God Questions Part 1 - Science Vs. Faith?
We are jumping into a five week series for the month of November, unpacking the biggest questions when it comes to faith, God, and life. Week 1 turns our attention to Science vs. Faith - Allies or Adversaries? Dr. Ed Neeland, an associate professor of chemistry at UBC Okanagan, will be a guest with us for that morning. Dr. Neeland is a respected scientist and strong person of faith. The following article from www.canadianchristianity.com featured Dr. Neeland's perspective on the two worlds.
ED NEELAND is an associate professor of chemistry at UBC Okanagan in Kelowna, B.C., who offers presentations dealing with human origins. He recently spoke to CC.com about some of the controversies surrounding Darwinian evolution.
CanadianChristianity.com: Does the general public realize the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials? What is being done to increase this awareness?
Ed Neeland: I am a scientist -- but more importantly one who calls Jesus his Lord -- and my first response is to say that the number of individuals who criticize evolutionary theory probably totals to less than one percent of the entire system. I realize that some high profile people like Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Ken Ham -- and others, in the Institute for Creation Research -- are openly critical of evolution. They write books and give seminars. But the vast majority of scientists in our educational institutions do not think that there is anything wrong with the theory. In my institution, very few scientists are openly critical of evolution. Naysayers are treated in the same way as flatearthers.
What is being done to increase the awareness? I present information on creation/evolution. I give talks at our university, churches, small Bible study groups, write letters to newspapers -- and of course, I answer any questions my students might have when they are in my office. I also have a sticker -- with the alpha 'Truth' symbol swallowing the Darwinian alpha symbol -- on my car. It might not be the most efficient way to get my point across; but at least it makes me smile every time I get in my car.
CC.com: As you know, evolutionists tend to use 'evolution' as a blanket term, without making the crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Because micro-evolution is scientifically provable, they can say that evolutionary theory is legitimate science -- and by using the general term 'evolution,' they imply that macro-evolution is also legitimate science. Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution? Are evolutionists simply afraid to admit this to the public -- and perhaps to themselves?
E.N.: I prefer the term genetic variation as a better substitute for micro-evolution. Taking two Heinz 57 mongrel dogs and selectively breeding their generations of offspring to produce purebred collies, shepherds, boxers, et cetera is not evolution, in my book. Others would disagree with me, but their definition of evolution would be 'It is just change.'
As for macro-evolution, I have another term as well: 'fairy tales.' Michael Behe notes that a rather well-known biologist like Dr. Lynn Margulis is openly critical of the theory that accumulations of mutations create new species; and she challenges others to provide any example of this. I see no evidence for macro-evolution -- let alone thinking that it could be analysed using the scientific method.
As for the awareness of this fact, my experience is that few students question the theory. A pity. The evolutionists are not afraid of admitting anything -- because, in their minds, there is nothing to admit. They think they are right about evolution -- and that, given enough time, they will show macro-evolution to be correct.
But liken this to approaching a murder scene with the bias that only death by natural means is possible. No designed death. So, seeing a dead body, hands and feet tied with rope, mouth gagged and a bullet in the back must be interpreted through this natural bias. Now it is true, they will say, that we don't understand how ropes can self-cut to length and self-knot around a person's hands and feet. And yes, we don't know how cloth can fasten around a mouth by itself. Or how a bullet could be created without intelligent design and fired -- somehow -- with enough force into a person's back to kill them. But if you give us enough time, we will solve these problems -- and show you how this death was an act which occurred with no intelligent design.
But please: I ask, at what point do you face the obvious -- and admit that the death was designed? In short, a murder, planned by someone. In the same way, at what point do you face the obvious: that life and creation itself was planned by someone, and no amount of time will give you the answer to how it happened by itself -- because it did not happen by itself.
CC.com: The PBS special on evolution a few years ago was a clear demonstration that the theory is still deeply ingrained in scientific thought. Why does the scientific establishment (in a general sense) seem to be so determined to cling to evolutionary theory? How did this theory become so deeply entrenched as 'scientific' orthodoxy?
E.N.: Ian Taylor has done an excellent history in his book, In the Minds of Men, of how evolution has become so firmly embedded in our thinking. It gets down to the fact, that appealing to God's power to explain things is a 'cop out' in the mind of a scientist -- the easy way out, if you will. But what if it's true, that what we see around us was created by God, and did not happen by itself? Why not go down that road and see where it leads, instead of putting up a big road block with a sign saying Keep Out?
CC.com: Are a significant number of scientists now open to alternatives to evolutionary theory?
E.N.: In my opinion, scientists will continue to keep this theory until a better one comes along. Only then will they admit the weaknesses in the discarded theory.
CC.com: Are a lot of schools and school boards showing increasing willingness to give a platform to origins theories other than evolution?
E.N.: Several years ago, I actually looked this up on the official [B.C.] government website, and their stand on other origins theories other than evolution. Teachers were urged in print not to consider any other theories to be taught to their students, other than evolution. We did have Ian Taylor give a short talk to the teachers in Kelowna on their pro-D day, about scientific problems with evolution. I was there, and the response was okay -- but I got the impression that many teachers chose not to attend. Don't ask how I know this, as it is just a general impression which I felt.
CC.com: To what extent has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement given added credibility to Creationist views? Is the ID movement making serious inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments? Specifically, do you know if much is happening in Canada, in this regard?
E.N.: The ID movement is a much bigger umbrella. It brings in not only the young-earth creationists, but old earthers, Muslims -- and in general, anyone who feels a Designer had a hand in this beautiful complex creation. So you now have all these people in the same camp, united under the ID front; but perhaps if you scratch a bit deeper, you will see that it is not so united.
Nevertheless, to the mainstream scientists, ID [supporters] are just recycled creationists -- perhaps a bit more credible, but still loony to criticize evolution theory. I would say that the ID movement has made some very important contributions to the creation/evolution debate -- concepts such as specified complexity and irreducible complexity -- and that attitude change among our society is occurring, but very slowly. But I still feel like creationists are trying to put out the Okanagan Mountain fire with a garden hose, to use an analogy with local flavour.
CC.com: Some critics have raised objections to the ID concept of origins. Also, it's my understanding that some creationists have mixed feelings about this movement. What is your view of ID?
E.N.: Yes, my understanding of the ID concept of origins makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Some prominent ID [advocates] believe that God made the first cell with incredible genetic complexity -- which then over time gave rise to all the life around us, but without using mutations. That seems too much of a compromise to a fossil record which I do not believe supports the evolution scenario. But in general, I am very happy with the progress ID has made and the marginally higher status it has among academia.
CC.com: You may recall that politician Stockwell Day was publically ridiculed sometime ago for his belief in Creation. What do you think this says about Canadian society, mass media, and the general public's view of origins?
E.N.: I think that the general public may have been sympathetic to his stating of his beliefs. Most Canadians do believe in a higher being of some sort. I think it was the media which created this furor. I believe the general public could still have an appreciation for God's hand in Creation. I have heard stories from my students, that certain profs in lecture will openly mock the Bible and any Creation story -- so this does tend to counteract things.
CC.com: Is belief in evolutionary theory crumbling, in a general sense? Can you speculate whether it will finally be publically discredited -- and if so, whether you think that may happen in the near future?
E.N.: Don't hold your breath about evolution going down in flames in the future. When students learn that I am a practicing, born-again believer in Jesus, their first question is "But what about evolution?" My fellow profs have needled me with "How can you be a #$%^& scientist and a Christian at the same time?" I respond: "With all your knowledge, how can you be a scientist and not be a Christian?" That usually gives them food for thought.
The future, to an evolutionist, is full of promise. With enough research, we will eventually decipher all the secrets of the cell, mutations, and how life came to be -- without invoking a Creator God. But if people want to spend their time investigating concepts like self-tying ropes and self-shooting bullets which kill people, then I won't stand in their way. The answer seems obvious to me.
CC.com: Can you share an anecdote involving an encounter you've had with someone who believes in the theory of evolution, and their response to creationist concepts and materials?
E.N.: When students discover that I am a Christian and not a believer in evolution, they get a bit confused. You see, I can offer many excellent points as to why this theory is in trouble. They then go to their other profs, who give them their opinions on the matter. They return to me and say "Now how are we to decide, when such intelligent and educated people say opposite things?"
My answer is that you must think about the information as scientists -- unemotionally -- and come to a conclusion. If you find that you use phrases like "we believe this occurred," then scientifically it is suspect. Of course, neither creation nor evolution is scientifically demonstrable; but one of these two theories has a lot more problems with it than the other -- you figure it out.
Another encounter I had was with a fellow professor. We were discussing creation versus evolution, and he made the statement: "Just because we say things are designed in nature doesn't mean that there was a designer, you know!" I was speechless.
Another time, there was a discussion in our lunchroom about how crazy creationist ideas are, and how strong the theory of evolution is. I couldn't stand it anymore, and entered the room. I looked these people right in the eye and said: "There just happens to be a creationist in town right now, and he is looking for someone to debate him on these issues." The response? A lot of sheepish looking at the ground for at least five seconds, and finally someone said: "It would just be a waste of time." So much for conviction.