications, books, websites, etc. would you

consider reliable sources to consult for further education in the area of Intelligent Design - either for me or for referring nonbelievers?

3. What is your perspective on the age of the earth (young or old) and how do you come to these conclusions Biblically?

4. How would you refute the fact that from a secular world's

perspective, almost all the material published out there (Scientific American, National Geographic, textbooks, etc.) seem to hold to the theory of evolution. I've discussed this with many students and with my father in law and they seem to think that if design were an intelligent world view there would be more evidence out there regarding the issue.

5. Are there, that you know of, secular scientists who have not

put their faith in the theory of evolution, and if so who are they and what problems do they have with this theory?

6. (added by LJ) LJ: Are there well-known scientists who are Christians?

7. (added by LJ) Are there widely respected philosophers who are Christians?

----------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION 1:

1. Who are the men/women that have placed their names on the list you spoke of laying claim to their position of design?

RESPONSE: The List of scientists I referred to have signed onto a statement that they have problems with Evolution, but most of them would probably also support Intelligent Design. Here is that list, and the statement they support.

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian]

evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

************

•Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia

•Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.

•Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member

•Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.

•Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.

•Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.

•Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois

•Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College

•Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.

•Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK

•Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville

•David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico

•James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida

•Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan

•Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.

•Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder

•Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College

•William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:

•George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida

•Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.

•James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah

•Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington

•Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

•Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universität München

•Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis

•Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member

•Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho

•Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho

•David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.

•Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.

•Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia

•Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M

•Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)

•Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School

•Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

•Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences

•William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens

•Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia

•Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.

•Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College

•Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin

•Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.

•Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College

•Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College

•William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.

•Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia

•Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine

•Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.

•Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.

•Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.

•Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor

•John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico

•Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin

•Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia

•Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.

•David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author

•Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland

•John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.

•James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm

•John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory

•Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa

•Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.

•Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City

•Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington

•Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute

•Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.

•Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.

•Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior

•James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.

•Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm

•Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:

•Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.

•Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School

•William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City

•Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico

•Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.

•Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago

•Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology

•Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College

•Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.

•David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.

•Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)

•Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute

•Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington

•Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.

•Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan

•Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College

•Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley

•Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina

•Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.

•James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center

•Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha

•Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.

•David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.

•Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.

•Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley:

•James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.

•Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U.

•Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College

•Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U.

•Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute

•James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U.

•Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

--------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION 2:

2. What material, publications, books, websites, etc. would you

consider reliable sources to consult for further education in the area of intelligent design-either for me or for referring nonbelievers?

RESPONSE 2a - BOOKS

Kirk - Here are several of the books that define Intelligent Design (ID). I have copies of most of these, and wud be glad to lend them to you. Larry J.

If you want more info about any of these, or the suitability for a certain kind of person, give me a call.

Darwin On Trial by Phillip Johnson. Intervarsity Press, 1991, 1993. This book was the opening gun in the ID campaign. Johnson is a law professor at Berkeley, and the acknowledged founder of the ID movement.

Reason In the Balance - The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law and Education. by Phillip Johnson. Intervarsity Press, 1995

Defeating Darwinism by opening minds by Phillip Johnson. Intervarsity Press, 1997.

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? By Jonathan Wells. Regnery Publishing, 2000. Wells shows that the usual textbook examples of evidence for evolution are flawed.

Darwin's Black Box - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. By Michael Behe. Free Press, 1996. Behe, a prof of Biochemistry, shows that the many novel proteins required to form the flagellum of bacteria could not have been produced by a gradual Darwinnian process.

The Design Inference By William Dembski ~2001. Dembski, a prof of Mathematics, gives a procedure for identifying Design. If you can eliminate lawful ocurrance, and accidental ocurrance, then you have Design.

No Free Lunch - Why Specified Complexity cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. By William Dembski. Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Dembski shows by mathematical examination of Evolutionary algorithms, that on the average, evolutionary processes cannot increase the specified information content of an animal's genome.

For the student into physics/chemistry/engineering, I highly recommend

The Creator and the Cosmos - How the greatest discoveries of the century reveal God, by Hugh Ross Navpress (modern cosmology) (1993). This book majors in Big Bang cosmology, and how revolutionary the idea was to scientists, the idea that there was a real beginning to the Universe, as in Genesis 1:1

RESPONSE 2b - WEBSITES:

------------------------------

INTELLIGENT DESIGN NETWORK

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

-----------------------------

INTELLIGENT DESIGN UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH CENTER

www.idurc.org

-------------------------------

ACCESS RESEARCH NETWORK

www.arn.org

click on FAQ, (frequently asked questions)

--------------------------------

DISCOVERY INSTITUTE

www.discover.org

click on Top Questions, then Questions about ID

--------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OTHER MAJOR CHRISTIAN URLs

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-------------------------------

LEADERSHIP UNIVERSITY - Campus Crusade

www.leaderu.com/

--------------------------------

INTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

www.intervarsity.org/

-------------------------------

NAVIGATORS

http://home.navigators.org/us/index.cfm

------------------------------------

REASONS TO BELIEVE - Hugh Ross, Cosmology

www.reasons.org

book: "The Creator and the Cosmos"

Ross is an astronomer/cosmologist. Their great evangelistic tool is talking about the Big Bang, which shows that the Universe had a beginning, as in Genesis 1:1. It appeals to most acedemically oriented people, because it does not need to fight with current ideas of Cosmology.

But Ross is anathema to YEC's (Young Earth Creationists), because the Big Bang is inherently Old Earth, billions of years.

----------------------------------

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION

HTTP:///WWW.ASA3.ORG

The ASA is an organization whose members are in some field of science, and who are evangelical Christians. Most members are of the Old Earth pursuasion, but a few Young Earthers. They publish a journal, and hold conferences.

---------------------------------

INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH Henry Morris, founder, John Morris president.

www.icr.org/

Book: "The Genesis Flood"

This is the oldest and original Creationist organization.

Pushes the Young Earth perspective, but is not so blatant as CRI's Ken Ham is in making it a primary Christian doctrine.

I got acquainted with Henry Morris at the U of Minnesota in 1950, when he was a grad student in Hydraulic Engineering. I was a new faculty in the Physics Department, and building a new "atom-smashing" machine. We still communicate occasionally, as friends.

------------------------------------

CREATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Ken Ham, erstwhile director and major debater

www.creationresearch.org/

Ken Ham is a major upholder of the YEC flag, and he is emphatic about making the Young Earth position a primary doctrine of the Faith. (If you can't accept the plain interpretation of the plainly stated Word of God, how can you call yourself a Christian?)

-------------------------------------

Question 3. What is your perspective on the age of the earth (young or old) and how do you come to these conclusions Biblically?

Q3 RESPONSE - LJ Perspective on Age of the Earth (AOE)

I consider AOE to be at best a secondary consideration for a Christian, and I do not bring it up when doing evangelism. There are many Christians though who consider it of primary importance, as I'm sure you have found out, and want to talk about it. Also there are seekers who have talked to such Christians, and the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) position is a atumbling block to them. There are many educated or half-educated people who know that modern scientists almost universally consider the Earth to be billions of years old. For such seekers it can be very helpful to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks. The Gospel itself is hard enuf for them to accept.

My perspective is for an Earth that is about 4.6 billion years old, and a Universe that is about 13.7 billion years. These numbers are driven by scientific considerations, observations made since perhaps 1500 AD; but the precise numbers are recent.

Does the Scripture regard knowledge obtained by physical observation as true knowledge? Scripture frequently refers to such observations as of the stars and of the sunrise as part of God's creation, and in Romans 1: 19-20 holds that we all have sufficient such knowledge as to be responsible to believe in God as Creator because of having that knowledge.

I have no doubt that historically, up to about 1500 AD, most bible-believing Jews and Christians considered the Days of creation in Genesis chapter one to indicate that the Creation events lasted a duration of six 24-hour days.

But historically it is quite interesting to see that the early Chuch Fathers did ponder this, and came to various conclusions. Their opinions, in about the 3rd century, could not have been influenced by modern science, so were presumably based primarily on Scripture. And on their observations of their world, and perhaps to some extent the Greek philosophers.

Philo-instantaneous creation with figurative days

Justin Martyr-each day was 1,000 years

Irenaeus-each day was 1,000 years

Clement of Alexandria-- instantaneous creation with

figurative days

Origen-time starts on day 4; day 7 still occurring

Lactantius-creation was less than 6,000 years old; 24

hour days

Victorinus-24 hour days

Pettau-24 hour days

Methodius-24 hour days

Augustine-instantaneous creation with figurative days

Eusebius-unknown position?

Basil-unkown position?

Ambrose-24 hour days,

Josephus, Jewish historian-promised, but never delivered an opinion

Since 1500 the scientific evidence has gradually come into play, and indicated overwhelmingly for an earth that is billions of years old.

Hence many attempts have been made by Christian scholars to re-examine the Scriptures, to see whether they really should be interpreted to indicate a Young Earth. It should be clear that the primary purpose of Scripture is not to teach the AOE, so we can only find incidental tidbits here and there, to anchor an attempted chronology.

So out of respect for God's Creation, a Christian should not feel free to ignore his observations of the created Universe.

One of the most obvious logical difficulties one has if he tries to use consecutive, 24-hour days is, that Day and night are created on Day one, while the sun is not created until the fourth day. Many ingenious schemes have been devised to get around this and other problems with a literal interpretation of the Days, but they seem rather contrived. But of course I also know of no other interpretations that do not have problems of one sort or another. What kinds of problems are you willing to live with?

Here is an approach which I have found helpful for Genesis 1, called the "Literary Approach". It is advocated by Henri Blocher in his book In the Beginning. The gist of this approach is as follows:

When trying to get the most out of a difficult section of scripture, one should consider what is the GENRE of literature in which it is composed. We find in the Psalms that "The trees clapped their hands, and the morning stars sang together". We easily see that this is poetry, and should not be taken literally, though Irwin Moon tried to do so with the Stars singing. Other genres are Parable, Cipher and Historical Harrative. So what is the literary genre of Genesis 1? I copy the following from my Booklist #1.

Blocher, Henri - In the Beginning - 1984 - Intervarsity Press - ISBN 0-87784-325-2 - Blocher is a professor at the Evangelical Seminary at Vaux, near Paris. His research specialty is ancient West-Semitic literature. Fortunately at the present time a great deal of such literature has been preserved and recovered and studied, hence we have a good idea of how people expressed ideas and communicated ideas in the Late Bronze Age, the time of Moses. [recall that Moses was well educated by tutors at the court of Pharaoh, in Egypt]

This book is an exegesis of the early chapters of Genesis. He tries to view the text through the eyes of a godly, well-educated person contemporary with Moses (1400 BC?). Our understanding of the message will first need to consider the literary genre of Gen. 1. Is it straight historical narrative? (low level of abstraction). Is it Poetry, Parable, Cipher? (high level of abstraction). All of these modes of literary writing were well developed and admired at the time of Moses.

Blocher concludes that Genesis 1 and 2 are written at a rather high literary level, based on the elaborate repetitive structure in the description of each of the six Days. (And God said, let... and it was so. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the Nth day).

So how does Blocher regard the Days themselves? He considers the Days to be a literary box structure to organize the important information of creation, not strictly chronologically, but with a different kind of logic. Briefly, he points out what early Church fathers had noted, that the the story is about God's creatures. The first three Days concern creation of the physical environment for his creatures to live in. Then in days four, five and six God makes the creatures themselves. The Sun, Moon and Stars are created to inhabit the Heavens.

With this interpretation of the "Days", chronology disappears from consideration.

So, if a Seeker is freaked out by the opinions of YEC Cristians, it can be helpful to him to know that many thinking Evangelical Christian scholars do not see Genesis One as requiring a Young Earth interpretation, to be faithful to the Bible's inspiration.

The later scripture refers to Genesis as establishing the 7-day week, and especially the invitation to rest on the 7th day. This is probably another reason why the 7-day format was used in writing Genesis.

---------------------------------------------

QUESTION 4

4. a) How would you refute the fact that from a secular world's

perspective, almost all the material published out there (Scientific American, National Geographic, textbooks, etc.) seem to hold to the theory of evolution.

I've discussed this with many students and with my father in law and they seem to think that if design were an intelligent world view there would be more evidence out there regarding the issue.

RESPONSE:

Kirk - Question 4 is very basic. Notes and references are distributed with the text, between dotted lines.

QUESTION 4a

The grip that the Evolutionary worldview has on academic people, and thru them on us students, is based on the overwhelmaing success of modern Science in explaining the physical world. And this is extended to the Biological world as well. Modern Science has also been applied to technology so successfully that it is a "Bully Pulpit" from which to pontificate to the Peasants (us) about almost any topic, by the Priests of the cult. And Evolution is one of their canonical subjects.

It is interesting to note that writers and profs in the Social Sciences are especially prone to this disease, because they are a bit anxious about whether their disciplines really are science, so they try to adopt as many of the techniques of the Hard Sciences as possible, like using math, and adopting materialistic world views.

One of the most effective ways to take control of an area of learning is to be the one who states the basic definition of the terms, so the definition of "Science" is key. So define Science as the study of the material world, based ONLY on REPEATABLE experiments that are found to hold without exception. The results of these experiments are codified into Laws of Nature, and theories extending them. The repeatability requirement of these experiments excludes consideration of any one-time events, such as miracles. The laws of Nature are stated as Cause-and-Effect, and only natural causes are allowed.* Ghosts, Goblins and God are not to be

----------------------------------------------------------------

* Notice that this rule also excludes human free will as a real cause of anything. Humans are just molecular machines, so can't really originate anything. They are just part of the closed, unbroken chain of cause-and-effect. Humans, even Biology professors, are not free agents.

* An exception seems to be made for the Big Bang origin of the Universe, surely a one-time event, and admittedly one that appears to be miraculous. So this idea needs a lot more theoretical work to find a natural cause for the Big Bang!

---------------------------------------------------------------

recognized as causes of any real phenomena.

Now add to the above definitions the (usually unstated) assumption that the laws of Science hold for ALL OF REALITY. All other categories of human experience must be relagated to the realm of Phantasy and Emotion, and of course religion is in that latter realm. So religious thought is tolerated, as long as Biblical miracles such as the Resurrection of Jesus are regarded as heart-warming, pure myth.

So now finally we get to why they hold to Evolution as the law that completely explains the Biological (including Human!) world. They feel that they MUST support evolution, since this is the only theory which purports to explain the wonders of the Biological world without invoking supernatural intervention into the normal course of cause-and-effect. (shudder) Miracles, like Creation! Intelligent Design!

QUESTION 4b. "I've discussed this with many students and my father in law and they seem to think that if design were an intelligent world view there would be more evidence out there regarding the issue."

RESPONSE:

The evidence is documented every day in publications by biologists.

In talking about the body plan of an animal, they are forced to use teleological (purposeful) language in describing structure and function of the structural and biochemical components of the creature. When they see an organelle in a cell, they ask "Now what is this thing FOR?" They must assume that the cell is purposefully engineered, to make any headway with their analysis. After all, it is succesfully alive, so the whole complex organism must work together.

This pattern is so widely evident in the literature that the gatekeepers of Darwinnian orthodoxy have to keep admonishing researchers to watch their language, and realize that the cell only APPEARS to be designed*; the "engineering" really only came about by a series of very lucky accidents over millions of generations.

---------------------------------------------------------------

*"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not

designed,

but rather evolved." Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: Basic Books, 1988), page 138

----------------------------------------------------------------

*"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)

----------------------------------------------------------------

But the real question is, then, was this creature intelligently engineered, or was it a long series of small accidents, selected in a large population pool to give maximum viability to this strand in the population? The True Darwinist must choose the latter option, but then it is reasonable to ask what is the probability that all these mutation / selection events could produce this design, in this size of population pool, in this length of time? (this number of generations) The author of a publication feels fortunate that he does not need to make this kind of a calculation, since his colleagues know that it would be tasteless, and treading on dangerous ground to ask him to do it. Those who have tried the calculations have come out with vanishingly small probabilities*.

---------------------------------------------------------------

*33. Yockey, Hubert P. - Information Theory and Molecular biology - 1992 - Cambridge U. - ISBN 0-521-35005-0 - QH506.Y63 - 342 pages - Yockey, a biophysicist, was a student of Emilio Segre. He is probably the world expert on calculations of the Information content of DNA, and of important proteins derived therefrom. His best worked-out example is the enzyme Cytochrome-C, chosen because it is employed by almost all living cells. In chapter 9 he calculates that if the ocean basins were filled with an optimum soup omposed of all the 20 required amino acid building blocks for proteins, the blocks would have to be shuffled once per second for 10^23 years, before a single Cytochrome C molecule would be made. And that would be only one tiny step toward assembling simultaneously in one place the many molecules of many different proteins required as the materials to be incorporated into a single simple self-replicating cell. He says that this is an even more pessimistic conclusion than that of Fred Hoyle, who estimates that the probability for life to originate on Earth is less than 10^-40,000, during the time span of the Earth's history. Hoyle uses this as an argument for his thesis that life originated in outer space, in a Universe infinitely old. Yockey concludes chapter 9 by the statement "A practical person must conclude that life didn't happen by chance."

----------------------------------------------------------------

But given these vanishing probabilities for the Darwinnian origin of so many different animals and of biological components of animals, does the Darwinist say, "well then I suppose this creature must have been designed by an intelligent agent?" No, for that conclusion would be unthinkable, because it is outside the defined realm of Science. If he talks about this at all, he simply says that there are a lot of loose ends, it needs further study, and another grant from the NIH. (National Institute of Health)

Question 5 - EVO-SCEPTICS

5. Are there, that you know of, secular scientists who have not put

their faith in the theory of evolution, and if so who are they and what problems do they have with this theory?

RESPONSE:

Sir Fred Hoyle comes to mind. Hoyle is a celebrated British astronomer. He doubts that life on Earth originated spontaneously because he calculates that it is such an improbable event. He has his own axe to grind, namely the Steady State theory of the Universe. Following is my review of his book.

Hoyle, Fred, and Wijckramasinghe, Chandra Lifecloud-the Origin of Life in the Universe - 1978 - Harper & Row - ISBN 0-06-011954-3 Hoyle is a British Astronomer who is best known for his opposition to the "Big Bang" model for cosmogony, and for his "Steady State" Universe substitute. This book makes hazy guesses about how life may have originated outside the Solar system, and been transported to Earth. He freely assumes that the molecular gas clouds within the Galaxy must contain biologically useful building blocks for living cells. The whole book seems to have been thrown together with very little care, and it is not taken seriously by most scientists. Hoyle calculates that the origin of life on earth by natural means is so extremely improbable, that even the fourteen billion years since the Big Bang would not come near to being enough time. He estimates the probability of life originating on Earth as about 10^-40,000. He guesses that life must have wandered to the Earth from other solar systems that are very much older. "Panspermia".

------------------------------------------------------------------

Stuart Kauffman is another person who criticizes Evolution, because he has a substitute axe to grind. He wants his "Chaos Theory" to explain the origin of life.

Kauffman, Stuart A. - The Origins of Order - self-organization and selection in evolution - 1993 - Oxford - ISBN 0-19-507951-5 - QH325.k39 1993 - 645 pages - This book is a bold attempt to explain many of the mysteries of living things in terms of the self-organizing properties of many-body, strongly interacting systems of particles. The outstanding problem he attacks thus is the model of living cells being self-organized and assembled autocatalytically out of the molecules of the "Primordial Soup" (chapter 7). He says that this process is so likely to happen that no great amount of time needs to be invoked. He laughs at Hoyle's 10^-40,000 probability estimate. However Kauffman himself makes no real estimates of such probabilities for his own theory. Like Darwin, he is full of suggestions for how things might happen, but doesn't follow through on any consistent scenario which can be estimated. He implicitly assumes that the laws of chemical thermodynamics can be ignored in a non-linear dissipative system which is somehow maintained in a near-chaotic state.

In applying Chaos Theory, he falls into the trap of mistaking order for complexity. Near-chaotic systems often exhibit fascinating kinds of order, as in the Mandelbrot Set, but do not give rise to complexity, (Information) as required for a viable DNA molecule, or to write the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

In the process of trying to advance his new model of evolutionary change, Kauffman does not hesitate to savage currently accepted models, by and large agreeing with Darwinism's critics. Such critics will find a gold mine of ideas in this thick book. For example, Kauffman sees only a limited role for natural selection in bringing about macroevolution. Instead, he thinks natural selection is the agent which keeps biological systems "on the edge of chaos", where all the good things happen.

------------------------------------------------------------

Soren Lovtrup is the only biologist I know of that clearly fits this category. Here is my resume` of his book. Book is in UI library. Unfortunately, Lovtrup is not widely known outside his field of Embryology, but he has sterling credentials.

Lovtrup, Soren - Darwinism - The Refutation of a Myth - 1987 - Methuen - ISBN 0709941536 - Lovtrup is a world-renowned Embryologist and Taxonomist from Sweden. Thesis: Major evolutionary changes do not happen as the result of myriads of tiny steps (micromutations) as modern Darwinnian theory holds, but as large, sometimes huge jumps in animal complexity (macromutations) in a single generation. E.g. the sudden appearance of many new Phyla in the Cambrian Epoch, and generally the nearly complete absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Lovtrup does not explain how so much creative engineering can happen so fast, he merely gives it a name (macromutation). But much of the book documents the experimental reality of this phenomenon. He does not call it Creation, but his data would be nicely explained by a series of sudden Introductions of radically improved animal types, every few million years.

He is unrelentingly critical not only of Darwinism, but of Darwin personally and of those who early promoted Darwin at the expense of almost all other contemporary biological thinkers. The book is very well written, witty, exciting. Keep a dictionery of biological terms handy. Also an unabridged dictionery of English words. An excellent, informative and enthusiastic review appears in the journal Evolution, 43(3), 1989, 699-700.

--------------------------------------------------

Stephen Jay Gould is a major example of a famous critic of Darwinism. He died recently. He was a Paleontology prof at Harvard. He was a true Atheist and a Marxist. As a paleontologist he got tired of sending grad students out to the fossil beds, and their finding that the sequence of fossils in successive strata did not follow Darwinnian predictions of very slow change. Instead they found that when a new type of creature appeared, it appeared complete and suddenly, and that thereafter the creature hardly changed at all, over millions of years, and then finally went extinct.

So after seeing this process repeated many times, he and Niles Eldredge published a landmark paper reporting this pattern, and they called this pattern "Punctuated Equilibrium", now referred to as "PUNK - EEK". This paper is in the book "Models of Paleontology"; And many paleontologists are using this concept, and reporting more instances of it. In his writing he calls this sudden appearance of new animal designs "The best kept secret of Paleontology"

For publishing this blasphemous paper Gould has been villified by the gatekeepers of Evolutionary orthodoxy, such as Dawkins, and Gould has returned the compliment by calling Dawkins a "Darwinnian Fundamentalist". But, being an unabahed atheist, Gould still has to claim alegiance to Darwinism as the only available theory of change that leaves God out of the picture.

----------------------------------------------------------

Shapiro is also critical of Darwinism:

Shapiro, Robert Origins - a Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth - 1986 - Bantam Books - ISBN 0-553-34355-6. QH325.S47 A critical look at the history of Origin-of-life theories and experiments. Concludes that we are far from having the answer. Witty, well written. Is sympathetic to religious views of Creation, but not to "Creation Science". Shapiro is a prof of Chemistry at NYU. Not to be confused with Arthur Shapiro, Biologist at UC Davis.

----------------------------------------------------------

Q6 - A QUESTION THAT KIRK DID NOT ASK but which I sent him

LJ: Are there well-known scientists who are Christians?

Q6 - Prominent Scientists who acknowledge they are Christians

First let me describe a position held by many Scientist-Christians:

THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS (call them TE's)

There are a number of scientist Christians, some on this list, who take the position that they largely subscribe to the theory of Evolution, but they deny the Atheistic implications that are often attached to it. For them, Evolution would be God's method of creating life, and the various forms of life. They would all say that God created the Physical Universe, but then many would say that God's natural law was sufficiently broad that He did not need to intervene further to create the animals, including us. Many of these people are almost Deists (Deism = God created Natural Law, and then sat back and did no more; God is presently unemployed)

But they all recognize at least one miracle, the resurrection of Jesus Christ (who wants to go to Hell?) There are many variations and intensities within the TE position.

FRANCIS COLLINS Is head of the famous Government-sponsored Human Genome Project; a warm Christian, as indicated in talks to Xt organizations, and in published interviews.

He is a mild TE.

SIMON CONWAY-MORRIS Is a famous Paleontology professor at Oxford University. He is best known for his work on the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion, the time 500 million years ago when almost all of the new body-plans (phyla) of multi-celled animals are first seen.

He is a rather strong TE, in spite of the implications of his work. He very explicitly claims to be a Christian.

OWEN GINGERICH Owen Gingerich is a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University. In 1992-93 he chaired Harvard's History of Science Department. He writes of the supposed conflict between science and religion, from a Christian perspective. Evolution views unknown.

CHARLES TOWNES Townes is an evangelical Christian, and no friend of Evolution. He won the Nobel prize for his invention of the laser. He is presently a prof of Physics at the U of California at Berkeley.

JOHN POLKINGHORN Formerly a productive Particle Physicist, and now president of Oxford University. A prolific apologist for Christianity, especially in the realm of Cosmology "The Universe is finely tuned to support Life".

He is a TE, opposes literal 6-day Creationism.

ALLAN SANDAGE He is an outstanding astronomer, working at the 200 inch telescope organization at Mt. Palomar. He was first assistant to Edwin Hubble, and has followed up much of the work that Hubble started, on the expansion of the Universe. I have heard that he is a Christian, but will have to look up more on this.

-----------------------------------------------

Q7 - Are there widely respected philosophers who are Christians?

RESPONSE -

Alvin Plantinga comes immediately to mind.

Alvin Plantinga has been called "the most important philosopher of religion now writing." After taking his Ph.D. from Yale in 1958, he taught at Wayne State University (1958-63), Calvin College (1963-82), and has filled the John A. O'Brien Chair of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame since 1982. He was president of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association during 1981-82 and president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, which he helped to found, from 1983 to 1986.

His latest book is Warranted Christian Belief (2000)

Antony Flew, a British philosopher, is a case of great interest because in January 2004 he announced that whereas he had been an Atheist, he was now persuaded that God exists. Flew was not only an atheist, but was the global most persuasive intellectual exponent of the worldview of Atheism. The reverberations are still echoing through Academia. He says he is not now a Christian, but is open to consideration of "revealed religion".

It is especially noteworthy that Flew gives his reasons for changing his mind: Purely the accumulating scientific evidence that the Universe is produced by an "Intelligent Designer", in Cosmology, Chemistry of the atoms, and in the fantastic complexity of the biological world. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”

The academic world is holding its breath while Flew further explores the implications of being a believer.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM - Quote from Richard Dawkins, now the best-known living Atheist, now that Carl Sagan has died and gone to his reward.

A Professor of "The public understanding of Science" at Oxford U.

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that

somebody comes up with a better one.'

I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

from Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W.

Norton & Co. 1987), p 6:

----------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM - QUOTE from Richard Lewontin, Evolutionary Geneticist at Harvard U.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our *a priori* adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan.

Sections

Personal tools

Kirk Brower, "List of Five Questions on ID, creationism and Christianity" (2005)

Document Actions