1 / 226

Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson

Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson. Origins Master 2012. Table of Contents (links). Resolving a dispute T/B survey data ID & finely tuned universe Truth theories Meaning of evolution Punctuated equilibria Evidences for evolution Catastrophism/uniform? Discussing productively.

oded
Download Presentation

Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Steve Badger & Mike Tenneson Origins Master 2012

  2. Table of Contents (links) • Resolving a dispute • T/B survey data • ID & finely tuned universe • Truth theories • Meaning of evolution • Punctuated equilibria • Evidences for evolution • Catastrophism/uniform? • Discussing productively • Knowledge, belief, truth • God’s two books • Graph: Five camps • Integrative models • Naturalism/Supernaturalism • Measuring…attitudes/beliefs • Roger Cotton’s insights

  3. Settling a Disagreement

  4. Resolving a Dispute • We have taught for over 20 years, and we don’t agree on everything.

  5. Return to TOC

  6. Survey Data

  7. Evolutionary Biologists Critical of Macroevolutionary Explanations • Stern, David L. “Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,” Evolution 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge. “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved…Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance ofmicromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between somedramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.” • Simons, Andrew M. “The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.”A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

  8. Return to TOC

  9. Knowledge, belief, & truth

  10. Knowledge is justified belief—that is… A belief you have reason to think is true All Propositions Knowledge

  11. Return to TOC

  12. God’s two books

  13. God’s Two Books Biblical Theology Natural Science Human interpretation Human interpretation God

  14. Return to TOC

  15. Graph: Five camps

  16. Five Camps

  17. Return to TOC

  18. Can Christians Agree to Disagree? • August 2010 A/G position paper statement (AG Website): • “As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.” • Ken Ham response (Ken Ham blog, accessed 9/10/2010).: • “…they have now succumbed to the view—prevalent in the church today—that is undermining the authority of God’s Word, and ultimately is significantly contributing to the collapse of Christianity in our Western world.”

  19. ID & finely tuned universe

  20. Truth Theories

  21. Meaning of evolution

  22. Five integrative models

  23. Natural Science Biblical Theology Natural Science Biblical Theology Natural Science BiblicalTheology NaturalScience BiblicalTheology Biblical Theology Natural Science Two Worlds Complementarism Concordism Conflict: Science Wins Conflict: Theology Wins

  24. Natural Science Biblical Theology Natural Science Biblical Theology Natural Science BiblicalTheology NaturalScience BiblicalTheology Biblical Theology Natural Science Complementarism Two Worlds Concordism Conflict: Science Wins Conflict: Theology Wins

  25. Return to TOC

  26. Summary on Origins Beliefs • Recognize your opinions regarding gaining reliable knowledge. • Genuine Christians hold different positions on Origins. • Opinions on Biblical interpretation and the trustworthiness of science affect conclusions about Origins.

  27. Finely Tuned Universe and Intelligent Design

  28. A “Just Right” Universe • Life as we know it could not exist if some of the “parameters” of our universe were even a little different! • Our universe seems to be designed for life—especially human life. • The Anthropic Principle.

  29. A “Just Right” Universe Many fine-tuned parameters to our galaxy, solar system, and planet: • distance of Earth from the sun • size, temperature, & type of sun • size, axial tilt, rotation speed, moon, & composition of earth • stability of Jupiter and Saturn

  30. Intelligent Design • Living things possess complex structures. • Cannot be explained by naturalistic theories. • Must have been specially created. • Evidence of a designer.

  31. Early Proponent: William Paley • “…intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and… these causes are empirically detectable.” William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th ed. (London: J. Faulder, 1809), p.1.

  32. Early Antagonist: Darwin “An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe…that God designedly killed this man? … If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant?” Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI.

  33. Early Antagonist: Darwin “I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed.” Hunter, C.G. (2001). Darwin’s God. Brazos Press, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI.

  34. Darwin’s Challenge “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p. 154

  35. Evidences for ID • Specified Complexity • Irreducible Complexity

  36. Specified Complexity • Living things are complex in ways that undirected random processes could never produce. • William Dembski • mathematician/philosopher • Professor of Science and Theology, Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY

  37. Specified Complexity: DNA • New complex specified information cannot be generated by natural mechanisms (evolution) involving chance. • Natural processes can only shift around or lose information, they cannot produce it.

  38. Irreducible Complexity • Proposed by Michael Behe(Lehigh U. biochemistry professor). • Darwin’s Black Box, Christianity Today’s 1996 “Book of the Year.” • Irreducibly Complex Systems • Complex systems are composed of interacting parts that contribute to function. • Removing any one of the parts causes system to cease functioning. • No functional intermediates.

  39. One Example: Bacterial Flagellum

  40. Bacteria Swimming Flagella Movement Flagellum Self Assembly

  41. ID Scientific Predictions • “Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function…” • “Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.” • “Convergences will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.” • “Much ‘junk DNA’ will turn out to perform valuable functions.” • Luskin 2007, p1

  42. ID and Evolution • Many ID proponents think the unity and diversity of life are the result of both evolution and design. • All accept microevolution. • All reject ateleological macroevolution.

  43. Dembski: Evolution Is a Given “Intelligent Design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity.”

  44. Objections to ID • Not science or not good science • It invokes supernatural factors (AAAS). • It is poor quality science (Miller). • Not Biblical (Ham) • Too watered down. • Doesn’t explicitly name the designer as the God of the bible. • Some ID proponents accept macroevolution. • God of the Gaps (Collins) • ID explains only what science cannot. • This can undermine confidence in the Bible.

  45. Criticism: Supernatural “…Intelligent Design … is in fact religious, not scientific…” “…AAAS Board underlined the inappropriateness of teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom because of its ‘significant conceptual flaws in formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentation of scientific facts.’“

  46. Criticism: Not Christian “What good is it if people believe in intelligence? That’s no different than atheism in that if it’s not the God of the Bible, it’s not Jesus Christ, it’s not salvation.” (Ken Ham)

  47. Criticism: God of the Gaps “…But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either…I think intelligent design sets up a ‘God of the gaps’… scenario…” (Francis Collins in PBS interview with Tucker Carlson, 4/8/2005)

  48. Bottom Line • Theists tend to overlook the theory’s weaknesses. • Atheists tend to overlook the theory’s strengths. • Creationists are split…some favor it while others oppose it.

  49. Ecklund EH, Scheitle CP. 2007. Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems 54(2):289-307. • Total participants: 1,646 • No religious affiliation: 52% • Do not believe in God: 31% • Do not know if there is a God: 31% • Have not attended religious services during preceding year: 56% • “No doubts about God’s existence”: 9.7% • Kosmin BA, Keysar A. 2009. American religious identification survey [ARIS 2008] [summary report]. [Hartford (CT)]: Trinity College. p. 1-26. • Total participants: 54,461 • Americans with no religious affiliation: 15% • Ages 18-29 with no religious affiliation: 22% • Identified themselves as Christians: 76% • Believe in a personal God: 70% • Claim to be atheists/agnostic: 12% • Claim to be deists: 12% • Stark R. 2008. What Americans really believe: new findings from the Baylor surveys of religion. Baylor University Press. • Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University: Gallup Organization • Percentages related to those who answered affirmatively for the possibility of superstitious elements including dreams foretelling future, existence of Atlantis, places being haunted, and possibility of communicating with the dead. • Those with religious affiliation: 8% • Those with no religious affiliation: 31%

More Related