Good review of book

A friend sent me this link to a review of Uncommon Dissent. I have the book, and can highly recommend it.

Resources for the discussion

A dear friend has been kind enough to point me to various other places on the Web which may be useful in discussing such things as the proper relation between Faith and Science. This post will capture links to those sources; and will be updated as additional resources come to my attention.

Please note that this list does not represent an endorsement of any of the cites; rather, it is intended to provide access to additional resources.

Dr. John Polkinghorne's website. Dr. Polkinghorne is a scientist (particle physics) who became an Anglican priest. He won the Templeton Prize in 2002.

Answers in Genesis: This organization provides a wealth of information useful in challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy. Unabashedly Christian believers in Creation and a "young earth".

The Discovery Institute: Their mission statement says that the Institute "discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty". They are strongly involved in Intelligent Design.

IntelligentProject: This site approaches the question of Science and Faith from a Roman Catholic perspective, and provides links to relevant articles.

(added 12/6/2007)
Nova's website on Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

PBS's website on Evolution

Scientists Baffled

A recent article as MSNBC.COM is headlined:
Floral ‘Big Bang’ led to stunning diversity: Origin of flowering plants, called angiosperms, has long baffled scientistsOne wonders why they are baffled.

You can go to the article to read the whole thing. I have extracted below what I believe are the relevant passages, along with [my comments].

From the ubiquitous daisy to the fantastical orchid, flowering plant species are as diverse as they are numerous. Turns out, these bloomers went through an evolutionary "Big Bang" [of course, the Big Bang theory is little more than a retelling of Genesis 1, with some mathematical window dressing] of sorts some 130 million years ago, a brief era of explosive floral diversification at a time when dinosaurs walked the Earth.

The origin of flowering plants called angiosperms has long baffled scientists [this is baffling only if one assumes that Darwinian evolution is true], with Charles Darwin famously referring to the plant puzzler as an "abominable mystery."

"One of the reasons why it's been hard to understand evolutionary relationships among the major groups of flowering plants is because they diversified over such a short time frame," said researcher Robert Jansen, professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin. [Alternatively, it may be hard to understand the evolutionary relationships if there are none.]
…

Pam and UF colleague Doug Soltis analyzed 61 genes from 45 plant species, while another team led by Jansen analyzed 81 genes from 64 plant species. Both groups focused on the genomes of the chloroplast, an organelle shared by all green plants that is responsible for their ability to photosynthesize.

Then, they arranged the gene sequences into diagrams to reflect the relationships among plant lineages throughout evolutionary history. [Note the assumption that “evolutionary history” is real.] From the length of the diagrams' branches along with known rates of genetic change, the teams estimated that three lineages went through a major diversification in an evolutionary "blink of an eye." [Genesis 1: 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.]

As for the cause of the explosion of plant diversity, that's still a floral mystery. Perhaps a major climatic event was the trigger, the researchers suggest. Another idea is that a new evolutionary trait, such as the development of a plant's water-conducting tube, jumpstarted the diversification. [Now, the whole point of Darwinian evolution is that there is no such thing as a “jumpstart” to diversification. It is all the result of gradual changes accumulating over time.]

It is not much of a challenge to find baffled scientists. Their devotion to the theory of evolution limits their options, often including only explanations that simply don't work. When confronted with the problem, they come up with fairy tales: some trait (which they cannot identify) came into being (in a way they cannot describe) to "jumpstart" diversification (something that is not supposed to happen, anyway.)

How do you spell "Nova"? Answer: NCSE

Having now viewed and "live-blogged" Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, I want to step back and examine the program itself. This may require several postings. Today, let's look at the sources Nova sought out for the program.

We are told fairly early on that the plaintiffs turned to the Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for research. Also identified as being associated with the NCSE is Eugenie Scott, although Nova doesn't mention that she is Executive Director of NCSE.

Here are some other witnesses and experts used by Nova, with {how Nova identified them}, and some additional background I dug up.

Ken Miller: {Brown University, biologist, and co-author of textbook being reviewed by school board}, NCSE Supporter. See the NCSE listing of Supporters and Officers here.

Kevin Padian: {UC Berkeley}, President of NCSE. Dr. Padian, by the way is the person at the beginning of the show who said that ID "makes you stupid", an expression of bigotry unmatched by anyone else in the program.

Barbara Forrest: {A philosophy professor and author}, Member, NCSE board of directors.
Rob Pennock: {Michigan State University}, long-time NCSE member and a recipient of NCSE's Friend of Darwin award in 2002.

Plaintiff experts used by Nova with no direct link to NCSE: Neil Shubin, David DeRosier.

So, I count 7 witnesses for the plaintiffs, 5 of whom are closely associated with NCSE, 3 of whose ties to the NCSE were not revealed to us by Nova; and 2 experts with no apparent direct ties to NCSE.

It looks to me like Nova wanted to hide the degree of involvement of the NCSE in the preparation of the program. Why else conceal the ties between 3 of their experts and the NCSE, especially when one of the experts is the president of the NCSE?

Live-blogging Nova, Part 3

1:17 in -more testimony by Behe on irreducible complexity. Does the actor playing Behe seen smug & supercilious? Current focus on the immune system. Oops! We are in cross-examination! How did we miss the examination in chief? Behe is flummoxed, apparently, by a stack of books.

Back to bacterial flagellum-Dr. Minick (my spelling). Minick testifies that ID is testable. Lawyer attacks him for not actually performing the tests.

Laurie Lebo returns for some one-screen family therapy, centered on her relationship with her father.

Evolution defender tells us he is Roman Catholic, that Catholic tradition teaches that truth is one. Eventually, faith and science must be resolved. They are "complementary" & should not be in conflict. All well & good. The issue, though, is which takes precedence. When they appear to be in conflict, to which should we defer?

Heavy, dramatic music introduces question of whether the school board had the purpose of promoting religion. A smoking gun! (and the Science teacher uses that term.) The catalog that came with the 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People" listed the book under "Creation Science". One wonders if it was also listed under "Intelligent Design" or even "Biology". Many catalogs list books in multiple categories.

The evolution-only proponents now focus on the book, turning to the NCSE, which had a copy of a student newspaper from 1981 (!) that had an article about an "unbiased biology textbook". The article says the the book would present creation and evolution. The editor, Charles Thaxton, is the editor of "Of Pandas and People". The conclusion is made that the 1981 article refers to "Of Pandas and People", & therefore ID was not separate from a belief in creation.

This requires several things to be proven, first of which is that the reporter in the student newspaper got the facts right. Second, that the article does refer to the same project. Third, that the editor and authors did not make substantive changes to the content: that including ID is just a mask for creationism.

Lawyers obtain copies of earlier drafts of the book, & send them to Barbara Forrester, a philosopher who has been tracking ID for years. Tracking-that word again. Any relation to NCSE? [OK, I cheated and searched for "Barbara Forrester", who turns out to be Barbara Forrest. And she is one of the directors of the NSCE. Why didn't Nova choose to tell us this? See this article on the NCSE website.]

Dr. Forrester finds two drafts, the second of which pastes "Intelligent deDign" in for "Creation", then uses the same definition. Again, both of these are draft copies. Sounds like a cut-and-paste correction. Were any other changes made subsequently?

How about that? There's clear evidence that changes in the second draft (of the two being compared) were indeed made with a find/replace all technique. It is important to note that the later draft is not a final draft.

Forrester pulls in a quotation from a Christian leader in a Christian magazine. Again, assuming accuracy of the quotation-& authority of the person being quoted.

Forrester produces a " secret document" from the Discovery Institute, which lays out their goal of reversing the negative effects of evolutionary theory. How secret is this document? What does it say specifically? Must check later.

Some shady doings about the donated books. It appears that Buckingham, who denied knowing who donated the books, had been involved in collecting money for the books. Well, this is clearly bad-we weaken our testimony when we dissemble. Why make the donation anonymous in the first place?

1:43. Closing arguments. Plaintiff's lawyer calls the school board move "anti-evolution". True, he is working for his clients. But is it anti-evolution to demand that it be clearly labeled a "theory"?

1:46. Here's an exercise in irrelevance: while the judge is deliberating, the town of Dover narrowly elects an anti-ID school board. PBS drags in video of Pat Robertson appearing to threaten (thinly veiled) Dover with natural disaster, for having turned their backs on God.

Show concludes with an observation that the controversial will continue, but not before we get a couple intemperate, and a couple temperate, criticisms of the judge's decision.

Live-blogging Nova, Part 2

37 minutes in. Opponents of Dover school board are in overreact mode. "What would prevent them (the school board) from teaching pseudo-history?"

Both sides estimate their chances based on the judge they drew. Now, this is a sad commentary-we don't expect the judge to base his decision on the facts & the law.

National Center for Science Education brought in by plaintiffs. NCSE "tracks" challenges to evolution. Do they have an agenda? They are presented as objective.

Expert witness defines natural selection-uses micro-evolution as example, without clarifying difference with macro-evolution.

43 minutes-discussion of transitional creatures. Scientific expedition is looking for them in Canadian Arctic. The scientists are on their last expedition-no more funding. And they find a transitional fossil! A fish with a flat head & eyes on top. Is this more like an amphibian, or more like a flounder?

We get the plaintiff's case, re-enacted, with no cross-examination.

50 minutes and: "Theory" is now being redefined as something more robust than a "Fact".

Ah, some cross-examination-& "Friction" is adduced as a theory. Well, maybe. Is evolution as robust as physics?

57 minutes. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes; humans only 23. If humans once had 24 pairs, we should find evidence of two chromosomes merging; that merged chromosome would have a different structure. If we don't find the merged chromosome, evolution is falsified. Apparently, chromosome #2 has the odd structure being sought. From which the witness infers that the case is closed, evolution is confirmed. But there is a huge difference between failure to falsify & success in confirming. "All crows are black". seeing another black crow doesn't prove the statement; seeing a white crow disproves the statement. It doesn't matter how many black crows are observed, the statement is still unconfirmed.

So, finding chromosome 2 does not confirm evolution. Indeed it doesn’t even confirm how chromosome 2 came into existence. Nor is there any explanation of the evolutionary advantage to having the merged chromosome.

But let's grant that chromosome 2 somehow proves that humans once had 24 chromosomes. This doesn't confirm our relationship with apes; it's simply fails to disconfirm the existence of the relationship.

59 minutes in: Sciences defined as necessarily excluding supernatural causes.

ID is a "negative argument"- therefore wrong. Even allowing for that inference to be true, it does not make evolution true by default. In fact, a lot of ID consists of challenging Darwinism-IDers want the question to be reopened. Why are the scientists so determined to keep the question firmly closed?

And we hear a bell sounding in the musical background, as if it were all over.

Now is the turn for the defendants-& Nova decides to tell us about hate mail that plaintiffs were getting.

Science teacher supporting plaintiffs says he can't live in a school district that mandates certain teachings. But is that not exactly what he wants? To mandate evolution-only?

Another reference to "the war on evolution ", as if evolution is sitting there quietly minding its own business. In fact, ID supporters are asking only that more than one theory be shown to the students.

Promised defense witnesses withdrawn. This is treated as somehow ominous, while it could be the result of a change in strategy, or a matter cost.

Now we get the defense case: Michael Behe explaining the bacterial flagellum. Irreducible complexity

We see a bacterial "syringe" which looks like the bacterial flagellum stripped-down. It serves a completely different purpose-& still requires multiple elements.

Live-blogging Nova, Part I

Well, sort of live-blogging. I couldn't watch the show "live", so recorded it, and am capturing my reactions to the show as I watch the recording. I have from time to time backed up the recording to enhance the accuracy of quotations. I have also taken advantage of the technology to provide links to organizations and books mentioned in the live-blog. Other than that, I have resisted editing what I wrote down as I watched the show, leaving in some clunky grammar. This is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the show; rather it is a record of my reactions to the show as I was watching it.

Here is approximately the 1st half hour:

We open with a mention of a rift between science and scripture. This assumes that Darwinism is science.

Pictures of a mural been burned. Reminiscent of book burning and witch burning. And we're not two minutes into the show, haven't even seen the opening credits yet.

"Intelligent design makes you stupid. " Will we hear anything as bigoted from the ID crowd?

Has the show now summed itself up in the first three minutes?

Brought to you by Howard Hughes Medical Institute-"Discovering new knowledge".

"Deliverance" music introduces Dover. "So-called" Intelligent Design. "So-called" is remarkably snotty.

"Claiming that gaps in the theory of evolution exist." Don't they?

ID is of "violation of everything ... we mean by Science." One wonders what they mean by "Science".

Future of science education, separation of church and state, very nature of scientific inquiry were all on trial. Hang in the balance. Wow! Over a 1-minute statement about gaps in the theory of evolution.

Creationists reject "much of modern science". Mainstream religions made peace with evolution years ago. Perhaps this is what has weakened mainstream churches.

The Scopes trial is brought up. No discussion of the contents of the book Scopes was using, which was racist and taught eugenics.

Natural selection explained-Darwin speculates that natural selection could lead to speciation.

Are we seeing the narrative fallacy, making up stories to "explain" a current observation? There is a puddle on the floor: describe the ice cube from which it came.

Hostility to evolution led to vandalism-we see the mural being burned again-but this must be a reenactment, since we don't know who took the mural. Do we even know that it was burned? Science teachers assert that they heard someone say, under his breath, that he gleefully watched it burn.

Local news reporter, Laurie Lebo, is daughter of man who ran a failing radio station. The station was saved from bankruptcy when a local church leased time on it, & it became a Christian radio station. "And my father (shrug) became born-again". Clear implication that he sold his soul. Good thing we have an objective reporter on the case!

Buckingham, opponent of evolution-only education, reaches out to Thomas More law firm & conservative think tank Discovery Institute "calls itself the nation's leading intelligent design proponents". Calls itself? Aren't they? Who is ahead of them?

27 minutes in-we get Buckingham, a retired policeman, to try to articulate the idea of ID. In fairness, they give Philip Johnson a couple of minutes, though they harp on his being a lawyer.

School board rejects purchase of ID texts. Ominous music. Then 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People" mysteriously show up, a gift from an anonymous donor. School board makes, "bold" policy, to suggest that the theory of evolution is a theory-& to offer "Of Pandas and People" to those who wanted to go to the library to check it out.

Parents of some students reach out to ACLU. Somehow this seems noble, where Buckingham reaching out to Thomas More law center & Discovery Institute is somehow underhanded.

Science teachers band together to refuse to state that a theory is a theory. Heroic, upbeat music.

Dictatorial assistant superintendent reads the anodyne statement. Oh, the horror! Ecrasez l'infame!

News Alert: PBS to cover Intelligent Design

Tonight on PBS, Nova will spend two hours on the topic of Intelligent Design. In my area, WNET will broadcast the show from 8-10; CPTV will show it from 9-11. For more information on the program, see the website for the program. Check local listing for show times. And come back tomorrow for a discussion of the show!

Does corrupt language corrupt thought?

Some recent examples of the misuse of the concept of evolution:

1."The Frodo Franchise details the history and evolution of the books to films and the surrounding organic marketing and hysteria that resulted, and was used to great effect, by the film-makers." (Book review from Otago Daily Times.)

2. MJT [a company that makes buses) "has evolved from one of the largest commercial vehicle workshops of the country. To¬day MJT is among the leading Hungarian bus manufacturers." (ENP Newswire)

3. "Off the field their families became close, while Vrabel and Bruschi's friendship evolved into a chops-busting contest that nearly imploded." (Sports Illustrated)

4. “We have not reached the end of the road on the nuclear deal. Efforts are on to evolve a broad-based national consensus.” (Manmohan Singh, prime minister, quoted in India Today)

5. "...the iPhone is built to evolve." (Time)

6. "Matt had some chords and I had the beat on an old MPC drum machine; and it literally evolved from there." (One of the songwriters for The Spice Girls, discussing the writing of the song "Wannabe", in Music Week)

Well, that's enough to start with. We can have fun looking for more examples later. For now, let's look at what we have found. (By the way, the links are to the homepages of the sources, not to the stories themselves.)

1. How, exactly, does a book "evolve" into a movie? Was there a copy of The Lord of The Rings sitting on a shelf somewhere that spontaneously mutated into a script? Did it have to pass through the "radio broadcast" and "cartoon" stages first? Obviously, the writer is speaking metaphorically. Does the metaphor work? Some script writers had to take the material from the book, and form it into a shape that could then be used as the basis for filming the movie. One could say, accurately, that the book was adapted to the screen. But this is different from evolution, which would require the book to adapt to the screen, not to "be adapted" to the screen. If anything, what happened to the book is closer to an act of Creation than to one of Evolution: not unlike clay formed by a potter into a vase. (Although this analogy is also flawed: the book was obviously not as unformed as a lump of clay.)

2. A commercial vehicle company evolved into a leading maker of Hungarian buses? Aren't buses commercial vehicles? It would be more appropriate to say that the company grew into the leading maker of Hungarian buses.

3. I suggest that the move from friendship to "chop-busting" contest hardly represents progress. "Devolved" rather than "evolved". Or "deteriorated".

4. Can a national consensus "evolve"? I suppose dialectics could apply: thesis meets antithesis, and forms synthesis. Again, though, this is unlike evolution, where random changes lead to progress. (Aside: reaching "consensus" does not necessarily represent "progress". Think of the near-unanimity of view in a lynch mob.)

5. This scarcely requires comment, though I will note that Ann Coulter has a chapter in one of her books (Godless, I think) with a title like "How the Sony Walkman Evolved Into the iPod by a Series of Random Changes". Like the book-to-movie example, we can certainly expect the iPod and iPhone to be adapted to changing needs and new technologies; not to adapt.

6. Skipping right past the misuse of "literally" (which has come to mean "figuratively"), how does a song "evolve" from some chords and percussion? Surely the words to the song did not arise from the beat. The song, of course, did not "evolve". It was created.

All of this discussion has a point beyond nit-picking, which I hope to explore in depth as we go along. If we apply the wrong template to our surroundings, we will come to profoundly wrong conclusions. If we cannot distinguish between random events and guided events, we risk applying solutions that are irrelevant; or actively make things worse. We will try to control that which cannot be controlled; or we will yield control in situations where we could make a difference.

I also, having written this post, notice a commonality in many of the examples: a confusion between the active and passive voices. There is a difference between a thing being adapted, and a thing adapting. In the first instance, an external intelligence must be applied.

Which could lead us to a discussion of Intelligent Design.

Planted Assumptions

One of my daughters made an interesting observation the other day: she had been reading Gilgamesh, and commentaries about it. One commentary suggested that the Biblical tale of creation and the flood had been adapted from the stories in Gilgamesh. And Katy noted that this assumes that Gilgamesh has precedence over the Bible.

Now, I'll grant that the earliest recorded copies of Gilgamesh predate the earliest recorded copies of the Bible. Does this necessarily mean that the Bible is derivative of Gilgamesh? I would submit that we cannot reach that conclusion definitively: there may have been oral traditions among the ancestors of the Hebrews that predate Gilgamesh. So, it would seem to be something of a leap to believe that the Bible derives from some other writings.

There is a further planted assumption here, and it is this: that the stories are myths. It can make some sense to study how a myth changes over time and from culture to culture, assuming that one can establish reliably which version is the "original". And one can certainly argue that Group B took the story from Group A and made the following changes.

What, though, if the stories are not myth, but history? Would it be astonishing that the stories bear a close resemblance one to another? Can we reasonably infer, from the near-universality of traditions about a worldwide flood that, perhaps, there was a --- worldwide flood?

Here's the point: those who teach that Biblical stories derive from the traditions of other religions are operating on the belief that the stories are not true. Whereas those who accept Genesis at face value are operating on the belief that the stories are true.

Both are statements of faith. Yet one view is treated as "scientific" and the other as, well, not scientific anyway.

It Ain't Just Biology!

What other sciences have been distorted by a disbelief in Genesis?

A recent book about string theory (by Peter Woit) has the near-perfect title of Not Even Wrong. The science of physics has gone so deep into the weeds that it scarcely qualifies as science any more. (According to the review in Publishers Weekly, "[string theory's] practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors".

Is the universe in which we exist merely one of an infinite number of existing universes? Are we a bubble sprouting from another universe? Can information be transmitted at speeds that exceed the universal constant (the speed of light)? Do we live in a universe of more than 4 dimensions, with all the other dimensions collapsed into invisibility? (And what is the difference between that and a universe of only 4 dimensions?)

The Big Bang theory posits that, in an infinitely small space of time, an infinitely small something-or-other exploded into the universe we now know, hundreds of millions of light-years across. How does this comport with the fundamental physics law that nothing exceeds the speed of light? The Big Bang drives us to believe that particles traveled hundreds of millions of light-years in the blink of an eye.

Read Bill Bryson's chapter on the Big Bang in A Short History of Nearly Everything. Granted that Bryson is not a theoretical physicist: still his description of the beginning of the universe is one that requires at least as much faith as is required to believe Genesis 1:1. Why call it science, then? Because admitting that it is faith opens the door other faith-based theories?

Physicists have been laboring with string theory for 2 decades, without a single testable prediction, much less any confirmatory experiments.

George Orwell once said, somewhere, that when a group is headed in the wrong direction, the first one to turn back is the true "progressive". When will we see physicists turn back, and seek the exit from the house of mirrors in which they have lost themselves?

Asking the wrong question

Do scientists research questions which have no answers, because the theory of evolution requires that there be a question?

I have recently been reading Oliver Sacks' new book, Musicophilia. In the preface, he notes that there has been a debate for two centuries over whether speech or music evolved first. Darwin thought music came first; Spencer thought speech came first; Rousseau believed that they arose together.

Steven Pinker, a rock-solid evolutionist, has said (I am still taking from Oliver Sacks's book), "What benefit could there be to diverting time and energy to making plinking noises?... As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless..."

Why does not Pinker's observation drive Sacks to consider that evolution is an invalid explanation for speech and music? It would seem a fairly obvious next question: if evolution dictates the survival of traits that are "useful" and the demise of traits that are "useless", how is it that the human instinct for music has survived?

Instead, Sacks throws up his hands. "There is, nonetheless, much evidence that humans have a music instinct no less than a language instinct, however this evolved." He doesn't know how it evolved, he doesn't know why it evolved, he doesn't know when it evolved. But he remains convinced that it did, indeed, evolve.

The entire question is mooted when one accepts Genesis as true. God gave man language and music. Perhaps so we could make a joyful noise unto Him?

Philosophical Implications

If Darwinism is false, then we can longer assume that History moves in the direction of progress.

The assumption of progress is a logical outgrowth of the concept of the survival of the fittest: those who disappear are, ipso facto, less valuable than those who persist. Restated: those who persist are more valuable than those who disappear. So, today is better than yesterday is better than the day before yesterday, and Émile Coué was right: every day in every way, we are getting better and better.

The belief in progress has further implications. Here is a short path:
1. They were less fit, so they did die out.
2. They are less fit, so they should die out.
3. The persistence of the less fit impedes Progress.
4. Let's kill them.

Of course, the problem comes when we have to define "less fit". Those who would exercise this process have a good starting point: they themselves are "more fit". Everyone else is "less fit", with varying degrees of unfitness. The path of least resistance is to identify the weakest, or least liked, members of a population, and get everyone else to sign on to the elimination program. Then work up the ladder of fitness. This pattern was followed by the National Socialists, who started their killing program with people with genetic defects, then moved on to Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and artists (though not necessarily in that order.) Similarly, International Socialism began with the kulaks, moving on to scientists, generals, and the entire population of Ukraine.

Take away Darwinism, and the underpinnings of the belief in Progress are gone. We can now consider two other views:
1. What came before is equally valuable to what exists today. This means that we no longer have an external yardstick by which to measure "fitness". In the absence of such a yardstick, we have no basis on which to argue that Group A is less "fit" than Group B.
2. What came before is more valuable than what exists today. This is a humbling thought, and seems counter-intuitive. In one sense, we are better off today than 2000 years ago: longer life-spans, better toys. Others might argue that we are worse off: we are certainly more capable of mass killing than were, say, the Romans. It could be that these are not measurements of overall fitness at all, but rather are variations within natural limits. Those distractions aside, a belief that we are in a state of devolution should drive us to protect life. Whereas the logical path from Darwinism eventuates in the killing of the less fit, so that Progress can be accelerated, the logical path from the belief in devolution leads to the preservation of life, as a means to slow down Regress.

Welcome!

Welcome to this blog, which proposes to look at the world through the lens of Genesis 1:1. I would like to explore what assumptions we currently hold would have to be abandoned, and what assumptions would replace them, in the light of a belief that God created the heavens and the earth. What mysteries would be explained? What explained events would revert to mystery?

A plea: I am not interested in debating whether Genesis is literally true. Neither those who believe nor those who don't believe will be swayed by counter-arguments. Such debates will lead us into unproductive rabbit trails, at best; destructive flame wars, at worst.

An example: if God created the heavens and the earths in six days, then we must discard Darwinism as a tool useful for anything less trivial than dog-breeding. With what do we replace it? If we discard the lens of Darwinism, does the concept of "progress" no longer apply to natural history? Indeed, might we see devolution at work, rather than evolution?

A caveat: while the exploration of the implications of Genesis 1:1 will be the focus of this blog, readers should expect off-topic postings as well. I'll try not to wander too far afield.

Please join me on this journey of exploration. It should be fun.