North Delhi EGF in collaboration with Kingdom International (KI) North and Union Evangelical Fellowship (UEF) is organising a talk on
Darwin’s Bicentennial Birth Anniversary
&
150th Year of The Origin of Species
On Thursday, 12th Feb 2009
At
2099, UEF Centre, Outram Lines North Campus
Time 3:45pm
Abstract
No other person in history has generated as much controversy as Charles Darwin. This year, February 12 marks the 200th birth anniversary of this enigmatic man, and 150th year of The Origin of Species. To many, Darwin provokes two extreme emotions which often feed each other. Either he is a notorious charlatan and the chief disciple of Lucifer out to deceive the faithfuls. Or at the far end, atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others proclaim with dogmatic certainty that Darwin’s work has obviated any place for God, thereby making it possible for the first time to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Outside of narrow academic circles, ignorance about Darwin’s theory and the equally popular but false folklores of the warfare between Science & Theology continue to persist. What is the Truth? Does the Theory of Evolution contradict the Holy Scriptures? Has Darwin’s theory eliminated any place for God in Nature? Why do many Christians resist Evolution even though majority of the Scientists worldwide (99.98% according to one estimate, and many of whom are professing Christians) not only accept but also defend Darwin’s theory? How has Darwin’s theory been misused? This evening may be your finest chance to uncover the Truth in a landmine of falsehood and facile generalizations.
No other person in history has generated as much controversy as Charles Darwin. This year, February 12 marks the 200th birth anniversary of this enigmatic man, and 150th year of The Origin of Species. To many, Darwin provokes two extreme emotions which often feed each other. Either he is a notorious charlatan and the chief disciple of Lucifer out to deceive the faithfuls. Or at the far end, atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others proclaim with dogmatic certainty that Darwin’s work has obviated any place for God, thereby making it possible for the first time to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Outside of narrow academic circles, ignorance about Darwin’s theory and the equally popular but false folklores of the warfare between Science & Theology continue to persist. What is the Truth? Does the Theory of Evolution contradict the Holy Scriptures? Has Darwin’s theory eliminated any place for God in Nature? Why do many Christians resist Evolution even though majority of the Scientists worldwide (99.98% according to one estimate, and many of whom are professing Christians) not only accept but also defend Darwin’s theory? How has Darwin’s theory been misused? This evening may be your finest chance to uncover the Truth in a landmine of falsehood and facile generalizations.
The main contents of the talk and discussion will include
- Brief intro on who Darwin was, and what actually is Darwinism.
- Effect on History and Culture (Darwinism as Philosophy and the rise of Anti-Darwinism among some Christians in America). How the theory has been misused for political ambitions.
- Effect on Science (Darwinism as Scientific Theory).
- Response of the Clergymen when the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
- Reconciling Biblical theology with evolutionary biology.
Comments
jamila
Who created the universe and why did he create it is much more important a question then how was the universe created (or say how did it come into being). But if I can explain bits by bits of how this universe was created or say, I can even replicate it through a series of chemical permutation and combination and even goes to the extend of disproving E=MC2, does it proof that there is no creator or there is no reason for its existence? Let’s say a delicious dish has been prepared and placed on the table and I can explain bits by bits of how the dish has been cooked, what the ingredients are and how long it took to prepare the dish, can I claim then that the food is lying on the table without any purpose and no one has cooked it? Definitely somebody has cooked it for somebody to eat it and the fact that someone can explain how the dish was prepared does not deny the fact that some other has cooked the food for a purpose
In recent times the National Media is abound with articles on Darwin and his theory as the 200th Birth Anniversary of Darwin and the 150th year of the publication of The Origin of Species which is on Feb 12, Thursday, is drawing closer and more opinions and views are expected to flood in. Some of the articles glibly states that Darwin’s theory is on the decline while others claim that later discoveries backed Darwin’s theory and if justice is done to Darwin, he may be elevated to scientific geniuses as Einstein or Newton. Some of the articles claim the majority is on that side or the other without actually citing any survey being carried out. Some articles arrogantly claim that the theory has dismantled the Christian faith, while others claim that the theory manifests the marvelous works of God’s Creation. No doubt it is interesting and good to know how the universe came into being although it is more important to know why and who made it possible to exist.
Well, some simply directly dismiss the theory of evolution just because it is not repeatable. Well, in that case which scientific experiment is repeatable? For instance, the simplest experiment say, measurement of dimensions; who can say with absolute certainty the true size of the measured sample and repeat it? There is no such thing as true value (which is measurable) in the scientific realm. There is only theoretical true value, assigned value or estimated value. Every day we struggle with the issue of repeatability and reproducibility of test results in our lab. The problem of uncertainty in measurement is no doubt vast which is why there are many uncertain theories and methods to estimate it. But this also does not mean that just because an experiment is not repeatable we can dismiss it as unscience. If we define science based on repeatability, there won’t be anything as science. Still, on the other hand it can not deny that we can know certain things with certain degree of certainty.
However the bigger question is does the theory of evolution proof or disproof the existence of the God of the Bible? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or His loving nature. The God of the Bible stands irrespective of the theory of evolution stands or falls.
Who framed the natural laws of certainty? Isn’t it the same God who framed the laws of uncertainty? What does it matter to me whether God has created the universe in 1 by millionth of a second or it took a trillion years for Him to make it. What I need to know is I have a maker and that maker has made Himself known to me through the Bible and on the cross. But when some one uses the theory of evolution to mislead and deny the existence of God and try to use it as a shield of atheism, a Christian who claims to know the Lord the Creator, who also claims to love his neighbor as himself, has every duty to stand up against the misuse and that should not be taken as defending the theory (of evolution). Much of the Christian energy has been wasted in trying to proof the theory of evolution wrong instead of correcting the misuse and misinterpretation of such a theory.
If the universe has been made (through whatever method) by God who is intelligent and has given some intelligence to his creation, can’t His creation understand (upto some extend) how it came into being? And if the created being can understand (with the given intelligence) how it came into being, should the creature say with arrogance that it was not created?
True.
Its actually a big relief to me to be able to leave the technical details of HOW the world came into being to scientists in the related field. Otherwise, i always had this burden on my mind - that I, like other educated Christians, should read up more about it, so that I can argue from the side of anti-evolution, anti-big-bang etc.
But actually I have no credibility in either field, so it was an impossible task to get that competent!
Now i think - I'm not an expert, so you scientists can thrash it out between you; I shall listen, though I don't care much either way, because I choose to believe God created anyhow, whether it was through a seven-day creation, or zillions of years, or a big bang or whatever.
Jamila
Philosopher of Science has widely accepted three parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. One, the theory should be falsifiable; two, it should be able to explain the observed data; three, it should have predictability strength. Sometimes one might also like to include elegance, coherence etc. But the first three are very essential.
Karl Popper (1902-1994), perhaps the most celebrated philosopher of Science of 20th century, initially rejected theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Popper understood evolutionary biologists to say that their theory predicts that natural selection allows only the fittest organisms to survive; and he countered saying that the ‘fittest’ organisms are defined as those who survive, but that makes the argument tautological. ( tautological means that the truth of the predicate is contained in the subject itself)
Later on, Popper recanted what he had said. But why the change? Because there are independent parameters for determining which members of species are ‘fittest’. “ Biologists employ optimisation analyses to predict which combination of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely to be advantageous in the range of environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then sample natural population of organisms, determine in which they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical predictions on where natural selection should push the population next. Finally, biologists wait until the next generation of organisms come out and measure their characteristics again." So theory of evolution is testable, in the sense that using the theory they predict the outcome of the research. It is also falsifiable in the sense that if human being is found alonside dinasaur, in the absence of alternative explanation, we might have to discard the theory or make some drastic refinement. One reason why Intelligent Design theory is considered invalid is because it is not falsifiable. How can one emperically falsify that God is not behind that 'irreducible complexity'? One can never do that emperically, and so ID theory cannot be scientific.
Theory of evolution meets the criteria to be a scientific theory more or less like Big Bang theory meets the criteria. In fact, Big Bang theory has more rival theories than theory of evolution. Theory of evolution has been the reigning champion for some 150 odd years now, though with some refinement like neo-darwinism emerging to give a more explanatory power of the observed data. Intellectual honesty and responsibility requires that until a better rival theory emerges we use the available theory, however weak it is.
Suppose we expel theory of evolution from Science which academic discipline takes up the study? Humanities or Social Science? Both cannot do justice to the issue at hand because the nature of the subject requires study of various branch of Science. This is also one reason why definition of Science should not be too narrow. Study of continental shift, Big Bang, evolution etc have met essential parameters for a theory to be called a scientific theory. Since theory of evolution is falsifiable, as a believer in Jesus Christ who is the source of all truth, I am not afraid of the truth. If it is wrong Science will disprove it. If it is right, how much ever attack it receives from its critic, it will remain firm.
This issue has been very divisive among evangelical Christians, should I say along with issues like role of women in the church and charismatic gifts. The latter two is confined within ourselves. Theory of evolution, however, takes the debate outside of the Church. And if we are not careful it’s going to harm the cause of Christ.
My humble suggestion is that those of us who are keen to have a say in the matter need to read up theologians who interpret the Bible, philosophers who provides the framework of the debate and scientist who engages in empirical research. Should I also include historians who provide detail how various schools emerged and how different individuals have participated in the debate! This does not mean I have also done sufficient reading... But I am trying to.
God bless.
I totally agree.
Many of the Scientific nitty gritties of the theory are indeed difficult for a person outside the the domain of this feild as Jamila didi has rightly pointed. And even if we try to convince both for or against the theory, we will only add up more confusion to a person who has less knowledge in this particular feild. But we need to have a broad framework of the theory and the implications of objecting or accepting it.
There was a report recently in Times of India about how evolution has become popular. It talks about some 72 nobel laureates supporting evolution.
Though the tone is that evolution is correct, observe the predicament of evolution. It seems to be a matter of opinion than a matter of demonstrability (like normal scientific experiments are).
We should also probably check how may of these 72 are science nobel lauretes. Please note that typically there are around 6-10 science nobel laureates per year.
The statement - "A million years ago a creature A turned into creature B" is not falsifiable.
The essential problem is our finiteness in time and space.
Azhoni,
How did you get the data that 99.83% of scientists believe in the theory of evolution?. Can you give a pointer to the experiment that was conducted?. How was the sampling done and how was the confidence level estimated?
If we do not have reliable information, I think you should post a note. We can differ in whether evolution is true or not. But, as followers of Christ we should present correct data.
I personally have not conducted a experiment among all the scientists of the world. But I have had opportunity to discuss this with about 25 scientists of the Indian Institute of Science. This is a reasonably good sample from among a total of approx. 1000 scientists that have criss-crossed the place during my time there. All of them are Hindu. So they they do not care what the Bible says. They include physicists, chemists and biologists. Among these 25, a large fraction would not say evolution is correct. Most of them would say something like - " May be it is correct. May be it is not. But, I have not observed it." Those who think about a little more also recognize the difficulty in experimenting with it.
-----------------------------
Azhoni,
Repeatability and approximation and two intrinsic features of scientific investigation. All measurement is approximate. But for a scientific theory to be held valid, it has to be repeatable (by me, you or anybody else) with a known bounded error.
If evolution is correct it would be repeatable. But the problem is that some of basic tenets of evolution prevent us from repeating it within the finite time and space within which we operate.
Right now I don't have sufficient data to say that evolution is incorrect or correct. I only said it is beyond pure scientific investigation. There is nothing in it to give it the halo of scientific results.
love,
Joseph
But I hesitate to agree that repeatability and approximation are the intrinsic features for scientific investigation. I find it little too narrow. Big bang theory is not repeatable and so is continental drift. But study of Big Bang or Continental drift are also within the realm of Science. I would, however, agree that experimental science done in the lab is little different from study of past event. Nevertheless, I would say that both of them are very much within the domain of Science. Study of music, beauty, language, morality, God, meaning of life etc are realities, I believe, outside of the domain of Science.
Regards,
Jer