Tag Archives: Theory of Evolution

Logical Gal – same ‘ole, same ‘ole lazy thinking clouds the minds of many

24 Jun

Many people still seem to swallow whole whatever they hear or read.  Reminds me of Saturday Night Live’s skit portraying a restaurant, Pre-Chew Charlie’s, for those who didn’t want to masticate their own food.

Pre-Chew Charlie's

A kind reader sent me examples of a common fallacy he had encountered, all in one day.  The first illustration came from a Twitter conversation in which the other fellow maintained that ‘evolution MUST be true because’ (drum roll, please: Voilà his rational reason) ‘…most biologists believe it.”  That’s it? That’s why the theory of evolution is true?

‘Twitter-man’ is using the crutch called, “Truth by consensus.”  Yet anyone who has been exposed to a bit of logic or lessons in clear thinking knows the first ground rule.  To wit – the responsibility is yours to make a case for what you claim.  In other words, the person asserting an opinion, in this case that evolution is true, is obliged to give supporting reasons and evidence.  In this case, Twitter-man merely trotted out the hackneyed, but inappropriate prop called Fallacy of Mob Appeal, also called Band Wagon.

It could be that most biologists are right, but Twitter-man must provide evidence if he is making an argument.   But maybe he wants merely to offer a sound-byte and leave it at that.

He should know that it actually doesn’t matter what most people think.  What matters is if his claim is true or false.  However, I do understand that siding with ‘most people’ FEELS safe.  As a follower of Christ in today’s shifting sands, it’s challenging and sometimes uncomfortable to belong to a minority of thinkers who hold an unpopular view.

The same day as his conversation with Twitter-man, this reader See his website; he also advocates clear thinking! drove past a movie rental shop with the sign out front that proclaimed a take-off of that original song from the 1920s entitled, “Fifty Million Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong.”

3 million can't be wrong

Set during the era of Prohibition, the song (followed by a book and then a movie) contrasts life in France where drinking and looser sexual mores appeal to a young American man.  One could debate for hours which culture promotes human flourishing.  But I would hope each side would actually martial positions based on clear terms, true premises and valid arguments.  What a bunch of people DOES doesn’t make it ‘right’.  What SHOULD matter is rather whether what they DO is in line with true beliefs regarding reality. That’s called integrity.

I am a Christian. Both the Christian AND the non-Christian are created in God’s image.  God has made us different from animals.  He has given us minds.  And like the muscles that pack our skeletal structure, humans must DAILY exercise, guide, train, hydrate and nourish their minds or else we are no different than most animals!  Choosing beliefs based on fallacious crutches is to bypass the mind entrusted to you.

Mind is a terrible thing to waste

Logical Gal – always be prepared

27 May

Be prepared  I walked into the faculty lounge, coffee cup in hand.  In between classes, I caught the tail end of a conversation between 2 of my colleagues in this secular school.  “……believes in intelligent design.”

With those words the 8th grade science teacher walked out, leaving just the two of us.  Inserting myself into the just-ended conversation, I asked the other teacher washing his coffee mug, “Who were you talking about?”

As it turns out, a prominent Christian’s great-grandson was visiting the school for the day right when the 8th grade science class was going over the theory of evolution.

My colleague dried his mug as I responded, “I believe in Intelligent Design, too!”  I continued, “All that means is that something didn’t come from nothing.”  Then I knocked on the wall.  After the 3rd tap I observed, “When you hear a knock on your front door, you tend to respond, ‘I wonder who that could be?’  No one assumes that the knock made the noise itself.  That’s what Intelligent Design means.”

Good-natured, my fellow teacher congenially acknowledged my comments and said something about evolution.  I picked up at this mention and continued with my 2-minute, on-the-spot lesson. I proceeded, “When you talk about evolution, you have to clarify what you mean and draw the distinction between macro and micro-evolution.  I bet you won’t find a single Christian who doesn’t agree with micro-evolution.”

Again, this dear man nodded in agreement, adding that most Christians he has heard haven’t made that distinction.  We then wrapped up this brief coffee pause with some shared commentary on the lack of civil discourse in America on ANY topic.  He agreed that at the ‘sound-byte’ level, it’s difficult to bring out ANY of these distinctions.

And then we parted, each back to our classrooms.  As I reflected, I evaluated what I had done well and what I could have done better. First the good points:

  • I initiated a conversation in a public place with someone who is congenial and not hostile to Christianity (even if he defines Christianity to fit his worldview)
  • I did not shy away from identifying myself as a supporter of Intelligent Design
  • I quite easily and confidently shared what I knew off the cuff

What I failed to do:

  • I did not ask HIM a single question!  It wouldn’t have taken any courage to ask him what he knows about Intelligent Design.  It wouldn’t have been painful to learn his definition of Evolution

I can’t predict whether I would have had the moxie or trusted God enough to engage in the same way with the science teacher whose class the Christian visitor had witnessed.  But I am thankful to God for having absorbed enough from podcasts and read enough books to at least give a thumbnail’s description of the issue.  And that has whetted my appetite to equip myself further and be better prepared for the next encounter.  One never knows when the opportunity will arise, so like the Boy Scouts, we must:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15b)

Logical Gal muses about naturalism and homosexuality

6 May

When was the last time you walked a premise or position as far as you can, applying with consistency all aspects of the ‘stand’?

I’ve been thinking about naturalism, that way of describing our universe as a closed system. Built into this worldview is the fundamental belief that nothing exists beyond the natural or physical. I’ve also considered the theory of evolution.

I’m not a scientist, but what I understand about evolution is that organisms reproduce but sometimes with random mutations – a descent with modification.  If the change promotes self-continuation, also called being ‘good’ for the species, then the change continues.  If the change weakens the species in some way, systems that promote ‘survival of the fittest’ kick in. This built in self-regulatory guidance is a way to explain how nature will take care of ‘mistakes’.  And these ‘mistakes’ are just the changes that turn out to be not ‘good’ for the species.

Evolution thoughts

As you might attest yourself, claiming that something is ‘good’ all depends on what you mean by the concept of ‘good’.

It USED to be that most folks could say without pause that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ fell into the arena of ethics and philosophy. Aristotle wrestled with what constitutes our highest good and how that plays into virtue, especially excellence. And Judaism and Christianity have long defined ‘good’ as aligning with God’s character.  Our Creator is good and He created us in His image to BE good as well.

But according to atheist Sam Harris, the concept of ‘good’ is more akin to an effective chess move, a change that will win the game.  So in baseball, to say that a batter is ‘good’ would be a way of describing his ability to hit the ball so as to bring in the most runs.

This idea of what I’m calling ‘natural goodness’ (as opposed to ‘ethical goodness’) has some interesting ramifications for the theory of evolution and the phenomenon of homosexuality.

I want simply to raise a few questions.  Addressing them will take more time.

  • If the process of evolution envisions species self-optimizing, then how can homosexuality be good for the species?
  • Isn’t reproduction the goal of a species?
  • And if species survival IS critical, then why are certain 21st century societies willingly bringing on ‘PAN-upheavals’, that downplay the propagation and nurturing of the next generation?
  • How many Americans are actually gay?

Just a quick on-line search produced reports that document a lower-than-thought percentage. Studies show that in fact only 2 % of the US population self-identifies as gay, although some have dabbled in same-sex attraction. Link to Atlantic Monthly article

Final question:

  • How can naturalists and those who support the theory of evolution maintain that promoting homosexuality via mandated government policy is GOOD for a society, since it doesn’t encourage the continuation of our species?

Just thinking…..

Supreme Court

Logical Gal and how to write a letter to the editor

7 Jul

letter to the editor

Today’s Asheville Citizen-Times sported a guest columnist who is Director of Radiology at a local medical school.  He wrote about 750 words asserting as FACT two ‘propositions’ about the theory of evolution and the nature of Christians.

About evolution, his statements were along the line of ‘it’s settled science’.  And his view of Christians painted a strawman group of people who can’t ground their beliefs in anything true or factual.  He also maintained that most Christians accept the theory of evolution.

Nor did he build a case around either premise.  His commentary turned out to be nothing more than multiple statements offered as ‘fact’.  He then finished up by accusing Christians of being anti-science and a threat to democracy if they support creationism.

As a thinking Christian, I have to keep my emotions in check.  But it’s not enough to avoid mild rants about how our current society sees Christians.  I don’t always compose a letter to the editor. This time I felt like I should.

But what do you do when there are so many un-truths in one piece?

direction?

 

I had to limit myself and choose a main topic and maybe one side issue.  First I prayed that God would guide me.  And He did!  Before I sat down at the computer, I listened to a podcast while walking and heard some ideas that gave direction to my thoughts.  Then I jotted down my points BEFORE I started writing the letter.

Taking a few minutes to line up my direction kept me, I hope, from volleying back with an equally shot-gunned answer.  I also tried to write at a 5th grade reading level (the audience of daily papers, they say) and keep my tone winsome.

Here’s my response.  We’ll see if the paper publishes it.  At least the guy or gal whose job it is to monitor letters and perform ‘triage’ on them will have to read it!

 

Dr. ‘Joe Blow’ seems to think that only Christians trust beliefs they cannot see. Were we to sit down to talk, I would offer the following for his consideration:

We all start with a story or world-view written by the community we most identify with. This world-view is a lens through which we see and explain different facets of life. Dr. Rowe has faith that the scientific view of the world is true.

Reason calls us to verify our view with facts and experiences. What can be measured lends credence to the story.  Christians rely on the evidence of the historical crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. No top-rate New Testament scholar, secular or religious, disputes the historicity of the death and rising to life of Jesus of Nazareth.

However certainty about one’s assumptions is impossible. We should retain those offering the most explanatory power.

Therefore, the best any human can do is exercise reasonable trust.

If Dr. Rowe were married, I would ask him how he is sure of his wife’s love. I would point out that he couldn’t have the same kind of certainty he probably has about the temperature at which water freezes. But he can look at his experiences with his wife and choose to trust her love for him. She has probably built up a track record of faithful exercise of loving actions toward him.

Thinking Christians look at the evidence and their experiences of God in their lives and make the rational step of trusting the God of the Bible.

Question: which is easier for you to do – write a response to someone with whom you fundamentally disagree or dialogue face-to-face?