Sacred Science

Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic, doesn't understand Christianity or theology. He writes in an article at the Scientific American's website that conservative Christians should accept Darwinism because of how well it meshes with our beliefs - but how can he argue that if he doesn't first understand them?

He makes this appeal (through six arguments) without once commenting on the Bible. He mentions, at one point, in an off hand way and with a condescending tone "ancient texts" as being left behind by the abilities of science. Unfortunately, one cannot know God very clearly (certainly not at all to the degree Christianity claims) without divine special revelation - and he's thrown that out the window.

Let's look at his arguments:

"1. Evolution fits well with good theology."

First, he argues in this section that God's glory isn't contingent on the age of the world - creation is creation no matter when. I'll concede this point easily - it absolutely does not matter when God created the world in respect to God's glory. It doesn't follow, though, that evolution is true. Nor does it follow that the world is that old. The issue here is what the Creator communicated regarding the world's age in his ancient text. Personally, I agree that the world is probably very old.

Second, he argues that it doesn't matter how God created the world. Au contraire, it matters very much how God created the world. Theologians have wondered for millenia about the wonders of God's ex nihilo creation of the cosmos. It is a remarkable and powerful demonstration of his power and glory (a power that only he possesses). Theologians are bound to wonder because they're bound to glory in the smallest details of their ancient texts. In those texts they find the mysteries of all reality - not just the physical realm.

"2. Creationism is bad theology."

This argument all centers around the opinion that using the analogy "Watchmaker" is a bad analogy because the transcendentness of God shouldn't be limited to this extent. This surprises me as amazingly poor thinking. No Christians that use the analogy mean that God has, as Shermer states, "a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts." A watchmaker is only a kind of artisan, but Christians believe in creation from nothing. They view the analogy as revealing an irreducible complexity to the natural world that physical causation can't explain. That's all. It doesn't extend further.

"3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature."

This is such a strange argument - it just hammers home that he doesn't understand our fixation with ancient texts. We already know how human nature came to be corrupted, we don't need a scientific explanation. To a conservative Christian, he's not arguing that we should just see how Christianity and Darwin are harmonious; he's trying to convert us.

"4. Evolution explains family values."

Christians have tried hard throughout history to understand ethics in relation to God's nature and plan. As Christians, we have to do that. It's all based on a myth that this author doesn't share - and I don't feel like my myth has room for his. Our stories just don't mesh. Check out this: "Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures." Doesn't this presuppose that the designed moral codes are incorrect?

I'll skip 5 because it's just more of the same.

"
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics."

Who cares? This isn't what Christians are concerned about at all! Besides,isn't this Social Darwinism? Didn't that get tossed a hundred years ago?

What's going on?

I can't believe this article got put up on ALDaily.