Sean McDowell

The Particle Collider Points to Design

Sean McDowell — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:47:08 -0800

If you’ve been following the progress of the big particle collider in Geneva, the title of this article may come as a surprise to you. After all, we learned this week that $21,000,000 more dollars is needed to get it up and running by next summer (at the earliest). So, if the collider is not up and running yet, then how can it point to design? Let me explain.

The particle collider is designed to simulate the earliest moments (one trillionth of a second) after the big bang, so scientists can learn more about the makeup of the smallest components of matter. So far, the collider has cost 10 billion dollars. Yes, that’s $10,000,000,000.

Why didn’t the collider succeed during its much hyped launch September 19th? The problem, according to the organization, is the failure of a single, badly soldered electrical connection. In other words, this multi-billion dollar machine, which was so carefully designed, failed to work because of one solitary poor connection. The lesson we learn is clear: the machine won’t work unless it is exquisitely fine-tuned.

The irony is enormous: The particle collider is meant to simulate the beginning of the universe (which many scientists think was an uncaused, chance occurrence), but it cannot even function without incredible intelligent tinkering! The slightest miscalculation, and the entire project fails. If it takes billions of dollars, and the smartest people on the face of the planet, to design a machine to simulate the beginning of the universe, then why should we think the real beginning of the universe could happen without design? If a machine requires such fine-tuning, then so does the universe itself.

This reminds me of the scientists who are trying to prove abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) by creating life in a test tube. If scientists were ever able to create life from non-life it would only prove one thing: life cannot emerge by chance, but requires intelligent input. Currently scientists have no clue how life emerged on life. Yet even if they were able to simulate such an occurrence, it would actually point towards intelligent design, not chance. The same is true for the particle collider.

Debating God

Sean McDowell — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:48:16 -0800

Last weekend I had the opportunity of watching a debate between Dinesh D’Souza (author of What’s So Great about Christianity) and Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine). The debate was held at Southern Evangelical Seminary and the question was: “Does it make sense to believe in God?” The debate was lively, informative, and fun.

I’ve included the two opening statements (abbreviated) as well as their initial responses. I offer two quick critiques of each debater first:

First, Dinesh argues that we cannot know what happens after death, thus we should “leap” toward the Christian side since we have more to gain (ala, Pascal). He says neither Christians nor atheists have knowledge about life after death, which is why we have faith. Thus, he sees belief as taking over when we cannot know something. But this betrays the biblical perspective that we do in fact know what happens after death. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” Evidence from the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of the soul, and near-death experiences provide solid reasons to believe that consciousness (and judgment) comes after death.

Second, Shermer argues against the fine-tuning argument by claiming that the world is really not that hospitable for life. The vast majority of the universe, he claims, is inhospitable for life. But this raises a difficult question for Shermer: “If the universe is so inhospitable, then how did life evolve in the first place?” He wants to take away evidence for fine-tuning by reducing the hospitability of the universe, but this raises a huge problem for biological evolution, which requires an inconceivable enormous amount of hospitable environments to get off the ground.

“Does it make sense to believe in God?”

Dinesh D’Souza opening:

There are three good arguments for believing in God. It makes sense to believe in God because the deep questions we ask as human beings are only comprehensible in light of God’s existence. Other responses lead to absurdities:
(1)   Why is there a universe?
a.   For many centuries it was believed the universe was eternal and, hence, needed no creator. But Jews and Christians believed the universe had a beginning and that God created time and space along with it. Also, why does the universe have certain numerical values that it does (light speed, gravitational force, strong nuclear force)? What if they were slightly different? Fine-tuning is immune to a Darwinian evolution since it refers to the entire universe.
(2)   Why do we have life vs. no life?
a.   No one knows what comes after death. We believe there is life after death, but we don’t know it. The difference between Shermer and me is that he thinks he knows. I recognize that we both have faith. Yet the possibility that life continues (i.e., Pascal) is a good reason to believe in God.
(3)   Why do we have morality?
a.   We all live in a world of right and wrong. We all at some deep level accept absolute standards of morality. Some people claim to be moral relativists but it turns out such people are really relativists about your values but absolutists about theirs. If we are merely Darwinian products, then morality is a technique to get our genes in the next generation. Darwinians respond by saying we act altruistically to get back in return later. But what about moral acts we do without any possible return that can actually harm us? Example: Why help someone drowning who I am not related to (i.e., we don’t share genes)? We have a moral compass that leads us to sacrifice ourselves because God has put morality on our hearts.

Dinesh Conclusion: Believe in God because the universe makes sense. If we believe in God our life makes sense. Belief in God makes sense because it provides cosmic accountability, which brings justice.

Michael Shermer opening: I grew up in a conservative Christian home. I understand the internal coherence and consistency of Christianity. Basically we arrive at our beliefs for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with science (life experiences, relationships, psychology) and then we justify them afterwards with evidence. There are many things we don’t know which is why we have faith.

What about these questions? There is reason to believe in a universe from nothing without a top-down creator. The universe cannot not exist. Empty space is not filled with nothing. It appears that with string theory and GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that universes naturally pop into existence. When a star collapses we have a singularity that could explain the origin of the universe itself. The details are not important, but these are things scientists talk about and they are testable. Scientists offer hypotheses and fill gaps rather than simply posit God. Atheism is not a position. Atheists just don’t believe in God and that is the end of the story.

What about fine-tuning? On a coarse scale, the universe is not very fine-tuned. There are very few places we can live. 99% is inhospitable. Why would God make a world so large that is inhospitable? It’s good to be humble about deep mysteries rather than say, “This is the way it is,” b/c physics is a young discipline. Who designed the designer? Who created God? Why stop the causal chain at the point of your creator? Even if there is a designer, this does nothing to show it is any particular God.

Dinesh response (1): I begin with a point of agreement—science is not a threat to religion. It is a fable that as science advances God retreats. A few questions: Michael alluded to the God of the gaps (something cannot be explained, therefore God did it). There is also an “atheism of the gaps” fallacy (“don’t worry, science will eventually figure it out”). Michael has tremendous faith in a particular type of science. On the fine-tuning, people abolish one God for an infinite number of universes. This is absurd!

I ask Shermer: What is the cause for which the universe is the effect? Did the universe create itself? There could be a natural or supernatural cause. The natural cause is impossible because the universe is all of nature. So, unless one wants to say the universe generated itself, there must be a transcendent cause.

There are motives for belief, but there are also motives for unbelief. Shermer says atheists believe nothing, but he has all sorts of beliefs as well.

Shermer response (1): Belief in God is the result of exceptional events (i.e., 9/11). We are aggressive about all sorts of beliefs about politics but not religious beliefs. Now the debate has become a bit more in-your-face. Why can’t God do a miracle such as growing back limbs? Why are all miracles equivocal? If we want to posit that God exists but that all things happened naturally, then why believe in God? If the universe is indistinguishable, then what room is there for God?

Response to Pascal’s wager: What if we picked the wrong God? Wouldn’t God know that you were faking? Self-deception is a powerful thing.

Why believe? What is so important to how you believe? Wouldn’t God be more concerned with how you lived your life? Wouldn’t that matter more than simply believing? Any worthwhile God would place more emphasis on works.

Is There Any Evidence for the Soul?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:49:13 -0700

In the past couple weeks two of my former students (now in college) have contacted me with the same question: Is there any evidence for the existence of the soul? Our secular culture believes that only physical things that can be investigated by the empirical senses are real. Thus, immaterial things such as the soul do not exist, or at least could never be proven. But this is at odds with the biblical perspective, which views the soul as being as real as the body. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

One of my students recently emailed me the following interaction she had with her professor:

The first day of class my English teacher read an article about how a science fiction writer believes computers and technology will someday produce “superhumans” that will eventually take over the world by 2030…he was hoping they would be environmentalists so that they would want to preserve our lesser-evolved selves. So I asked, “How can this be so? How can a purely material thing spawn consciousness?” He simply laughed and said, “Oh, so I suppose you believe in the soul too?” The whole class laughed at me.

While it might be easy for critics to laugh about the existence of the soul, there is actually compelling evidence to believe that it is real. Let’s briefly consider three lines of reasoning.

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn’t be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, “It wasn’t me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago.” No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

Second, there could be no free will without a soul. Physical machines operate completely by their programming and external forces in nature. Thus, human choices are the results of genetic makeup and brain chemistry. There is no center of consciousness that can make reasoned decisions. This raises a few difficult questions for those who deny the reality of the soul: How can we hold people morally accountable for their actions if they were not freely chosen? How does love have any meaning if choices are fatalistically determined by physical processes? If we deny the existence of the soul, then free will is merely an illusion.

Third, near-death experiences provide evidence that human consciousness continues after the body ceases to function. Professor Gary Habermas has documented some of these instances in his book Beyond Immortality (co-written with J.P. Moreland). Some of the most interesting accounts are the claims that dying persons, during their turmoil, observe actual events that were later verified to be true. These events took place at considerable distances that could not have been observed by the individual. And on some occasions, no brain activity was reported at all. Such instances demonstrate that human consciousness (a component of the soul) can survive outside the body.

We might not be able to give empirical evidence for the soul, but this should not be surprising since the soul is not a physical thing. Besides, there are many things we can know that cannot be proven scientifically. I know I love my wife. I know that terrorists crashed planes into our Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. And I know I had a muffin and coffee for breakfast this morning. These cannot be demonstrated empirically, but I know them nonetheless. The same is true for the soul.

Why Darwin Matters

Sean McDowell — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:00:08 -0700

Is Darwin really that important? Why not just accept Darwinian evolution and move on? Since the release of my book Understanding Intelligent Design (co-written with William Dembski), this is one of the most common questions I have received. Many Christians have suggested that we should simply accept Darwinian evolution as the mechanism through which God created the world and then move beyond the controversy.

Part of the confusion may come from the barrage of recent books propagating this idea. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins makes this case in The Language of God, Eastern Nazarene college professor Karl Giberson writes Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues for this view in Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?

While I believe that Darwinian evolution is at odds with the scientific, philosophical, and biblical data, my primary concern is with Darwinism itself. In What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza points out that “we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einsteinian. Darwinism has become an ideology.” Darwinism has become a worldview vying for the hearts and minds of a generation.

One of my former students, now in college at public university in San Francisco, recently emailed me and said, “I have been inundated with evolutionary theory…Oh my gosh, it’s EVERYWHERE!!! ☺ My psychology, my biology class (of course) and my biology teacher actually believes that we all evolved out of little bacterial creatures into water animals and then into land animals and then eventually into humans and that all life began in the water…”

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that Darwinism is like a “universal acid” that eats anything in its path. If Darwinism is true, he writes, EVERYTHING must be understood within that framework. Thus, there is an outpouring of books making this very case:

•    Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams
•    Economics as an Evolutionary Science by Arthur Gandolfi and Anna Gandolfi
•    Evolutionary Jurisprudence by John H. Beckstrom
•    Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer.
•    Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature by Joseph Carroll.
•    Darwinizing Culture by Robert A. Unger (ed.)

This cultural awe for Darwinism has even reached the popular level. In a Friends episode Phoebe and Ross discuss the merits of Darwinian evolution. Shocked to find that Phoebe rejects it, Ross says, “Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.”

Every worldview has to answer the origin question, namely, how did we get here? Are we accidental by-products of blind forces in nature? Or are we the pinnacle of creation intended by a personal and loving God? The answer to this question has more implications for the purpose, meaning, and value of life than any other.

Intelligent is so powerful because it challenges the materialistic worldview that dominates the media, Hollywood, and our educational system. ID aims to undermine Darwinian ideology that is vying for the hearts and minds of young people.

How does ID aim to do it? By demonstrating a simple truth: the world bears the fingerprint of intelligent design. It’s amazing how many atheists recognize that the world appears to be designed. On the first page of his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a World without Design, Richard Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” ID takes this pre-theoretical intuition we have about the world appearing designed and makes the case from diverse fields such as astronomy, biochemistry, cosmology, and even biology.

What can you do about it? Two things: (1) Check out the free podcast here of my recent speaking event with William Dembski. We both talk about ID and he answers questions at the end. You can also read the first chapter of our book for free.

Does Obama Support Intelligent Design?

Sean McDowell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:08:03 -0700

The answer to this question is actually quite obvious—of course he doesn’t. Obama has gone out of his way, when asked, to emphasize that he believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering the particulars of his response, because it typifies the liberal/secular view of the relationship between faith and science. In short, Obama accepts the secular view of epistemology (the study of knowledge) which claims that science is the prime purveyor of knowledge, whereas religion belongs in the realm of personal “faith.” Obama recently made this statement in the York Daily Record:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Two points are worth commenting regarding this statement (although much more could be said). First, it’s telling that Obama begins his statement by saying, “I am a Christian.” This is almost exactly how John Kerry began his remarks in a 2004 presidential debate when asked about abortion. Kerry said, “I am a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy…” Joe Biden made a similar remark when recently asked about abortion on Meet the Press.

Why do they begin their comments this way? The answer is simple: to try and get sympathy from religious people, as if religion actually influences their worldview. But read a few more sentences, and it’s obvious that Obama’s religious views are compartmentalized from what he really believes about the world. He is merely throwing a bone to religious people. This is why Obama says, “There’s a difference between science and faith.” He means that science—naturalistic science—provides public knowledge, yet religion is a private matter. Francis Schaeffer warned about this “two-story” mentality decades ago. This view of the relationship between science and faith is one of the reasons young people are so willing to compartmentalize their faith from how they actually live.

Second, Obama directly contradicts himself. In one instance, Obama says that religion is merely an act of “faith.” Yet at the end of his statement he says that opposition to evolution does not hold up to scientific inquiry. Which is it? Is evolutionary-opposition merely a private matter of faith, or is it based upon empirical claims about the world? If such opposition is merely based upon faith, then Obama (and other secularists) cannot claim that such views have been disproved by science. Why not? Here’s why: something can only be described as not holding up to scientific inquiry if it is in principle testable by science. Yet this makes the very point that Obama is trying to deny, namely, that resistance to evolution is based on scientific claims rather than mere “faith.” Obama (and secularists) can’t have it both ways. Either opposition to evolution is scientific or not. If it is scientific, then it may have a claim on the scientific curriculum. If it’s not scientific, then they need to stop making the claim that it doesn’t “hold up to scientific inquiry.” This is kind of like the critic who says, “ID is not testable. Further, we have tested it and proven that it is false!”

Obama’s view of religion and science is similar to the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould. He claimed that science and religion exist in “Non-overlapping Magesterium” (NOMA, for short). In other words, science deals with questions of how whereas religion deals with questions of why. Science answers objective questions, whereas religion answers subjective questions. Science deals with facts; religion deals with values. Religion and science never overlap. The problem with such a view, however, is that religion and science do in fact overlap at certain points. For example, the Bible has always claimed that the universe itself had a beginning (see Genesis 1:1). Science has recently accepted this view. The Bible also claims that Jesus really rose from the dead in history (see 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). In fact, Paul says that if the resurrection never happened, then Christianity is worthless. People may reject the resurrection, but it’s inarguable that the resurrection is a real historical question.

The problem with Obama’s view (and Gould’s) is that it waters down the claims of religion. This is the inevitable consequence of secular thinking. As long as people can claim that intelligent design is merely religion, then it will be relegated to the realm of “faith.” This is one of the reasons I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design (along with William Dembski), to shatter such myths and equip people to think critically about such important issues.

Same Sex Marriage in California

Sean McDowell — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:44:55 -0700

Wednesday night I was on a panel for a live simulcast at The Rock Church (San Diego) on proposition 8, which Californians will vote on next month. Prop 8 will overturn the recent ruling by California judges to allow same-sex marriage. While the economy and VP debates have been dominating the news headlines recently, this is one of the most important votes in the upcoming election. Let me respond briefly to the three questions I was asked.

Question 1: Same-sex marriage doesn't do anything to me. Why should I be against it?

SEAN: When confronted with an ethical dilemma, we naturally ask how it affects us. But as responsible citizens who make choices that deeply affect other people, we should first ask, “What is best for society as a whole.” I don’t just have a responsibility to myself, but to others as well. That’s the essence of the golden rule.

Regardless, whether you realize it or not legalizing same-sex marriage will affect you and everyone else in society. Consider the example of 9/11. I was not directly affected by the attacks. I didn’t lose any loved ones. It happened on the other side of the country. Yet, these attacks had far-reaching implications that have trickled down to affect me personally (and you).

The same is true with same-sex marriage. It’s like having a hole that leaks water into a ship—everyone is affected. The attempt to re-engineer marriage will have widespread implications for all of us. Why? Marriage is the backbone of a healthy society. Virtually every social problem can be traced back to the family (crime, welfare, child abuse, etc…).

Specifically, legalizing same-sex marriage will affect your pocketbook (higher medical and insurance premiums; crime and welfare will go up so there will be higher taxes) your free speech (It’s against the law in Canada to speak out against homosexual behavior, even if what you state is true), and how your kids are educated. There will be indoctrination into the homosexual lifestyle, as we are seeing in Massachusetts (a judge ruled in February, 2007 that all students in Massachusetts must be taught the homosexual lifestyle).

Question 2: Half of marriages end up in divorce, so why not allow same-sex marriages? Maybe they'll do better statistically.

SEAN: Do we have reason to believe that same-sex marriages will do better statistically? It’s important to realize that 96 percent of homosexuals do not get married when they are given the opportunity. And those that do get married break up at a much higher rate. The “divorce” rate for homosexual men in Norway and Sweden is 50% higher than heterosexual marriage and the lesbian divorce rate is more than 150% higher.
But the fact that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce is not an argument for same-sex marriage. Why should anyone think that same-sex marriage will improve heterosexual marriage? In fact, the recent history of the law and divorce actually argues against same-sex marriage. How? The vast social problems we’re experiencing since the liberalization of divorce laws should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family and the country. When you pass laws that weaken the family, the entire nation gets sick. This should cause us to protect marriage not weaken it further. When a patient has a disease, giving him another disease is not a prescription for wellness. What we should learn from history is that the more we tamper with classical marriage, the more everybody suffers: couples, children, society as a whole.

Question #3: If you care about your gay friends, you want them to be happy, and that might mean being able to marry the person they love. So telling them they can't get married isn't very loving, is it? (Because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t love you…talk about how kids feel and deal with truth, conflict, and still love)

SEAN: A close friend of mine, Frank, recently told me about his neighbor who was gay. First his parents were in shock, then denial, but soon they accepted his behavior and even supported it. Fifteen years later, they buried him at 36—dead from AIDS.

His parents loved him and really wanted to do the right thing. But was that truly love? Where did we get the idea that love means endorsing whatever lifestyle our friends want us to endorse? Sometimes love means speaking the truth, even when it is costly. Homosexual behavior hurts people physically, emotionally, relationally, and spiritually. This is why the real act of love is to stand in patient but firm opposition.
Does this mean we go around preaching at our friends, judging them, and telling them how to live? Of course not! We are each ultimately responsible for our own lives. But don’t we share some responsibility in our relationship with friends?

If I was involved in behavior that was harmful to me, say, becoming an alcohol or leaving my wife, I would expect my real friends to oppose such behavior. True friends want what is really best for us, which is often different than what we perceive to be the best.

One of my best friends in college He failed a bunch of his classes and didn’t graduate. He still hasn’t! I wanted to give him space and allow him to make his own choices, so I never said anything. He later told me that he wished I had challenged him and made him consider his actions. The loving thing to do when our friends are involved in harmful behavior is to stand in patient but firm opposition.

Intelligent Design and the Emergent Church:

Sean McDowell — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:31:04 -0700

A Discussion by Sean McDowell & Tony Jones

Sean says:

Tony, it’s hard to imagine a topic more important or hotly debated than the question of the origin and order of the universe. Are humans the result of a blind, purposeless process (as Darwinism suggests), or were we intentionally designed by a personal and loving creator?

The biblical writers take a clear and bold position: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known” (Psalm 19:1-2). According to David, the natural world reveals knowledge about God. Thus, it should come as no surprise to Christians that remarkable scientific evidence is emerging for intelligent design (ID) in diverse fields such as neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology.

You might be thinking, “Why do students today really need to know this stuff?” Three reasons come to mind.

First, Darwinism has shattered the faith of many unprepared students. It’s amazing how many prominent atheists and agnostics (e.g. Michael Shermer and E.O. Wilson) lost their faith because of Darwinism. In fact, according to the National Study of Youth and Religion many non-religious students left their faith because they believed there was no evidence - and in particular scientific evidence - for God.

Second, understanding the case for design helps young people to have a more holistic and confident faith. Rather than splitting their worldviews into secular and sacred, kids who understand the evidence for design are in a better position to realize that all of reality—not just “spiritual” things—support the biblical model.

Third, seeing the beautiful and intricate marks of design in the world often has a powerful effect on kids’ self-image. Rather than seeing themselves as the result of a blind, material process, intelligent design (ID) encourages students to see themselves as the pinnacle of creation by a loving and personal God.

Tony says:

Sean, I have to admit that this is one of the “hot topics” in contemporary Christianity that I find least interesting. I suppose that’s because, from an early age, I’ve accepted evolution and accepted that God is the author of all that is – including how this cosmos came to be.

Those of us who accept evolution think the process neither blind nor purposeless (and neither did Darwin, for that matter). Instead, we think that the process of evolution is driven by beautiful and messy forces and proclivities that directly reflect the sovereign beauty of the God whom we follow.

I suppose there are still teenagers who look for empirical evidence before they will commit to Christianity, but I also think that most youth workers understand how to explain that very many of the things we believe in are lacking in empirical evidence. I’m afraid that by spending time trying to point to evidences for design, you’re causing the very sacred/secular split that you dislike.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “prominent atheists and agnostics.” Those scientists whom you mention are, indeed, outspoken, but the world is full of millions of men and women who have decided against or fallen away from Christianity for innumerable reasons. It might be their parents’ divorce or clergy pedophilia or a philosophy or science class in college. What I’m saying is that people can find just about any reason not to be Christian. Just because some scientists say the evidence is against God while other scientists say it’s for God doesn’t really worry me.

I think we agree that all creation declares God’s beauty and handiwork. Our difference is that I see those same attributes in evolution.

Sean says:
Sure, young people fall away from the church for a variety of reasons. Shouldn’t the church address as many of these reasons as possible? Are you implying that the church should ignore pedophilia and divorce? More importantly, if Darwinian evolution is one reason some kids fall away from the church—and evidence and personal testimony indicate it is—then it is incumbent on youth pastors to address it.

The real question is not if we find evolution aesthetically appealing (“beautiful,” as you put it) but if it’s true, especially since more and more leading scientists are calling it into question. Creation declares design, but it also reveals cruelty and corruption as a result of the fall. In River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins said, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Teaching kids that the scientific evidence is irrelevant to faith does encourage compartmentalization, especially since our culture deems scientific knowledge as the prime purveyor of truth and knowledge.

You may find this topic uninteresting, Tony, but many young people come alive when they realize not only that God is the Author of the universe, but that we can really see this and observe it in the natural world.

Tony says:
Sean, of course I’m not saying that we should ignore pedophilia or divorce (I assume you asked that as a rhetorical device). Honestly, I think that evangelical apologists should probably spend a lot more time on pressing issues like those than trying to defeat the theory of evolution.

At the risk of this becoming a he-said-she-said debate, I reject your proposal that “remarkable evidence is emerging for intelligent design.” The truth is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in affirming evolution as the best answer we’ve got on how life came to be and how it has progressed on this planet.

So what I’m advocating is not a compartmentalization of theology and science, but neither do I think we should contort scientific evidence to fit our current theological theories. Sometimes these things (theology and science) live in disharmony for a while. Let’s not repeat the mistake of our theological forbears who excommunicated Copernicus and Galileo since their theory of a geocentric universe didn’t jibe with the conventional theological wisdom of the day.

Sean says:
Darwinism has nothing to do with “how life came to be,” but with how one species could morph naturally into another (hence the title, The Origin of Species). Furthermore, ID does not begin with “theological theories” but with an empirical investigation of the natural world, which is why many non-Christians embrace ID. Of course we need special revelation to get us to the Biblical God, but that doesn’t discount the fact that the natural world bears the marks of design.

I find it remarkable that many Christians denounce ID when Antony Flew—the most influential atheistic philosopher of the last fifty years—was recently persuaded by the design of DNA.

There are many confusions about ID, Tony, which is why I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design with William Dembski.

So, I agree, let’s not make the mistake about Galileo who saw new scientific evidence but was shut out by those in power because they believed the case for their view was conclusive.

Tony says:

Congrats on the new book, Sean. But try as I might, I just can’t get worked up about evolution, for, as I said, I find it a beautifully messy process that fully jibes with my understanding of the biblical God.

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:32:13 -0700

“Why couldn’t God have just used evolution as his means of creating the world? Why do many Christians consider it a threat to their faith? What’s the big deal?” This is one of the most commonly asked questions about the origins debate, especially from young people. Many people wonder why Christians don’t simply accept Darwin’s theory as the means through which God created and then get on with it.

This is a question I have wrestled with quite profoundly. I have asked many theologians, scientists, and philosophers the question, Is Darwinian evolution compatible with Christianity? After much thought and research, the conclusion I have come up with is that they are not compatible. To accept Darwinian evolution would be a grave mistake. Let me explain.

Christianity and Darwinian Evolution: An Oxymoron!

The reason the two cannot be wedded together is actually rather simple: Darwinian evolution (as you may recall from 9th grade Biology class) is a blind, undirected, purposelessness process. As Richard Dawkins regularly points out, evolution is a chance process that has no end-goal in mind. On the other hand, when we design something it’s no longer blind and it’s no longer undirected—it’s purposeful. Thus, to say God used evolution is an oxymoron (designed-chance) like “Christian-atheist,” “jumbo-shrimp,” or “Microsoft Works.”

Think about it this way. There are two ways to build a computer (which, by the way, is far less complex than a single human cell). One option is to throw the parts on the ground and let natural processes alone do the work. Maybe with wind, rain, and a big earthquake the computer will be assembled by itself. If so, this would be a chance process. Most reasonable people will recognize that this will never happen, but it does illustrate how something could in principle be constructed by chance (ignoring the question of where the parts came from in the first place!)

But there is another way to build a computer: design. A computer designer makes individual parts and places them in the right arrangement so it will perform certain functions. A computer designer has a purposeful, directed plan for the computer—it is not the result of chance.

Can you see how this relates to evolution? God could either design the world or let it go by chance, but not both. As soon as God guides the process (design) it is no longer natural (chance). It is simply illogical to claim that God used evolution as his means of creating the world, for it would be an oxymoron: designed-chance.

Now, if by “evolution” we simply mean common descent, then sure—God could’ve used common descent. Common descent refers to the idea that all species are derived from a common ancestor millions of years ago (i.e., you are related to your pet snail!). God could have created all organisms with a common ancestor. But here’s the key point: His mechanism would not be natural selection acting on random mutation, for that is an un-designed process.

Consider Corvettes as an example. Corvettes have a common ancestor (the first year they were made). As Corvettes are designed over multiple years, we see similarities and commonalities with each successive model. But, of course, Corvettes were designed. If that’s what we mean by evolution, then sure, God could’ve used it. Many proponents of intelligent design actually believe this (for the record, I don’t).

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

So, can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution? Sure. You can be a Christian and believe in all sorts of things that are false! But the real question is, Can Christianity be true and Darwinian evolution be true? I don’t think they can.

I think a lot of people want to find a way to reconcile the two because they believe the evidence for Darwinian evolution is so overwhelming that they want to “save room” for their faith by saying maybe God just used evolution. So, they want to maintain their faith without giving it up. But as I write in Understanding Intelligent Design (Harvest House, 2008), you don’t have to! There’s another scientifically and philosophically rigorous theory that is much more compatible with the historic Christian faith. You can check out the first chapter for free HERE.

Do Apologetics Matter Anymore?

Sean McDowell — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:23:50 -0700

I would be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I heard or read an emerging leader say something like: “Apologetics don’t matter anymore in our postmodern world,” “Young people no longer need evidence; it’s about relationships.” Are these claims true? Have we moved into a new era in which apologetics are no longer needed? From my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth.

This past weekend I spoke at the Big Dig youth apologetics conference by Focus on the Family to over 2,200 youth. Speakers included Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Ryan Dobson, Mark Mittelberg, and Alex McFarland. I was blown away at how engaged, interested, and attentive the students were. Many of them took notes and hung around book tables to ask questions. There is clearly a movement of young people who desire to know not only what they believe by why. They want to dig deeper.

One student emailed me with the following thoughts after I gave a talk based on my new book Understanding Intelligent Design: “So I was at the Big Dig this past weekend and absolutely loved it! All the information was so helpful but I connected the most with yours. All the scientific proof of Christianity and a Creator just absolutely amazes me…I'm really excited to get started looking at many of the worlds "truths" and find why our truth is the only one!”

Throughout the weekend I asked students if they chose to come or if their parents dragged them to the conference. EVERY student I talked to said that it was his or her decision to attend. In fact, one young man was even willing to miss a high school soccer game to be there!

Don’t believe the claim that apologetics no longer matter for new generations. Let me state it clearly: Apologetics matter more than ever for this generation, especially since youth today are exposed to more non-Christian ideas than any generation in history. And apologetics are not only important for Christians—they matter in evangelism, too. But this does not mean we simply continue business as usual. We need to really re-think how we engage younger generations with an apologetic that meets their thinking patterns and emotional needs.

To help reach newer generations, I’m editing a new book entitled Apologetics for a New Generation (Harvest House, 2009). I’ve put together an amazing list of contributors—Lee Strobel, Dan Kimball, John Mark Reynolds, and more—so we can effectively engage younger generations. The time is now. Let’s go for it!

A Conversation about ID, Part 2

Sean McDowell — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:52:24 -0700

I am continuing my conversation with a couple college students on the topic of ID. How much do you really know about the subject? If your friends starting asking questions, do you have the knowledge and the confidence to respond?

I hope this video is both entertaining and challenging. Enjoy!

Sean