Threads from Henry’s Web

I’m a little behind the power curve on this one, but I found out about these via an e-mail from Michael Zimmerman of the Clergy Letter Project.

The first resolution is #80990 (tracking) which includes the line:

* endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science, and urges United Methodist clergy participation;

That one goes in the Social Principles, and the legislative tracking shows it as adopted.

Even though the letter tells me the following two were passed, I don’t see them adopted or placed on one of the consent calendars according to the tracking. Perhaps one of my more politically savvy UM readers might comment on the procedure or where I may have looked in the wrong place.

Resolution #80050 (tracking)added the line:

We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.

… to ¶160 E in the Book of Discipline, amongst other changes.

And finally, #800839 (tracking) added the following to the Book of Resolutions:

WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and State (paragraph 164, Book of Discipline, 2004, p. 119),

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.

I should probably pay more attention to my own church’s politics, especially since I regard church politics as necessary. But to be honest, I’m just terrible at keeping up with these things. Nonetheless, I am pleased by this result, even if it is only the first of the three.

The Pensacola Pelicans won 5-2 against the Lincoln Salt Dogs tonight. Our son John Webb was not pitching. I understand he’ll be starting in Sioux Falls on Tuesday night, but our guest Brandon Sing hit a 2 run homer as well as a double, going 2 for 4. Following the double he reached third on a wild pitch and then scored on a fly ball to center (if memory serves). I may post a picture/clip or two tomorrow.

This makes the Pelicans 3 of 4 in the series. I missed the nasty loss (14 to because I was attending a wedding, so I’ve gotten to see three straight victories.

Dr. Kenneth Miller has a review of Expelled! in the Boston Globe, and it’s a good one. It’s short and to the point. (Hat tip to Dispatches where I also commented.)

Dr. Miller goes directly to the issue of associating the theory of evolution with atheism, a piece of propaganda work that the movie accomplishes by failing to interview key theistic evolutionists.

Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.” In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line. [emphasis mine]

To translate the bolded portion: The truth would have gotten in the way of our lies.

I want to emphasize again that the reason I work to dissociate the theory of evolution from atheism is not that I believe atheists to be immoral, nor do I believe thoughts that atheists think are somehow inferior. The theory of evolution is science. It should be judged be scientific methods. Whether it works best with the theological systems of theists or with atheists is quite irrelevant. The only relevant thing is how well confirmed it is as a scientific theory.

One characteristic of creationist debate over the last few decades has been moving the goal posts. Every time a new fossil is discovered that fits into the evolutionary pattern for some lineage we hear the “it’s still an X” litany, followed by pointing to yet more gaps. Each new fossil, it seems, creates new gaps rather than filling them, according to creationist logic. Those are goalposts on wheels–motorized, no less.

Well, intelligent design proponents carry on this characteristic as well. (Is it any wonder so many of us just call them creationists?) In the case of “irreducible complexity” the goal posts also continue to move. If one supposedly irreducibly complex thing is explained, ID proponents do three things. First, they claim they weren’t really certain that one thing was irreducibly complex. Second, they try to claim it really still is. Third, they point to other irreducibly complex things that have yet to be explained.

Enter the Lamprey, cause of tap-dancing in the halls of IDism. Ian Musgrave has posted on this on The Panda’s Thumb (Behe vs Lampreys), and it’s very interesting. It seems that in nature–you know, the place where we observe what actually happens rather than what we wish would happen–there are a number of simpler clotting systems. The complexity is quite reducible.

Those who have read Darwin’s Black Box will appreciate this line:

To put it in Behe’s imagery, the clotting system of the Lamprey is a mousetrap without a spring.

Hmm! Just so!

Guess who did all the work? The evil, conspiratorial evolutionary scientists who always insist on messing things up by looking at the data. Can’t let that happen, can we? [/sarc]

Some Christians resort to an argument of intimidation by divine judgment and wrath when the going gets tough. I read this most recently in a comment on YouTube, in which the writer simply quoted Bible texts implying first that people were wrong, and second that God was going to do something about it.

Those texts didn’t specify that I was wrong, or that my accuser was right; taken out of context as they were, they didn’t specify the topics on which God would get you if you were wrong; they simply suggested that people who were wrong might well be in trouble.

This method is intended to make the person who is less sure of himself give in because of the fear of divine retribution. On the surface, the person using it is so absolutely certain he is right, that he believes the other person will flinch, being less certain. But there’s another element to it. He must also believe that the other person secretly knows he is wrong and is simply holding onto a position out of sheer perversity.

Our hypothetical debater believes that the atheist with whom he is arguing is really a closet theist who refuses to acknowledge belief in God because he doesn’t want to obey. Perhaps if he is threatened with judgment enough times he will come to acknowledge how wrong he is. The more liberal Christian, in his view, truly knows that fundamentalism is true, but has been deceived by the spirit of the age. Again, he will flinch if confronted with the potential wrath of God.

This isn’t a conservative/liberal type of approach, however. Many very conservative Christians are attacked by other seekers of absolute certainty who regard them as liberal, or just plain wrong in some other way.

I’ve heard this approach to debate many times. Sometimes it comes in the form of “doubting your salvation” because your theology isn’t correct, at others in the more direct form of telling you that you will have to face God’s judgment.

What I was thinking today, however, is that despite its surface appearance, this approach doesn’t come from a position of supreme confidence, but rather one of profound doubt, but doubt which cannot be admitted. Those who believe that they have to have certain doctrinal positions correct in order to be right with God, or to gain some eternal reward can become quite tense about the possibility of being wrong. After all, the penalty for an error here runs all the way to eternity in hell!

And please don’t remind me of salvation by faith. I had a young man question my salvation after he had spent an hour preaching to me about salvation by grace through faith without works of any kind. Then because I didn’t quite understand the words that he did, he said he was concerned about my salvation. I guess it wasn’t just grace and faith, but also a full theological understanding of them!

Being both uncertain and terrified of the penalty of being wrong, such people would have to get into the habit of never thinking they are wrong. I, on the other hand, have been wrong so many times, it is certainly no remarkable event. I suspect the people who have used this on me cannot imagine that I am unconcerned with being wrong, and that I’m simply waiting for someone to actually show me that I am.

I think this one works a bit like an insult. When someone you don’t respect insults you, you are hardly hurt by it. When someone threatens you with something you do not fear, it also doesn’t concern you.

Well, patient readers, you will have to put up with some baseball. My son, John Webb, was the opening day pitcher for the Pensacola Pelicans, and he looked pretty good. His mother and I were a bit concerned to see the trainer go out to the mound in the fifth, but it looks minor and they’re expecting him back in five days.

He went 5 innings and allowed three earned runs. Several of us in the stands thought the umpire wasn’t giving pitchers the lower part of the zone. Of course my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased! It’s not an excuse John would use. He left the game with the Pelicans ahead 6 to 3, and the final score was 10 to 7.

Some early season rough edges were showing on both teams. There were a couple of plays in the first that I know those guys are capable of making, yet they didn’t go well. They weren’t scored as errors–correctly–but they just looked a little bit rough. Overall, however, the Pelicans look like a very promising team.

Our “other” baseball player, Brandon Sing, who is staying with us here, had an excellent night, though as he mentions in the PNJ story (see below), they weren’t throwing him much. He walked twice and hit a bases-loaded double that was a thing of beauty.

Read some more in the Pensacola News Journal story Pelicans Cruise in Season Opener.

I never refer to myself as an evangelical, but occasionally others do for reasons that are largely unfathomable to me (except a few from across the pond that make some sense), so I usually take a look at documents that come out relating to evangelicalism. I’m always interested in the potential for finding one of these documents that I could go along with 100%. Of course, I realize that if that happened, there would also be a number of evangelicals who would say that the document, statement, or in this case manifesto was inadequate.

I have read the entire manifesto (HT: evangelical outpost) and not just the summary, and I find very little in there to which I would want to respond. First, very few evangelicals of my acquaintance would accept that manifesto as adequately expressing their own confession of faith. The few who would are in the United Methodist Church and go a bit light on some of the elements, such as penal substitution. (Note that I am using “evangelical” as a reference to those who would self-identify as such.) I would expect that the expression on the inspiration of scripture would be considered a bit weak by many. One can read inerrancy there if one tries, but it’s not terribly clear. If I wanted to interpret with great latitude, I could fit my own view of scripture in there. I imagine there will be some who will do so.

Second, I think the idea of rescuing terms is a very hazardous business. The statement from page 4 illustrates this point. “There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be.” The problem here is that I have to first decide who is a “real” evangelical before I know who to ask for a definition. You may think this is nitpicking, but I know evangelicals (by their self-identification) who believe that most evangelicals aren’t really evangelicals any more. Personally I take as a starting place those who are in the majority of a group, and thus break out of the circle, but it does create a problem. I’m left to wonder if evangelicalism as stated in this manifesto is similar to an older evangelicalism. Are they defining a new position, returning to an old one, or something between?

Such expressions as “Yet we hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct from the other traditions in important ways — distinctions that we affirm because we see them as biblical truths that were recovered by the Protestant Reformation, sustained in many subsequent movements of revival and renewal, and vital for a sure and saving knowledge of God — in short, beliefs that are true to the Good News of Jesus” (pages 4-5), equivocate between recovering something old and latching on to something new at some point.

I would have to say that if I read the affirmations on scripture and salvation as I believe the authors meant them, I could not adopt this statement as my own. I could be wrong on the way they meant those statements. They could even be trying to provide latitude to someone like me. That’s just not how I read it.

I would add simply that I find the description of liberalism (pages 8-9) to be largely a strawman, though I’m afraid I would not be very likely to persuade evangelicals of that. I often think conservatives are just going along with the culture, while liberals are arguing against the tide, but part of each position seems to be a different perception of the tide.

In any case, this is an interesting manifesto, as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it does. Whether it will accomplish any of the goals its authors set out to accomplish is another matter. I’m doubtful that it will.

Here’s some reaction links from Moderate Christian bloggers. Most of it is more positive than mine.

* = updates after initial post

• if i were a bell, i’d ring >> Evangelical Manifesto
• Through a Glass Darkly >> An Evangelical Manifesto
• C.Orthodoxy >> An Evangelical Manifesto
• [stpaulswired.org] Thoughts from the Journey >> An Evangelical Manifesto
• *Everyday Liturgy >> The Good, The Bad, and the Evangelical Manifesto

Any other members of the Moderate Christian Blogroll can leave comments if I missed your post, and I’ll promote the links to the body of the post. My observation thus far is that the bulk of the moderate bloggers are responding more positively to this than I am.

There’s a nice story today in the Pensacola News Journal (and I rarely call their stories nice!) about my stepson, John Webb, who will be the opening day pitcher for the Pensacola Pelicans baseball team.

John was interviewed for the article and gets to talk about his goals and his approach to playing. I’m looking forward to the game tonight. I’m a pretty quiet guy. I told John as he left today that I would be the quiet one in the middle of a bunch of wild folks–the rest of the family.

But I’ll give him a solid thumbs up and a “Yeah!”

I may be hopelessly naive in the matter of probability, though it is the one area of math that I have actually studied, but I am simply not terribly impressed with probability arguments. That’s probably (!) a major reason why I’m not impressed with intelligent design (ID). I’m particularly not impressed with probabilities calculated for processes that are not yet understood. If you don’t know all the factors, how can you calculate a probability?

On the other hand, it appears that many creationists are much more impressed with probabilities that are largely guessed, while they are not terribly impressed with extrapolation in historical studies. For them, it often doesn’t matter how much detail you get for the development of various structures in the past, it’s not enough, because it would only be testable if we could see every stage and explain everything.

Thus when an ID writer claims something is highly improbable, even though he hasn’t a clue how it actually happened, it impresses his fellow creationists, while when a scientist extrapolates development between existing specimens, the same creationists are totally unimpressed. Yet which of these is operating on the greater level of evidence?

If anyone is wondering why I see strong evidence for evolution, here’s the answer. I’m used to and respect historical methods. If you find a pottery type developing, and then you find several examples of stages, sequentially arranged by date, you can extrapolate a path from one style to the next. You don’t need an example of every pot. If you see writing develop from one style to the next, you don’t need every stage. You can extrapolate.

For me, the simple fact of large numbers of sequences in the development of complex structures suggests that such things have developed naturally. Extrapolating the intermediate steps is not terribly difficult for those who study these things, and it is a quite proper procedure. Challenging the observed sequence by indicating that it is improbable strikes me as absurd. The only proper challenge would be to say, “Here! This is where the intelligent designer intervened.” But of course, ID advocates do no such thing.

NCSE has produced a video, which I will embed below, that shows such a sequence on the development of the eye. It’s very clear, but it lacks some steps. I don’t know whether the video produced all the steps we know of, or just a sampling, but if these were the sum total of examples we have in a sequence of eye development, we would have good cause to believe that the eye evolved.

This video comes from the truly excellent site Expelled Exposed, sponsored by NCSE. Hat tip goes to The Panda’s Thumb.

I have always preferred our classic statements of rights, such as the bill of rights, to such statements as Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms.” What interests me is that while our classic statements of rights indicate things that the government is not permitted to prevent you from doing, the latter two freedoms from Roosevelt’s list, and especially the third, indicate things that you get to have.

The four freedoms Roosevelt mentioned are:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

This ambiguity comes up in plenty of discussions of rights. What precisely does “freedom from want’ require, who gets to decide just how much want is permissible, and who gets to decide who has to produce all of that? I, for example, would like a much better computer. It would help me in my creative activities. Perhaps someone should give me one in order to improve my mental health.

Of course I’m not serious about that. Nobody has any duty to give me a computer. I will have to earn the money and buy one. People often assume that we will all have a reasonable definition of “want” in place, but the fact is that we don’t agree on such things.

That, however, is not my main point. I would like to focus on the distinction between these two types of rights. The first, freedom of speech, is provided by the government failing to take certain actions–not suppressing speech. There is, of course, the positive action of maintaining a lawful framework, but that is a requirement for the existence of any right. Freedom from want requires some positive action on someone else’s part, namely to produce the particular goods.

While I believe I have an obligation as a Christian, individually and in community, to care for those who are less advantaged, I have a distinct problem with many of the government programs that do what I believe I must do privately, because they tend to make one person have an inherent, legal right (I think those are oxymoronic, but they are commonly used together) to that which someone else must go out and produce. I advocate certain safety net welfare programs in any case, not as a right of those who receive them, but as part of maintaining a workable society.

But I want to apply this now to speech and to the controversy about intelligent design. There’s a regular chorus going on right now about suppression. I think that chorus is based on a confusion of their rights with someone else’s production.

I have a right to free speech. I do not have a right to any particular medium. If I can find no publisher for my writing, then my writing will not get printed. Since I am a publisher, I have the right to refuse to print someone else’s drivel, or even their masterpiece, and I am not suppressing free speech, even if they find no other way to publish.

Besides forcing someone else to produce what they believe is a right, people who make such claim try to take away the rights of others. Again, illustrating with myself. As a publisher, were I required to print the works of someone even though I chose not to, then my right of free speech is abridged. My right of free speech does not require a carpenter to build a stage, an electrician to wire the sound system, a newspaper to print an ad for my event, nor any person to come an listen to me.

My belief that I have important things to say does not require a college or university to gather students to hear it. There are things that are of value under those circumstances, and other things that are not. If I were the chair of a religion department, for example, I would consider it quite appropriate to refuse a place on the faculty to a KJV-Only advocate, even if he could produce the appropriate accredited degrees.

In High School curricula, we have the need to cover a great deal of material, and some things are in while others are out. We have groups whose job it is to decide which is which. Subject matter needs to meet a threshold of validity and usefulness in order to merit a place in such a curriculum, otherwise you are forcing students to spend time learning that which will not work to their benefit.

Now there is a little glitch in the educational plan. What about state sponsored institutions of higher learning? Shouldn’t they have to provide a platform for anyone in the name of free speech? They are the government, after all. I would say rather than if we allow a government to operate an academic institution, that is precisely what we should expect them to run, and that will mean making choices, discriminating against bad ideas (it isn’t prejudice if you studied it ahead of time!), and allowing some in and not allowing others.

I say to the intelligent design advocates: You don’t have a right to access to scientific journals and faculties. Your presence in such places must be earned. Your ideas should not appear in curricula by right, but rather because they have proven themselves in the appropriate arena.

ID is trying to create a welfare state for ideas. It’s a bad idea economically, and it’s no better of an idea in the realm of ideas.