So, I've been neglecting this blog. But for a few good reasons. Work has amped up, the summer drilling program has started, so I'm working longer hours. Also, summers in Calgary are best spent outdoors more often than not.
But the other reason is research. I have a few ideas for my next topic. I had said I was going to tackle the concept of Intelligent Design, but the more I read on this, the more I need to learn before I can share it. It's an interesting issue, bogged down by vague terminology.
I'm also planning a couple of reflective posts (which need less research) on my personal 'feelings' towards evolution, and reflections on the meaning it helps give my life (strange as it might sound).
Currently, I'm reading Evolutionary Creationism by Dennis Lamoreaux, a very interesting treatise on Evolution from a purely Christian and Biblical standpoint. I plan on rereading Cardinal Ratzinger's series of four homilies on the Catholic view of Genesis. I'm starting to get into material by the National Center for Science Education. Also, in the long run, I'm hoping to look into material from 2009 symposiums on evolution at the Vatican, as well as a rather dense collection of papers on philosophy and (not of) science which I bought in Rome in 2008 and have barely touched.
I will post more soon, once I get stuff soaked into my head. If anyone wants to talk geology, I can spew it all out now!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Follow up: The Spectrum of Belief
My last post sparked a lively discussion...on Facebook, not on here. Two friends of mine, Kris and Allison, provided some interesting insight.
Creationism and Non-Christian Faiths
Allison noted that what I had written in my last post reflected the spectrum of Christian belief, and didn't encompass other religions. Kris was so kind as to refine my spectrum to include other faiths:
"Yeah there are all kinds of other categories one could come up with including exo-transportists (my word) that think that some combination of people, microbes or animals were brought to the earth by some other being or on a comet or something. This works out to be a variant on the "2001 - A Space Odyssey" story where life has been manipulated at various stages by an alien intelligence with the goal of increasing peaceful intelligent species in the universe.
If you were to add in all the other creation stories from the world's religions, old and new, you would be left with too much granularity and not much of a spectrum per se.
While I appreciate that you are coming at this from a Christian viewpoint, it would be possible to rewrite your spectrum in a more general sense to include Hundus or Zoroastrians or Ancestor Worship or Muslims or followers of Zeus and the Olympians as such:
Literal creationists - believe a creation story literally as presented in one of the world's faiths (be it religion, magic, tribal spirituality, modern religions such as Scientology, whatever).
Old Earth creationists - believe that their chosen creation stories are essentially true but the details and timelines are metaphoric. Microevolution may occur but species differentiation on a broad scale was the work of a Creator or Creation Force as dictated by their sytsem of belief.
Creationary Evolutionists - as written, substitute God for whatever manages the universe in their system of belief.
Deism - as written but also includes "spiritualists" of the new age variety and other groups such as Buddhists who consider the creation issue separately from issues of the soul, rather than just strict Deists in the Judeo-Christian sense.
Atheism - as written though there are those who haven't thought much about it, those who have thought about it and decided that a lack of evidence in a Creator is evidence of a lack of a Creator (Active Atheists) and those who believe that a lack of evidence predicts the probability that there is no Creator (Scientific Atheists).
Dicks - There are those folks in all the above categories, especially in the atheist liberal left :-)"
The above is published with Kris' permission. From what he's written, I think the positions on the spectrum remain the same even including non-Christian religions, just the basic definitions change slightly to accommodate non-Christian beliefs.
My completely unresearched understanding of non-Christian creationism is that it is infrequent. But as I said, this is completely unresearched, and would make a good topic for a future post.
The Term 'Evolutionism'
Allison also made an excellent point: The term 'evolutionism' is not used in scientific circles. It is only used in discussions such as the one on this blog; but within the scientific community there are no 'evolutionists' per se, as there are no 'atomic theorists' or 'plate tectonists': a scientific theory is not a belief one subscribes to, but an explain and predict of a multitude of phenomena. This is very different from the use of the word 'theory' in common parlance, where it implies a hunch or an idea.
Creationism and Non-Christian Faiths
Allison noted that what I had written in my last post reflected the spectrum of Christian belief, and didn't encompass other religions. Kris was so kind as to refine my spectrum to include other faiths:
"Yeah there are all kinds of other categories one could come up with including exo-transportists (my word) that think that some combination of people, microbes or animals were brought to the earth by some other being or on a comet or something. This works out to be a variant on the "2001 - A Space Odyssey" story where life has been manipulated at various stages by an alien intelligence with the goal of increasing peaceful intelligent species in the universe.
If you were to add in all the other creation stories from the world's religions, old and new, you would be left with too much granularity and not much of a spectrum per se.
While I appreciate that you are coming at this from a Christian viewpoint, it would be possible to rewrite your spectrum in a more general sense to include Hundus or Zoroastrians or Ancestor Worship or Muslims or followers of Zeus and the Olympians as such:
Literal creationists - believe a creation story literally as presented in one of the world's faiths (be it religion, magic, tribal spirituality, modern religions such as Scientology, whatever).
Old Earth creationists - believe that their chosen creation stories are essentially true but the details and timelines are metaphoric. Microevolution may occur but species differentiation on a broad scale was the work of a Creator or Creation Force as dictated by their sytsem of belief.
Creationary Evolutionists - as written, substitute God for whatever manages the universe in their system of belief.
Deism - as written but also includes "spiritualists" of the new age variety and other groups such as Buddhists who consider the creation issue separately from issues of the soul, rather than just strict Deists in the Judeo-Christian sense.
Atheism - as written though there are those who haven't thought much about it, those who have thought about it and decided that a lack of evidence in a Creator is evidence of a lack of a Creator (Active Atheists) and those who believe that a lack of evidence predicts the probability that there is no Creator (Scientific Atheists).
Dicks - There are those folks in all the above categories, especially in the atheist liberal left :-)"
The above is published with Kris' permission. From what he's written, I think the positions on the spectrum remain the same even including non-Christian religions, just the basic definitions change slightly to accommodate non-Christian beliefs.
My completely unresearched understanding of non-Christian creationism is that it is infrequent. But as I said, this is completely unresearched, and would make a good topic for a future post.
The Term 'Evolutionism'
Allison also made an excellent point: The term 'evolutionism' is not used in scientific circles. It is only used in discussions such as the one on this blog; but within the scientific community there are no 'evolutionists' per se, as there are no 'atomic theorists' or 'plate tectonists': a scientific theory is not a belief one subscribes to, but an explain and predict of a multitude of phenomena. This is very different from the use of the word 'theory' in common parlance, where it implies a hunch or an idea.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Creationism, Evolutionism, and Everything In Between
The Spectrum of Belief
Modern media really likes to simplify things, especially in this day and age where you only have a headline to grab someone's attention. According to the media, there are two sides to this conflict: the religious right who believes the world is 4004 years old and evolution is a grand conspiracy, and the atheistic left who believe that the world is 4.87 billion years old and God is a grand conspiracy. Apparently these two sides converse by shouting and hurling insults and documentaries at each other.
However, these two sides are simply the end points on a spectra of beliefs from the 'purest' of creationism (flat-earth creationism, which takes biblical passages about the firmanents of earth and heaven literally), to the 'purest' of evolutionism (everything is chaos and chance, no God exists). In fact, there are five main positions in the spectrum.
I won't go into Flat earth creationism as it (fortunately) has only a handful of followers centered in Saskatchewan, the flattest province in all of Canada.
Young Earth Creationism
"The Bible is the source of God's truth, why would you turn to fallible human methods?"
Young-earth creationism has its roots in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, especially regarding the time-frame. Chronologies were established using the Old Testament as well as known historical dates (Julius Caesar, for example), to determine dates for the creation of the earth which range from 3000BC to 12,000BC, depending on interpretation. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the world in seven days, exactly as it's detailed in Genesis, therefore evolution is rejected. Protestant Reformed churches and Seventh-Day Adventists are among Young-Earth Creationist denominations.
Old-earth Creationism (Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Day-Age Creationism)
"The world is old. Life, on the other hand..."
Old-earth creationists hold that the world is old, but that creation was a special event due to God's miraculous intercession, not from the slow process of evolution. Three views that fit into this category are Gap Creationism Progressive Creationism, and Day-Age Creationism. Gap Creationism states that the world existed for a long time prior to life, and then God created life in a discrete event (frequently believed to be 7 actual 24 hour days as stated in Genesis). Progressive Creationism states that God intervened in discrete events from time to time, perhaps after natural disasters, to create life. Some evolutionary adaptation and natural selection is accepted, but transitions from species to species is rejected. Also within this sphere is Day-Age Creationism: since the Hebrew word for day (yom) does not specifically mean a 24 hour day, the order of creation is in fact a simplification of modern science for a pre-science peoples: that the world was created in six discrete periods of time. Some proponents of day-age creationism also believe in evolution as well. Jehovah's witnesses, Answers in Creation affiliates are prominent old-earth creationists.
Creationary Evolutionism (Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution)
"God speaks through whispers in nature, through natural processes."
Creationary Evolutionists believe that God works through natural processes, such as evolution, to create life. The earth is old, and evolution exists in a process guided by God, without discrete direct interference. The story of Genesis is a metaphor with deep meaning rather than a literal description of events, and miracles are not used to explain scientific phenomena. This is the position held by the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Episcopalians, and many more.
Deism
"God exists. But that's about all He does."
Theistic evolutionists are rarely heard from mainly because they don't organize or promote their position. These are the people who hold in the "clockmaker God" idea: God exists, but he created the world and its natural laws and has very little to do with it ever since. God exists, but has very little bearing on our daily lives, and does not have a personal relationship with us. This view is held by the World Union of Deists. However, many nominally religious or nonreligious people might describe themselves as Deists.
Atheistic Evolutionism
"There is no God."
This is the position popularised by writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. There is no God, Man is to set his own destiny with no guidance from above; miracles are never a valid explanation. The world is old and evolution is the process by which life exists and continues existing. All is chaos and chance. Many agnostics as well may hold this position (Agnosticism means that they are unsure whether or not there is a God).
After looking at all this: what position do you hold? In one of my next posts, I'm going to post a quiz which you can take which will tell you more about where you fit on this spectrum of belief.
Another large question looms here too: What about Intelligent Design? Where does that fit in this spectrum? I will address that in a coming article as well.
Modern media really likes to simplify things, especially in this day and age where you only have a headline to grab someone's attention. According to the media, there are two sides to this conflict: the religious right who believes the world is 4004 years old and evolution is a grand conspiracy, and the atheistic left who believe that the world is 4.87 billion years old and God is a grand conspiracy. Apparently these two sides converse by shouting and hurling insults and documentaries at each other.
However, these two sides are simply the end points on a spectra of beliefs from the 'purest' of creationism (flat-earth creationism, which takes biblical passages about the firmanents of earth and heaven literally), to the 'purest' of evolutionism (everything is chaos and chance, no God exists). In fact, there are five main positions in the spectrum.
I won't go into Flat earth creationism as it (fortunately) has only a handful of followers centered in Saskatchewan, the flattest province in all of Canada.
Young Earth Creationism
"The Bible is the source of God's truth, why would you turn to fallible human methods?"
Young-earth creationism has its roots in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, especially regarding the time-frame. Chronologies were established using the Old Testament as well as known historical dates (Julius Caesar, for example), to determine dates for the creation of the earth which range from 3000BC to 12,000BC, depending on interpretation. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the world in seven days, exactly as it's detailed in Genesis, therefore evolution is rejected. Protestant Reformed churches and Seventh-Day Adventists are among Young-Earth Creationist denominations.
Old-earth Creationism (Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Day-Age Creationism)
"The world is old. Life, on the other hand..."
Old-earth creationists hold that the world is old, but that creation was a special event due to God's miraculous intercession, not from the slow process of evolution. Three views that fit into this category are Gap Creationism Progressive Creationism, and Day-Age Creationism. Gap Creationism states that the world existed for a long time prior to life, and then God created life in a discrete event (frequently believed to be 7 actual 24 hour days as stated in Genesis). Progressive Creationism states that God intervened in discrete events from time to time, perhaps after natural disasters, to create life. Some evolutionary adaptation and natural selection is accepted, but transitions from species to species is rejected. Also within this sphere is Day-Age Creationism: since the Hebrew word for day (yom) does not specifically mean a 24 hour day, the order of creation is in fact a simplification of modern science for a pre-science peoples: that the world was created in six discrete periods of time. Some proponents of day-age creationism also believe in evolution as well. Jehovah's witnesses, Answers in Creation affiliates are prominent old-earth creationists.
Creationary Evolutionism (Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution)
"God speaks through whispers in nature, through natural processes."
Creationary Evolutionists believe that God works through natural processes, such as evolution, to create life. The earth is old, and evolution exists in a process guided by God, without discrete direct interference. The story of Genesis is a metaphor with deep meaning rather than a literal description of events, and miracles are not used to explain scientific phenomena. This is the position held by the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Episcopalians, and many more.
Deism
"God exists. But that's about all He does."
Theistic evolutionists are rarely heard from mainly because they don't organize or promote their position. These are the people who hold in the "clockmaker God" idea: God exists, but he created the world and its natural laws and has very little to do with it ever since. God exists, but has very little bearing on our daily lives, and does not have a personal relationship with us. This view is held by the World Union of Deists. However, many nominally religious or nonreligious people might describe themselves as Deists.
Atheistic Evolutionism
"There is no God."
This is the position popularised by writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. There is no God, Man is to set his own destiny with no guidance from above; miracles are never a valid explanation. The world is old and evolution is the process by which life exists and continues existing. All is chaos and chance. Many agnostics as well may hold this position (Agnosticism means that they are unsure whether or not there is a God).
After looking at all this: what position do you hold? In one of my next posts, I'm going to post a quiz which you can take which will tell you more about where you fit on this spectrum of belief.
Another large question looms here too: What about Intelligent Design? Where does that fit in this spectrum? I will address that in a coming article as well.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
If it's true, it stands
In my welcome post I talked a little about my own journey with evolution. I'm going to talk a little about one of the steps in the journey. What's a blog without a bit of navel-gazing?
University
When I came to university, I knew that I wanted to study geology. Being fascinated with dinosaurs since I was a kid, a paleontologist advised me to go into geology first and then take a masters in paleo (I got stuck in geology on the way though...awesome science!).
I had been working out in my head ideas of creation and evolution, without too much research. I drifted into different perspectives. Everything I had seen so far convinced me that the world was old at least, but whether or not evolution existed was still a question. A small voice did give me this logical test:
A: With God, all things are possible.
B: Evolution is a 'thing'.
Therefore, with A and B being true, evolution is possible.
If It's True...
I decided to face the questions head on...I had a mantra: If it's true, it stands. Silly sounding yes, but it was my guiding mantra for every question. I had to look at it with an open mind, and decide for myself whether or not it was true. And then, at the end of my first year, going through evolution and the age of the earth, I found that both my science and my faith had withstood my test of truth. But I couldn't really explain it to anyone.
Sharing What I've Learnt
Some time around then, a friend of the family suggested that I write about it. Write what? I wondered. That's when I started my rather casual researching of the issue. And now, a blog. I'm hoping that the blog will help me pursue my research further.
Frequently I found a fantastic book or reference, and upon reading it, I would think "Aha! Here's the answer. I can rest easy now." And I'd proceed to do nothing, just smug in the thought that the answer was there, there was such rich wisdom if only someone would go out and look for it.
But now it's time for me to bring some of that wisdom out, to point some of it out, to share what I've been blessed to learn with others.
Sorry it's taken so long.
University
When I came to university, I knew that I wanted to study geology. Being fascinated with dinosaurs since I was a kid, a paleontologist advised me to go into geology first and then take a masters in paleo (I got stuck in geology on the way though...awesome science!).
I had been working out in my head ideas of creation and evolution, without too much research. I drifted into different perspectives. Everything I had seen so far convinced me that the world was old at least, but whether or not evolution existed was still a question. A small voice did give me this logical test:
A: With God, all things are possible.
B: Evolution is a 'thing'.
Therefore, with A and B being true, evolution is possible.
If It's True...
I decided to face the questions head on...I had a mantra: If it's true, it stands. Silly sounding yes, but it was my guiding mantra for every question. I had to look at it with an open mind, and decide for myself whether or not it was true. And then, at the end of my first year, going through evolution and the age of the earth, I found that both my science and my faith had withstood my test of truth. But I couldn't really explain it to anyone.
Sharing What I've Learnt
Some time around then, a friend of the family suggested that I write about it. Write what? I wondered. That's when I started my rather casual researching of the issue. And now, a blog. I'm hoping that the blog will help me pursue my research further.
Frequently I found a fantastic book or reference, and upon reading it, I would think "Aha! Here's the answer. I can rest easy now." And I'd proceed to do nothing, just smug in the thought that the answer was there, there was such rich wisdom if only someone would go out and look for it.
But now it's time for me to bring some of that wisdom out, to point some of it out, to share what I've been blessed to learn with others.
Sorry it's taken so long.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Who Said What? Statements on Evolution and Creationism
Who Wrote What? Organizational Positions on Evolution
Here's a quiz regarding different organizations and their position in the creation/evolution discussion. To take this quiz, make your best guess at who said what.
Based off of Leonard C. Kirk and Ronald Lieberman's article in Creation/Evolution Issue 39, located here: http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1169
The answers above might be surprising to many. Share any thoughts in the comments section.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Welcome
I was baptized on April 4th, 1984. I've been raised as a Catholic, and as a young child I became entranced with dinosaurs. Imagining what they would have looked like, how they would have moved, what they would have sounded like...and longing with all my young heart that I could see one. Attending a very traditional school, my love of dinosaurs and my faith started to come into friction...my beloved science documentaries talked about millions of years ago, whereas my teachers at school talked about thousands of years ago. The word evolution came up, and I remember thinking how ridiculous it was to think that a species could turn into something else. A dog would never become a rabbit, that was silly!
I slowly grew in my understanding of both science and faith and received guidance from many sources, from clergy, museums, books, and documentaries. When I became a student of geology in university, I knew I'd have to face these questions head-on. I was frightened that studying geology would directly confront, conflict with, and destroy the faith which had given me peace and guidance and meaning my whole life. To my surprise, both faith and science both stood up to my scrutiny, compatible, beautiful and strong. I know understood some of the profound differences between the two.
I want to share some of the results of my journey thus far, and go into some new territory, both for my own benefit, and hopefully to share it with others who have similar questions.
My aim is not to preach to those who profess science as their only belief: the quest for faith is a deeply personal one rooted in experience, and all the things in my life which prove to me that God exists and loves me would never prove anything to someone else. My aim is to reach those who have faith, those who hear stories daily illustrating the illusional conflict between science and religion, the thought that one has to be rejected to accept the other. This popular belief is very dangerous to people of faith, and society as a whole.
I hope you gain some benefit from my notes. Please comment with any thoughts or disagreements you might have, as well as topics which you might want to see explored in the future. I intend to write at least one article a month, to be posted at the beginning of each month.
I slowly grew in my understanding of both science and faith and received guidance from many sources, from clergy, museums, books, and documentaries. When I became a student of geology in university, I knew I'd have to face these questions head-on. I was frightened that studying geology would directly confront, conflict with, and destroy the faith which had given me peace and guidance and meaning my whole life. To my surprise, both faith and science both stood up to my scrutiny, compatible, beautiful and strong. I know understood some of the profound differences between the two.
I want to share some of the results of my journey thus far, and go into some new territory, both for my own benefit, and hopefully to share it with others who have similar questions.
My aim is not to preach to those who profess science as their only belief: the quest for faith is a deeply personal one rooted in experience, and all the things in my life which prove to me that God exists and loves me would never prove anything to someone else. My aim is to reach those who have faith, those who hear stories daily illustrating the illusional conflict between science and religion, the thought that one has to be rejected to accept the other. This popular belief is very dangerous to people of faith, and society as a whole.
I hope you gain some benefit from my notes. Please comment with any thoughts or disagreements you might have, as well as topics which you might want to see explored in the future. I intend to write at least one article a month, to be posted at the beginning of each month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)