Friday 19 February, 2010

Arts
World
UK
Science/Nature

EXPELLED MOVIE: Premier Radio is screening this expose of the atheistic agenda of evolutionists in London this month, just after the Anglican Synod has supported a motion that implies acceptance of evolution.

By Andrew Halloway

At last week’s General Synod, the Church of England voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that religion and science are compatible.

I’ve no problem with that. True science and true religion are compatible – if the science is done in honour of God (as it once was) and the religion is Bible-believing Christianity. Outside of that, there is a lot of potential for incompatibility.

Would scientists, for example, say that science is compatible with the ancient religion of Finland? Finns once believed that the world was formed from a broken egg. The upper part of the egg formed the sky, the yolk became the sun, and the lower part of the egg formed the earth. You see, it depends egg-zactly which religion you are talking about.

And would most religions accept the modern scientific story of creation, without adding God to the mix? You know… the story that says everything was created from nothing by nothing, through a cosmic accident. Perhaps this a caricature of the Big Bang – but close enough to show that the kind of science that excludes the Creator from his own universe is inevitably going to fall short of being able to explain it.

Wendy Freedman, author of The New Physics, writes: “The measurements point to a universe filled with a kind of matter which we’ve never seen, propelled by a force which we don’t understand.” And some scientists accuse Christians of blind faith!

But to return to the Synod’s vote, I agree that the Bible is compatible with good science, but not all science is good. It’s naïve of the Synod to blandly accept all science, including evolution, when it is plain that science is fallible. Bad science will fail to reveal the truth of the world around us.

It is true that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but you don’t have to read every word of Genesis as literal in order to see that it is a basic explanation of how God created, not just why. So, if science conflicts with (rightly interpreted) passages of the Bible, I’m prepared to trust the Bible to be right in the long run. Science will have to catch up. And indeed, there are many examples of how it has previously conflicted with the Bible, and then later found evidence that shows the Bible was right after all.

I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true. Science, on the other hand, is run by imperfect human beings. At its best, it can certainly be a God-send, but it is by no means infallible.

And this is where the Anglican Church seems to be coming a cropper. By lumping all science together as compatible with Christianity, it risks raising science to the level of an equal arbiter of truth. And it is avoiding the fact that there are some scientific theories that do conflict with the Bible, and will therefore one day be proved wrong.

Chief among these is, of course, the Darwinian version of evolution. Yet the church seems to be going out of its way to accommodate Darwinism. It has even officially apologised to Charles Darwin for disagreeing with him!

This unwillingness to confront evolution is the misguided part of a laudable attempt to counter atheism’s false claim that science has outmoded faith. But in the process Scripture is being overlooked.

Theistic evolution – the idea that God used evolution – until recently remained conveniently vague on exactly how it fits with the Bible. We have one of its leading UK exponents, Dr Denis Alexander, to thank for being honest about how our interpretation of Scripture has to bend in order to make evolution dovetail with it.

In his 2008 book ‘Creation or Evolution, Do We Have to Choose?’ Denis tries to show that God and evolution are compatible. But as a scientist, he sticks so firmly to evolution that, in any conflict, it is interpretation of Scripture that always has to give. As a result, there are some rather bizarre interpretations of Genesis that look more like eisegesis (reading one’s own ideas into the text) than exegesis (explaining the text). In the end, he accidentally makes science not just equal to Scripture but superior to it.

By contrast, ‘Should Christians Embrace Evolution?’ (IVP, 2009), edited by Norman C. Nevin, explains why, both from Scripture and science, there are immense difficulties with marrying Darwinism and theology. It is conceivable that the Creator could have manipulated life in order to progress it from ‘primitive’ to complex creatures, but that is not Darwinism – which relies entirely on natural processes.

Natural selection, genetic variation and inheritance are all well-established by empirical science – by observation and testing. They explain the phenomenon of micro-evolution – minor adaptations that help species survive. It is totally compatible with Scripture that God should give his creatures an in-built ability to help them survive in changing climates and environments.

But macro-evolution, the un-testable, unobservable idea that pretends to explain the development of life from molecules to man without any need for ‘intelligent design’ is a highly theoretical extrapolation from micro-evolution. It remains conjecture.

I don’t put conjecture before Scripture.

Also, by accepting evolution, the Synod vote implies a rejection of both creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). This is a dangerous path to tread. Both creationism and ID, whilst yet to find widespread acceptance among scientists, are both far easier to reconcile to the Bible than evolution. In fact, creationism is specifically about supporting the Bible.

So, by closing the door to alternatives, the C of E may well be aiding and abetting atheism. There are already enough academic institutions censoring any questioning of evolution. It doesn’t need Christians to help. As the American 2008 documentary ‘Expelled’ showed, some highly-qualified scientists who have favoured ID have been literally ‘expelled’ either from their jobs or from academic publications.

Yet even some atheists can see the unscientific nature of the academic prejudice in favour of evolution. For example, atheist professor of philosophy Bradley Monton has written a book called ‘Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design’.

Published in October, it argues that ID is a valid scientific option. Monton himself does not find ID arguments overwhelmingly convincing, but neither does he find them trivial, and he believes they should be allowed on the table and in the classroom for discussion. He says: “We need to look at intelligent design on its merits. And even though I’m an atheist, I think that some arguments for intelligent design are worth taking seriously… My stance is that critical thinking should be taught, and if that makes the anti-evolutionists upset, so be it. I want intelligent design to be taught in a fair-minded way, and this will mean presenting the strongest arguments for and against intelligent design.

“I want all the students – especially the committed atheists and the committed theists – to feel challenged. By teaching critical thinking well, the students should be led not only to question authority, but also to question their own beliefs, and the reasoning processes that got them to their beliefs.”

This month, Premier Christian Radio is screening the UK premiere of ‘Expelled’ in London, to allow UK audiences to make up their own minds. Due to high demand, a second showing will be held at Imperial College on Saturday February 27. Premier says: “The film caused a firestorm of controversy on its release in the United States by asking: Is scientific freedom of thought at stake? Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific perspective? Is Darwinism a potentially dangerous one?”

After the screening, representatives from both the Christian and secular arenas will be debating the film. Guest speakers include Dr Alastair Noble (former Inspector of Schools) and Dr Vij Sodera (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons) who advocate ID, and Prof Keith Fox (Biology, Southampton University) and Prof Thomas Dixon (History of Science, Queen Mary London University) who advocate Darwinian evolution.

See www.premier.org.uk for tickets.

Photo: Premise Media Corporation