I am intrigued by the discussion fostered by Pepper Adams and Peter Duran. Both claim science in support of their positions. However, neither of them cites a single scientist.

Claiming scientific support for their positions without citing scientists either causes them to overstate their case, or leaves their case dangling with just dogmatic assertions.

Both make general claims, but provide no support for these claims, unless referring to NOVA on PBS is a sufficient citation. NOVA raises interesting questions, but it is usually not interested in the variety of thought in the scientific community on a given issue.

It is naive to think that scientists are monolithic on every issue. Evolution is very much an open question in science. There is some science that is largely settled, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity. It has been experimentally verified to 23 decimal places, and proves the universe and everything in it had a beginning, by most estimates 14-17 billion years ago.

There have been creative attempts to circumvent the theistic implications of relativity by naturalists like Oxford’s Peter Atkins. He argues for a mathematical model describing a self-originating universe from a sea of equally proportioned positively and negatively charged particles. Yet he can not account for the origin of these particles without alluding to an eternal universe.

Eternal matter and eternal time are impossibilities if relativity theory is true. Multiple universe scenarios are likewise interesting, but equally dismissed by physicists like Stephen Barr at the University of Delaware. There is no experimental proof for these speculations.

If the universe had a beginning, then it did not make itself. This is why there are few atheists left in astrophysics and cosmology. Most in these fields are now either some sort of theist or pantheists.

Robert Jastrow, former director of the Goddard Space Center, noted this trend in “God and the Astronomers” written in 1978. That trend has continued since then. Why are more scientists considering God again? It is because of their science.

How do I know this? I am an academic consultant and researcher of the religious attitudes and beliefs of university professors. I work with professors. I have been to numerous universities around the world. I sit in professors’ offices and talk with them. I have lunch and travel with them. Many are my friends. I know these issues are debated.

Does evolution occur? Yes. Few scientists question this. However, when you ask what is meant by evolution, then the disagreement explodes. There are numerous scientists like Richard Dawkins that will affirm Darwinian evolution, including the common ancestry of all life.

Many scientists contest this view. I just read an interview this week with Jeffrey Schwartz, an anthropologist at Pitt, who thinks traditional Darwinism has run its course.

Schwartz is no creationist or intelligent design proponent, but rather part of a growing group of researchers who support Punctuated Equilibrium, first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard. These scientists admit that the fossil record does have gaping holes, and a better theory than Darwinism is needed.

Hundreds of university scientists today, like my friends Fritz Schaefer, five-time Nobel nominee in chemistry from UGA, or Gene Ashby, Regents Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Georgia Tech, who think that evolution can only explain the variations seen within limited bounds, such as the change in Galapagos finch beaks.

They deny common ancestry altogether. There is great variety within certain bounds such as dachshunds and great danes, but they are still dogs. They are genetically isolated.

In fact, the degree of genetic distance from bacteria to horses, pigeons, tuna, silkworms and yeasts is all the same.

Each is supposed to be at varied distance on the tree of life, but they’re not, reflecting a typology exactly opposite of Darwinian predictions.

This phenomenon led Michael Denton at the New Zealand’s University of Otago to write “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” 20 years ago, and Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh to write “Darwin’s Black Box.”

Behe contends there is irreducible complexity in biological systems and structures that prohibit them from being assembled by random, natural processes.

Evolution is by no means a settled issue in the university because of the nagging vestiges of design.

There is design in nature. Why would Georgia Tech last year create a Center for Biologically Inspired Design if the scientific community did not recognize this? It is not apparent design as Francis Crick claims. It is real design. The question is is that design the product of natural laws, natural selection, or by someone?

The funny thing is when we discuss relativity, the conversation usually remains civil. When you mention evolution, though, it gets hot. Why?

Evolution is not just a scientific theory, but also the religious story of a naturalistic worldview. Anytime a person’s religious beliefs are challenged, they can get understandably defensive.

However, let’s not delude ourselves by saying the issue is science versus religion. It’s all about religion, just which one is best.

Science and religion are very compatible. There is not space to detail how and where sustained experimental science came about. Suffice it to say, it was not naturalism that created science, but rather it co-opted science in the 19th century.

Western Christian theism formulated sustained experimental science, which got along just fine without naturalism for more than 300 years. So Mr. Duran has to deal with that.

While science is Christian in origin, it does not equal Christianity. Mr. Adams should be considerate of scientific claims so he does not overstate his case. For sure, let’s not pontificate about science without citing some.

David W. Richardson, Jr.
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments