The Bible and Culture 26 March 2006 Interpreting Genesis: From Augustine to Richard Dawkins Ken Smit

1
The Bible and Culture26 March 2006
Interpreting GenesisFrom Augustineto Richard
DawkinsKen Smith
2
From Hanbury Brown, The Wisdom of Science, page
168
3
Consumer warning!
Mathematics is like an addiction, or a disease
you can never truly shake it off, even if you
want to. Ian Stewart in Does God Play Dice?
The New Mathematics of Chaos, (1997), page 120.
4
Two Sermons in 1953 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. Genesis 11, RSV text. Sermon 1 God
created in the beginning. So Hoyles idea of
continuous creation still going on is wrong
it contradicts Holy Scripture.
5
Two Sermons in 1953 2
In the beginning, when God began to create the
heavens and the earth, Genesis 11, RSV
margin. Sermon 2 Fred Hoyle has shown that God
the Creator is continually pouring vast amounts
of energy into the universe and He is still
doing it!
6
Science and Theology
Science has had to hand the language of
mathematics, which we have seen has proved to be
perfectly fitted to the description of the
fundamental structure of the physical world.
Theology has no words adequate to encompass the
mystery of the divine nature. John
Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science
(1998), page 37.
7
Mathematics and Theology
Mathematics plays a critically important role in
both philosophy and theology, even if theologians
seem slow to appreciate this. Augustine is one
of a relatively small group of theologians who
regarded mathematics as having theological
significance. . . . Mathematics enables the
order within the world to be identified and seen
as an aspect of the harmony within the creation,
grounded in the being of God. Alister McGrath,
A Scientific Theology II Reality (2002), page
170.
8
Gallium room temperature?
Melts at 29.76 C
9
Religion and Science
Science is the game we play with God to find
out what his rules are. Internet, late 20th
century
10
Augustine and Science (a)
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something
about the earth, the heavens, and the other
elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and
relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the
years and the seasons, about the kinds of
animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this
knowledge he holds to, as being certain from
reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful
and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics and
we should take all means to prevent such an
embarrassing situation, in which people show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to
scorn. . . .
11
Augustine and Science (b)
The shame is not so much that an ignorant
individual is derided, but that people outside
the household of faith think our sacred writers
held such opinions, and, to the great loss of
those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of
our Scripture are criticized and rejected as
unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken
in a field which they themselves know well and
hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about
our books, how are they going to believe those
books in matters concerning the resurrection of
the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the
kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages
are full of falsehoods on facts which they
themselves have learned from experience and the
light of reason? . . .
12
Augustine and Science (c)
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy
Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on
their wiser brethren when they are caught in one
of their mischievous false opinions and are taken
to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. Augustine of
Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, circa
400, Book 1, chapter 19, section 39.
13
To be sure, those five books are not enough to
deal with all the extravagant folly and
perversity of our opponents nor would any
number of additional books suffice. That is
clear to all. Stupidity glories in never
yielding to the force of truth that is how it
effects the ruin of anyone who is under the
dominion of this monstrous moral fault. It is a
disease proof against all efforts to treat it,
not through any fault in the physician, but
because the patient is himself incurable.Augusti
ne, City of God, c. 420, Preface to Book VI.

• Augustine again

14
Creation vs Creationism

• Creation In theology, the notion that the
  Universe was brought into being out of nothing by
  the free act of God, hence termed the creator.
• Creationism the doctrine that God creates de
  nihilo a fresh soul for each human individual at
  its conception or birth.
• Both the above are from F. L. Cross and E. A.
  Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the
  Christian Church, 2nd ed., 1974.

15
Some Legal History

• The titles of the chapters in Edward G. Larson's
  Trial and Error The American Controversy Over
  Creation and Evolution (3rd ed., 2003) read
• 1. Scene of the Crime Evolution in American
  Education Before 1920
• 2. Outlawing Evolution, 1920-1925
• 3. Enforcing the Law, 1925-1960
• 4. Legalizing Evolution, 1961-1970
• 5. Legislating Equal Time, 1970-1981
• 6. Outlawing Creation, 1981-1990
• 7. Mandating Evolution The 1990s and beyond

16
Outlawing Evolution Scopes

• The Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925,
  is well-known. The best modern work on this is
  Edward G. Larson, Summer for the Gods The Scopes
  Trial and Americas Continuing Debate over
  Science and Religion (1997), which won the 1998
  Pulitzer prize in history.
• The book is divided into three parts dealing,
  respectively, with events before, during, and
  after the trial. It is not widely known that the
  guilty verdict against Scopes was quashed the
  judge imposed a fine of 100, when he was not
  empowered to impose a fine exceeding 50.

17
Outlawing Creationism Arkansas

• The 1981 trial over the Arkansas
  creation-science law was widely reported in the
  media at the time. Two books provide details of
  the case.
• Marcel,C. La Follette, Creationism, Science and
  the Law The Arkansas Case (1983), includes the
  law itself, Judge Overtons ruling, and various
  articles commenting on the issues involved.
• Langdon G. Gilkey, Creationism on Trial
  Evolution and God at Little Rock (1985) is in two
  parts. The first part recounts Gilkeys
  experiences as a witness in the trial (on the
  evolution side) the second part contains some
  reflections on the issues involved.

18
Outlawing Intelligent Design Dover

• The case in Dover, Pennsylvania, before Judge
  Jones at the end of 2005, has not yet received
  full-length treatment in a book. There is a vast
  amount of stuff about it on various Web sites,
  including complete transcripts of all the
  evidence and the verdict.
• Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by George
  Bush, was scathing in his comments about the ID
  proponents, including It is ironic that several
  of these individuals, who so staunchly and
  proudly touted their religious convictions in
  public, would time and again lie to cover their
  tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the
  ID policy.

19
Dover Intelligent Design

• Both Defendants and many of the leading
  proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which
  is utterly false. Their presupposition is that
  evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief
  in the existence of a supreme being and to
  religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial,
  Plaintiff's scientific experts testified that the
  theory of evolution represents good science, is
  overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific
  community, and that it in no way conflicts with,
  nor does it deny existence of a divine creator.
• Judge Jones, Memorandum Opinion, December 20,
  2005. Transcript, page 136.

20
Dover Intelligent Design

• In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe
  was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that
  science would never find an evolutionary
  explanation for the immune system. He was
  presented with fifty- eight peer-reviewed
  publications, nine books, and several immunology
  textbook chapters about the immune system
  however, he simply insisted that this was still
  not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it
  was not good enough.
• Judge Jones, Memorandum Opinion, December 20,
  2005. Transcript, page 78.

21
. . . science would never find . . .

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist
  states that something is possible, he is almost
  certainly right. When he states that something
  is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The First Law of Arthur C. Clarke
• Arthur C. Clarke, in a May 1967 talk Technology
  and the Future, reprinted as chapter 14 in
  Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations,
  (Corgi Books, 1973), page 146.

22
Modern Creationism

• One of the most surprising phenomena of the
  second half of the twentieth century has been the
  resurgence of creationism not a compromising
  amalgamation of evolutionary thought with
  theistic overtones, but a clear-cut,
  Bible-centered, literalistic, young-earth special
  creationism. Accompanying this has been the
  concurrent development of a clear-cut,
  nonreligious, nonevolutionary scientific
  creationism. (emphasis in the original)
• Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism,
  1974, page 13.

23
Modern Creationism

• . . . a clear-cut, nonreligious, nonevolutionary
  scientific creationism. ??? nonreligious ???

24
Modern Creationism

• . . . a clear-cut, nonreligious, nonevolutionary
  scientific creationism. ??? nonreligious ???
• The Tenets of Scientific Creationism.
• 1. The physical universe of space, time, matter,
  and energy has not always existed, but was
  supernaturally created by a transcendent personal
  Creator, who alone has existed from eternity.
• Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism,
  1974, Appendix G (page 362).

25
The Creationist Bible

• In 1961 John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M.
  Morris published The Genesis Flood The Biblical
  Record and Its Scientific Implications. This is
  still being reprinted in unaltered form,
  something which would be unheard of in science.
• The subtitle gives the game away at the start
  the authors start with an interpretation of the
  Bible, assumed to be correct, and then see what
  corrections need to be made to science to bring
  it into line with their ideas. This is spelled
  out in detail in the Preface to the sixth
  printing.

26
The Creationist Bible

• We believe that the Bible, as the verbally
  inspired and completely inerrant Word of God,
  gives us the true framework of historical and
  scientific interpretation, as well as of
  so-called religious truth. This one is of
  special creation of all things, complete and
  perfect in the beginning, followed by the
  introduction of a universal principle of decay
  and death into the world after mans sin,
  culminating in a worldwide cataclysmic
  destruction of the world that then was by the
  Genesis Flood. We take this revealed framework
  of history as our basic datum, . . .
• Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, page xxvi.

27
The Creationist Bible

• It is at this point that the authors feel that
  these critical reviewers have been most unfair.
  As we have stressed repeatedly in our book, the
  real issue is not the correctness of the
  interpretation of various details of the
  geological data, but simply what God has revealed
  in His Word concerning these matters. That is
  why the first four chapters and the two
  appendices are devoted to a detailed exposition
  and analysis of the Biblical teachings on
  creation, the Flood, and related topics.
• Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. xxvii.

28
Creation or Creationism? In many
conservative Christian circles the question Do
you believe in creation? is understood to mean
Do you believe in creationism?, where
creationism is as defined by Morris.This can
lead to much mutual confusion and
misunderstanding.It leads to further confusion
Do you believe in creation or evolution?
29
Bizarre Creationism AD 1981

• All that creation-science requires is that the
  entity which caused creation have power,
  intelligence, and a sense of design. There are
  no attributes of the personality generally
  associated with a deity, nor is there necessarily
  present in the creator any love, compassion,
  sense of justice, or concern for any individuals.
  Indeed, under creation-science as defined in Act
  590, there is no requirement that the entity
  which caused creation still be in existence.
• Trial Brief for creationist case quoted from
  Marcel C. La Follette, Creationism, Science and
  the Law The Arkansas Case, 1983, page 41.

30
Creationism/Creationists

• We can understand much about creationists from
  this point of view. In particular, we can
  understand their obsession with creation over
  almost all other religious themes, their
  insistence on the scientific truth of the
  biblical story, and their refusal to participate
  in, or even take seriously, either modern
  biblical scholarship or modern study of
  religion.
• Paul Hollenbach, Creation Belief in the Bible and
  Religions, chapter 10 in David B. Wilson (ed.)
  Did the Devil make Darwin Do It? Modern
  Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution
  Controversy, 1983. The quotation is from page
  146.

31
What Is Creationism?

• Although I never met George McCready Price, his
  tremendous breadth of knowledge in science and
  scripture, his careful logic, and his beautiful
  writing style made a profound impression on me
  when I first began studying these great
  themes,back in the early 1940s.
• I first encountered his name in one of Harry
  Rimmer's books (see the discussion of Rimmer
  later in this chapter) and thereupon looked up
  his book The New Geology in the library . . .
  This was in early 1943, and it was a
  life-changing experience for me.
  (emphasis added)
• Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism,
  1984. Quote is from page 80.

32
What Is Creationism?

• Although many evangelicals who regarded
  themselves as creationists, from Billy Graham to
  Jimmy Lee Swaggart, resisted the allure of
  scientific creationism, by the last decades of
  the twentieth century Prices intellectual heirs
  had virtually co-opted the creationist label for
  their own interests. Even their severest critics
  often conceded as much.
• Ronald L. Numbers, Creating Creationism Meanings
  and Uses Since the Age of Agassiz, chapter 2 in
  his Darwinism Comes to America, 1998. Quote is
  from page 56.

33
What Is Creationism?

• Latter-day flood geologists may not have liked
  being lumped together with godless evolutionists
  as enemies of true science (and religion), but
  they could only have appreciated the often
  grudging but increasingly widespread recognition
  that their once marginal views, inspired by the
  visions of an obscure Adventist prophetess, now
  defined the very essence of creationism.
• Ronald L. Numbers, Creating Creationism Meanings
  and Uses Since the Age of Agassiz, chapter 2 in
  his Darwinism Comes to America, 1998. Quote is
  from page 57.

34
Creationism/Creationists. . . creationists
have become very adept at exploiting the
technological fruits of science to proclaim their
antiscientific message.Robert Pennock, Tower
of Babel, 1999, page 31.
35
Creationism and Evolutionism

• It may be true that scientism and evolutionism
  (not science and evolution) are among the causes
  of atheism and materialism. It is at least
  equally true that biblical literalism, from its
  earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its
  recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is
  one of the major causes of atheism and
  materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals
  have simply taken the literalists at their word
  and rejected biblical materials as being
  superseded or contradicted by modern science. . .
  . they have concluded that it is nobler to be
  damned by the literalists than to dismiss the
  best testimony of research and reason.
  Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.
• Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation Genesis
  and Modern Science, 1984 Quotation is from page
  26.

36
Creator and Creation

• It has been only too easy to dismiss the
  biblical teaching of Creator and creation by
  dismissing scientific creationism. It has been
  equally easy to conclude that scientific evidence
  leads to naturalistic conclusions and a
  nonreligious world view, since scientific and
  religious statements have already been placed on
  the same level. If the resulting evolutionism
  offers a kind of dinosaur religion, by the same
  logic biblical literalism turns religion into a
  dinosaur.
• Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation Genesis
  and Modern Science, 1984. Quotation is from page
  26.

37
Creationism and Islam
I hope that by means of this book Muslims will
remind themselves of their contributions to the
theory of evolution predating Charles Darwin and
stop propagating the Christian fundamentalist
doctrine of creationism in the community. I hope
also that Muslims will join hands with mainstream
scientists to prevent the corruption of
public-school science curricula with
pseudoscience. T. O. Shanavas, Creation and/or
Evolution An Islamic Perspective, 2005, page 13.
38
Origin of the Universe

• A prediction from general relativity
• . . . and secondly, that there is a
  singularity in our past which constitutes, in
  some sense, a beginning to the universe.
• S. W. Hawking and G. R. F. Ellis, The Large Scale
  Structure of Space-Time, 1973. The quote is from
  page xi in the Preface.

39
My Public Involvement

• I fully support the decision of the Board of
  Secondary School Studies and its Science Advisory
  Comittee to include the teaching of evolution as
  a component of the core syllabus for Senior
  Biology, and the decision not to include
  Creation Science as a compulsory component of
  Senior Biology. Indeed Creation Science as it
  is espoused by its supporters has no place in the
  syllabus of any science subject.
• Professor Cliff Hawkins, Dean of Science,
  University of Queensland, in a letter to the
  Minister for Education.
• At its meeting on May 6, 1984, the Board of the
  Faculty of Science endorsed the letter sent by
  the Dean, by a vote of 80 to 1, with 9 members
  requesting that they be recorded as abstaining,
  since the issue did not involve science.

40
Age of the Earth/Universe AD 420

• The world was in fact made with time, if at the
  time of its creation change and motion came into
  existence. This is clearly the situation in the
  order of the first six or seven days, in which
  morning and evening are named, until God's
  creation was finished on the sixth day, and on
  the seventh day God's rest is emphasized as
  something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind
  of days these are is difficult or even impossible
  for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing
  them. (emphasis added)
• Augustine of Hippo, City of God, completed 426,
  book XI, chapter 6.

41
Age of the Earth/Universe AD 1681

• Now for the number and length of the six days
  by what is said above you may make the first day
  as long as you please, and the second day too if
  there was no diurnal motion till there was a
  terraqueous globe, that is till towards the end
  of that days work.
• Isaac Newton, letter to Rev. Thomas Burnet,
  January 1681.

42
Age of the Earth/Universe AD 1871

• It is of course admitted that, taking this
  account by itself, it would be most natural to
  understand the word in its ordinary sense but if
  that sense brings the Mosaic account into
  conflict with facts, and another sense avoids
  such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to
  adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the
  word day be taken in the sense of an
  indefinite period of time, a sense which it
  undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture,
  there is not only no discrepancy between the
  Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed
  facts of geology, . . .
• Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. I, pp.
  570-571.

43
Age of the Earth/Universe AD 1917

• If the intention of the first chapter of Genesis
  was really to give us the date of the creation
  of the earth and heavens, the objection would be
  unanswerable. But things, as in the case of
  astronomy, are now better understood, and few are
  disquieted in reading their Bibles because it is
  made certain that the world is immensely older
  than the 6,000 years which the older chronology
  gave it. Geology is felt only to have expanded
  our ideas of the vastness and marvel of the
  Creators operations through the aeons of time .
  . .
• James Orr, Science and Christian Faith, chapter
  XVIII in The Fundamentals, vol. 1, 1917. Quote
  from pages 343-4.

44
Age of the Earth/Universe AD 1984

• . . . what may we say about the how of God's
  creative activity? Not many Christians today
  find it necessary to defend the concept of a
  literal six-day creation, for the text does not
  demand it, and scientific discovery appears to
  contradict it. The biblical text presents itself
  not as a scientific treatise but as a highly
  stylised literary statement (deliberately framed
  in three pairs, the fourth day corresponding to
  the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth
  to the third). Moreover the geological evidence
  for a gradual development over thousands of
  millions of years seems conclusive.
• (emphasis added)
• John Stott, Understanding the Bible, 1984 (2nd
  edition). Quote is from page 47.

45
Conservative Theologians and Evolution

• One way of jolting discussion about science and
  theology out of the fervent, but also
  intellectually barren, standoffs recent decades
  is to note one of the best-kept secrets in
  American intellectual history. B. B. Warfield,
  the ablest modern defender of the theologically
  conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the
  Bible, was also an evolutionist.
• Mark Noll and David Livingstone (eds.), B. B.
  Warfield Evolution, Science, and Scripture
  Selected Writings, 2000, page 14.

46
Conservative Theologians and Evolution

• Warfield's formulation of biblical inerrancy, in
  fact, has been a theological mainstay for recent
  creationist convictions about the origin of the
  earth and its species. Yet Warfield was also a
  cautious, discriminating, but entirely candid
  proponent of the possibility that evolution might
  offer the best way to understand the natural
  history of the earth and of humankind.
• Mark Noll and David Livingstone (eds.), B. B.
  Warfield Evolution, Science, and Scripture
  Selected Writings, 2000, page 15.

47
Conservative Theologians and Evolution

• In research for this book I discovered that
  there are two traditions in Bible and Science
  both stemming from the developments of the
  nineteenth century. There is the ignoble
  tradition which has taken a most unwholesome
  attitude tpward science, and has used arguments
  not in the better traditions of established
  scholarship. There has been and is a noble
  tradition in Bible and science, and this is the
  tradition of the great and learned evangelical
  Christians who have been patient, genuine, and
  kind and who have taken great care to learn the
  facts of science and Scripture. . . .
• Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
  Scripture, 1955, page 8.

48
Conservative Theologians and Evolution

• Unfortunately the noble tradition which was in
  ascendancy during the closing years of the
  nineteenth century has not been the major
  tradition in evangelicalism in the twentieth
  century. A narrow bibliolatry, the product not
  of faith but of fear, buried the noble tradition.
  The sad result has been that . . . science has
  repudiated the ignoble tradition. . . . It is
  our wish to call evangelicalism back to the noble
  tradition . . .
• Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
  Scripture, 1955, page 9.

49
Conservative Theologians and Evolution

• Indeed, speaking for myself, I cannot see that
  at least some forms of the theory of evolution
  contradict or are contradicted by the Genesis
  account of creation. It is most unfortunate that
  some who debate this issue begin by assuming that
  the words creation and evolution are mutually
  exclusive. If everything has come into existence
  through evolution, they say, then biblical
  creation has been disproved, whereas if God
  created all things, then evolution must be false.
  It is, rather, this naive alternative which is
  false.
• John Stott, Understanding the Bible, 1984, page
  48.

50
From Hanbury Brown, The Wisdom of Science, page
159.
51
Genesis and Evolution

• The phrase after his/their kind occurs 10 times
  in Genesis 1. This phrase translates a single
  Hebrew word, which occurs in the same grammatical
  form throughout the Hebrew scriptures an
  attached (inseparable is the technical term)
  preposition, the word min (pronounced mean),
  and a suffix indicating gender. It occurs
  elsewhere 21 times, in Genesis 6 and 7 (animals
  taken onto the ark), Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy
  14 (dietary rules), and Ezekiel 47 (once here
  fish in a river).
• Contrary to the text of Genesis 1, creationists
  claim that this means animals reproduce after
  their kind.

52
Genesis and Evolution

• Most modern translations render the word by a
  phrase like different kinds of . . . Even the
  conservative Living Bible follows this, as does
  the New International Version in Genesis 6,
  Leviticus and Deuteronomy. However the NIV
  retains according to their kinds in Genesis 1,
  doubtless for theological reasons. Why the NIV
  uses this phrase in Genesis 7 but not in Genesis
  6 must remain a mystery.
• Since reproduction is far from the context,
  except (possibly) for plants in Genesis 1, there
  is no reason, other than theological bias, for
  the claim.

53
What is a kind ?

• In the above discussion we have defined a basic
  kind as including all those variants which have
  been derived from a single stock. . . .

54
What is a kind ?

• In the above discussion we have defined a basic
  kind as including all those variants which have
  been derived from a single stock. . . . Among
  the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians,
  reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously
  different basic kinds. . . .

55
What is a kind ?

• In the above discussion we have defined a basic
  kind as including all those variants which have
  been derived from a single stock. . . . Among
  the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians,
  reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously
  different basic kinds. . . . Within the
  mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums,
  bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats,
  lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily
  assignable to different basic kinds. . . .

56
What is a kind ?

• In the above discussion we have defined a basic
  kind as including all those variants which have
  been derived from a single stock. . . . Among
  the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians,
  reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously
  different basic kinds. . . . Within the
  mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums,
  bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats,
  lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily
  assignable to different basic kinds. Among the
  apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and
  gorillas would each be included in a different
  basic kind.
• Duane Gish, Evolution The Fossils Say No!, 1973
  (2nd edition), page 20.

57
What Is Darwinism? AD 1874
We have thus arrived at the answer to our
question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism.
This does not mean, as before said, that Mr.
Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are
atheists but it means that his theory is
atheistic, that the exclusion of design from
nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to
atheism. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), What Is
Darwinism?, 1874. (cited from 1994 reprint.)
58
What Is Darwinism? AD 1998
Another way to state the proposition is to say
that Darwinism is the answer to a specific
question that grows out of philosophical
naturalism. To return to the game of Jeopardy
with which we started, let us say that Darwinism
is the answer. What, then, is the question? The
question is How must creation have occurred if
we assume that God had nothing to do with
it? Phillip Johnson, What Is Darwinism?,
chapter 2 in Objections Sustained Subversive
Essays on Evolution, Law Culture, 1998, page 33.
59
Intelligent Design

• Intelligent design has been given various
  labels, almost all of which are unflattering.
  Some examples are
• 1. born-again creationism
• 2. God-of-the-gaps creationism
• 3. the old creationism dressed up in designer
  clothes
• 4. creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
• Note that all these include creationism as part
  of the label!

60
A Catholic Read an Atheist!

• Although Darwin answered this argument directly
  in The Origin, it persists so often in modern
  forms that in 1986 Richard Dawkins, a prominent
  evolutionary biologist from Oxford University,
  devoted a whole book to answering it yet again. .
  . he called his book The Blind Watchmaker . .
  . As Dawkins explained, following Darwin's
  lead, the different parts of any complex system,
  including an echolocation apparatus, evolve
  together in a series of working stages.
• Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God, 1999, page
  137. (Emphasis as in the original).

61
An Atheist Read a Catholic!

• When it comes to supporting science against any
  of the varieties of creationism, atheists and
  religious people find themselves on common
  ground.
• The point is well put by Kenneth Miller of Brown
  University, for my money the most persuasive
  nemesis of intelligent design', not least
  because he is a devout Christian. I frequently
  recommend Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, to
  religious people who write to me having been
  bamboozled by Behe.
• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006, p. 131.

62
God
But, as far as I can tell from my
own observations, most physicists today are not
sufficiently interested in religion even to
qualify as practising atheists. Steven
Weinberg, page 205 in chapter 11, What About
God?, in Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993.
63
The Culture of Creationism

• The distinctive characteristic of contemporary
  creationists is that they interpret the religious
  literature of the Bible as though it were modern
  scientific literature in order to reinforce their
  religious beliefs. By insisting on the
  scientific accuracy of Genesis, even in the face
  of overwhelming contrary evidence, they hope to
  call upon the prestige of science to support
  their beliefs. Thus, ironically, it seems that
  these religious people try to build a foundation
  for their lives on scientific proof rather than
  on religious faith. (emphasis added)
• Paul Hollenbach, Creation Belief in the Bible and
  Religions, chapter 10 in David B. Wilson (ed.)
  Did the Devil make Darwin Do It? Modern
  Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution
  Controversy, 1983. Page 146.

64
And so we say farewell . . .
From Bob Thaves Are We There Yet? A Frank and
Ernest History of the World, 1988.