Charles Darwin and the “Christian Right”

Interesting.  Nobody ever talks about the “anti-Christian left.” They are always referred to as “progressives” as though their ideas are brand new when, in fact, some of them date to the turn of the last century.  No matter.

Paul Rosenberg, of Salon, has a post that appears in Raw Story titled The brilliant science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified.  The story first ran in May of 2015 but I did not see it at the time.  To be fair, Rosenberg opens the piece with the following paragraph:

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

The problem I have here, of course, is that he doesn't define “Christian Right.” Reading between the lines, one might reasonably conclude he means Young Earth Creationists but, all the same, there should have been something here. Onward.  Having exonerated Darwin, however, he then makes an unwarranted leap beyond that initial paragraph. 

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary.

The bold is mine. He makes a point of separated YEC from OEC in the first paragraph and then conflates them in the second. Further, it is not clear in any sense why the “necessity” of life would obviate the need or existence of God.

The work of Jeremy England is key to this idea.  He has developed a mathematical formula to describe the fact that carbon atoms found in living organisms are better at harnessing external energy than inanimate groups.  As Rosenberg puts it, this puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution.  In fact, to use his phrase “thermodynamics drives evolution.”

The rebuttal to the claim that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution is pretty low-hanging fruit: the earth is obviously not a closed system.  It gets its energy from the sun.  Therefore, the idea that God is not active is not even addressed by the research.  Consequently, despite what Rosenberg writes, God may, indeed, be playing quite a large role.  This is yet another instance in which the existence of God cannot be tested one way or the other but the evidence makes the YEC position harder to maintain. 

Biologos Survey of Pastors

Biologos contracted with the Barna Group to conduct a survey on the views of origins expressed by pastors. 

What they discovered is that, out of 743 pastors interviewed over the phone, 19% are hard-core young earth creationists while 35% "lean" that way.  7% are progressive creationists, with 8% leaning and 15% leaned toward theistic evolution with 3% hard core.  12% listed their view as "uncertain."

Most of the findings are straightforward and what you would expect.  They are afraid that the disagreements with science are harming our witness, and most are concerned about evolution. One of the findings was that pastors weren't avoiding science:

The majority of pastors think that addressing issues of science for their congregations is an important part of their work. Of those surveyed, 72% felt that addressing science issues in the local community was somewhat (51%) or very (21%) urgent. When asked about science on a national and global level, even more pastors felt that addressing science issues is important (43% somewhat and 46% very).

But it does not appear that they are attempting to learn more about it. While a sample size of one, the level of scientific understanding expressed by Ken Ham is minimal, at best. Even my paster, it is clear, is not familiar with modern evolutionary concepts. If they are representative of pastors as a whole, it will be a long, hard road ahead.  Read the whole thing. 

John Freshwater Update

Panda's Thumb has an update on the John Freshwater case titled The Defense Goes Fishing. Richard Hoppe writes:

The defense in Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education, the federal suit John Freshwater brought against the Board of Education, several administrators, and several Board members, recently issued a series of subpoenas to people ranging from Nancy Freshwater’s physicians to a couple of private citizens. While the former is arguably relevant to the case, the latter are not. Part of Freshwater’s claim in his suit is the adverse effect on his wife and loss of consortium, so her medical records are potentially pertinent. However, in at least two cases, the defense is clearly on a fishing expedition that among other things has chilling implications for the First Amendment rights of the recipients.

The whole post is interesting. There are apparently two local residents who have a web site devoted to the trial. The defense subpoenaed everything that the two had ever written about the case, whether it made the web or not. Given the history of the defense in this case, this is not promising. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee plunk! Wonder what will end up on the hook.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - It's All Greek to Me
via FoxyTunes

Acceptance of Human Evolution

And as if to drive home the point, UPI has a story recounting research that suggests that if students are accepting of an ancient age of the earth (conventional science), they will be more likely to accept human evolution as well. The story notes:

University of Minnesota scientists said their finding that a student who understands the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old is more likely to understand and accept human evolution could give educators a new strategy for teaching evolution.

Professors Sehoya Cotner and Randy Moore, along with D. Christopher Brooks of the university's Office of Information Technology, surveyed 400 students enrolled in several sections of an introductory biology course for non-majors.

Once one makes the jump to an old earth, the only alternative to accepting evolution is progressive creation. This presents its own problems in that a mechanism is still needed to actually put the animals on the earth progressively in a non-evolutionary way. Then the questions arise regarding junk DNA, ERVs, chromosomal fusions, and the massive amount of extinctions that have happened over the course of recorded time, for which supporters of progressive creation have no rejoinders.

----------------
Now playing: Stanley Clarke - Rock 'N' Roll Jelly
via FoxyTunes