Gospel Fellowship's New Building!!

This is an exciting time for our church! We are moving into a new building next month and are planning an AWESOME celebration service! YOU are invited to join us! Click on the link below for more information...

www.gospelfellowship.com

Hope to see you there!
J

The Obama Sermon

If you are interested in reading the transcript from this past Sunday's sermon, go to www.jasonepps.com

The sermon is titled, "How Should Christians Respond to the Election of Barack Obama?"

Blessings,
Jason

'Nuff Said.

Jesus' Resurrection and Your Faith

I recently had a conversation with a friend concerning the nature of faith and belief. During the conversation, a particular question came up and was answered differently by the people involved in the conversation. For today's post, I pose the same question to you:

For those of you who consider yourselves to be Christians, if irrefutable evidence (evidence that you yourself could not even deny) was discovered that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead and that the Bible was a complete fabrication, would this affect your faith? If so, how and why? If not, why not?

I think Scripture speaks pretty clearly to this issue, but I am interested to know what others think. During the conversation I had yesterday with a few friends (I will not name them), a viewpoint at odds with my own was presented - a viewpoint that I could not seem to get my head wrapped around because it did not, in my opinion, seem to be clearly articulated - at least not in a way that I could understand (and I do allow that the fault could be mine for not being able to understand rather than the other party's fault for failure to articulate). Hence, I'm hoping someone reading this blog will have the same viewpoint and will be able to articulate it here in writing so that I can better understand it and possibly enter into dialogue with it.

That being said, I welcome your thoughts concerning the above italicized question. I am most interested (for this post) in the comments of professing Christians. Non-Christians are welcome to post as well, but please identify yourself as such so as to avoid any confusion. I simply want to know from what perspective you are speaking.

Blessings,
J

Dawkins' "God Delusion" Exposed for What It Is

If you've followed follow popular culture for the last 20 years, you know who Richard Dawkins is. Best known for his most recent book, "The God Delusion," Dawkins has been quoted as saying things like: "Religion is evil," and "Any parent who teaches his or her child the doctrine of original sin should be punished for child abuse."

If you are a philosopher who hasn't been sleeping under a rock for the past 40 years, you've heard the name, Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, is best known for two philosophical accomplishments: First, his book, "God and Other Minds," clearly demonstrated the rationality of the Christian Theist position. Second, his book, "God, Freedom, and Evil," brought the deductive problem of evil to extinction. Plantinga is perhaps the most respected and decorated Christian thinker of our time.

The purpose of this short post is to direct you to a short (4,500 word) review of Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Alvin Plantinga wrote the review.

When I read "The God Delusion," I immediately recognized what I thought to be significant weaknesses in Dawkins' argumentation. Plantinga expresses, quite clearly and concisely, these weaknesses in his review. I would encourage you, if you are familiar with Dawkins, to read Plantinga's review. I always try to be as objective as possible on this blog - but I must break my rules for a second and say that Plantinga is a real philosopher, folks; not a media-minded opportunist who exploits the principle, "controversy sells." I believe there is no comparison between Dawkins' work and Plantinga's. Anyone interested in the theism/atheism debate owes it to themselves to give a thorough treatment to Plantinga. This review is a good place to start. Click here to see the review. Also, here are some good books by Plantinga that I'm currently reading from:

God and Other Minds (1967); by Alvin Plantinga

God, Freedom, and Evil (1974); by Alvin Plantinga

The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader (1998); edited by James Sennett

Warranted Christian Belief (2000); by Alvin Plantinga

Blessings,
Jason

*** Reflections and Response to Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology"

Introduction: Lyell’s Principles of Geology was highly influential, and Darwin read the first two volumes during his voyage on the Beagle. Consequently, they helped shape his thinking about evolution.

With that brief introduction, here are some brief thoughts and quotes on Lyell:

I. Lyell’s Popularization of Uniformitarianism: From 1830 to 1833 his multi-volume Principles of Geology was published. The work's subtitle was "An Attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation", and this explains Lyell's impact on science. He drew his explanations from field studies conducted directly before he went to work on the founding geology text.[1] He was, along with the earlier John Playfair, the major advocate of the then-controversial idea of uniformitarianism, that the earth was shaped entirely by slow-moving forces acting over a very long period of time. This was in contrast to catastrophism, a geologic idea that went hand-in-hand with age of the earth as implied by biblical chronology. In various revised editions (twelve in all, through 1872), Principles of Geology was the most influential geological work in the middle of the 19th century, and did much to put geology on a modern footing. For his efforts he was knighted in 1848, then made a baronet in 1864.

II. Quotes About Lyell from Other Sources

A. “Darwin aimed to do for biology what Lyell had done for Geology: explain great changes on uniformitarian and naturalistic principles, meaning the gradual operation over long periods of time of familiar natural forces that we can still see operating in the present”[2]

B. “In Darwin’s time, Cuvier’s catastrophism was being supplanted by the uniformitarian geology advocated by Darwin’s older friend Charels Lyell, who explained spectacular natural features as the result not of sudden cataclysms, but rather the slow working over immense time of everyday forces. In retrospect, an evolutionary theory of the Darwinian kind seems almost an inevitable extension of Lyell’s logic, but Lyell himself had great difficulty accepting biological evolution, as did many other persons who were familiar with the evidence.”[3]

Summary and Conclusion: Main point here – Darwin was Lyell’s younger friend, and Lyell’s Principles of Geology influenced Darwin in his “discovery” of evolution.

---

[1] Wilson, Leonard G. "Charles Lyell" Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie. Vol. VIII. Pennsylvania, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973.

[2] Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 33.

[3] Johnson, 46. It must be noted, however, that after Lyell’s initial disagreement with Darwin, Darwin felt betrayed by Lyell’s refusal to believe. In a later of edition of Origin, Lyell announced his conversion to mutability – but his motive for doing so is open to question by many. Some believe he did it out of his desire to maintain friendship with Darwin; others thought he did so from the desire to not be “left behind.”

The Way of Wisdom vs. The Way of the Sheep

It's Monday morning (or Tuesday-Friday morning - take your pick.) How many of us awake to the (figurative) sounds of William Tell's 1812 overture as we rush to take a shower, brush our teeth, eat, get into traffic, go to work, toil to be productive all day, get back into traffic, get home, clean, take the kids to soccer, work on personal finances, etc. In short, how many of us are so busy that we seldom have the time to think? How many of us are so "productivity" or "accomplishment"-oriented that we place, by our actions, a very low degree of value on the reflective inner life of the soul?

Now, many of the people I grew up around seemed to ridicule a person who thinks...and thinks for fun...and thinks for extended periods of time...and does nothing else but think. The cries of a pragmatic American culture, at time, resound in my ears: "Inefficient! Not productive! Lazy! Worthless! Out of touch with the real world! A waste of time!" Have you ever thought this of those who aspired to be serious "reflectionaries?"

One of my beloved family members is famous for his poking fun at me when I was in college. He thought it was funny that I hung out at coffee shops. He used to say, sarcastically, "J, let's go have a latte and talk about our feelings :0)" Now, I think he was just having some fun with me and meant no serious ill-will or disrespect, but at the same time, there are those who see self-reflection and serious self-analysis and criticism (and when I say criticism, I mean the analytical type, and not necessarily the "always negative" type) as of little value. So in today's post, I would like to challenge myself and my readers to evaluate the value of such practices. And to initiate such a challenge, I will offer three quotes, somewhat related, that I hope will jog your thoughts with regard to this subject.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." (Socrates)

"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding." (Proverbs 4:7, NIV)

"How blessed is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gains understanding. For her profit is better than the profit of silver, and her gain better than fine gold. She is more precious than jewels; and nothing you desire compares with her." (Proverbs 3:13-15, NASB)

Whatever you may think of when you hear the word, "philosophy," the fact is that the great philosophers of yesteryear defined the subject as simply, "the search for the good life." Now, we know that the various thinkers of the ages have defined "the good life" in many, sometimes competing, ways, but that is beside the point. The question to you is this: If the collective actions of your everyday life were to serve as YOUR answer to the question, "What is the good life, and how am I seeking it," what philosophy would you end up with? Would it be one in which financial security and superiority served as the highest good? Would your popularity and favor among other people be elevated to the highest? Your power? Your achievements? Once you have answered this question, the essential follow-up to this question is this: "Why do I live as if .... is the highest good? Why is .... so imminently valuable to me?" Can you provide a good answer? Do you know why you label what you do as virtuous? Can you give a reasoned response and defense for doing so? Or are you merely so busy that you've never thought about it? Or are you fearful of examining the answer for fear of being confronted with your own intellectual, personal, and even spiritual shallowness?

My personal belief is that those who fail to actively seek wisdom by first examining their own lives are doomed to a mediocre (at best) or sub-par (at worst) level of fulfillment. To be sure, a person who fails to do so ends up being no different from a sheep - one of the dumbest animals on the planet. A sheep moves, acts, and lives according to the beliefs and agendas of another - namely, the shepherd. He never considers WHY he does what he does. In fact, he doesn't care. Why? He's shallow. He's dumb. The only thing he cares about is eating, drinking, reproducing, keeping warm at night, etc. Are you a sheep? Do you mindlessly follow another? Or are you an independent thinker? A free thinker? A person who knows intimately why you do the things you do? Of course, everyone follows SOMEone or SOMEthing, but the real question is: do you know why? Do you have a good reason for following the philosophy, persons, or person you do? Or do you simply do it with little reflection?

Listen to Socrates. Listen to the Proverbs. Take self-examination for the purpose of gaining wisdom seriously. Don't be afraid to carve out a few hours in a day to sit. Be silent. Read. Reflect. Think. Examine. At the end of the day, it is this very ability that illustrates your being made in the image of your creator. It is this that separates you from the sheep. Will you follow in the way of wisdom? Or will you continue in the way of the sheep?

May your week be a meaningful one.
J

Are You a "Classicist" or an "Existentialist?"

A worldview was recently defined in my class on existentialism as “a set of deeply held assumptions, often implicit, about the conditions for the world’s intelligibility.”[1] This definition presents the concept of worldview thinking primarily in terms of assumptions and intelligibility. However, Dr. James Sire seems to think a more in-depth definition is in order. He defines a worldview as follows:

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution or reality, and that provides the foundation for which we live and move and have our being.[2]

Sire’s definition includes the concepts of assumptions and intelligibility, but sets both in the context of the “heart.” He explains that in the Bible, the “heart” is the defining element of the human person and the chamber from which all one’s thoughts and actions proceed.[3] In other words, a person’s assumptions of the world’s intelligibility have a direct effect on the way a person thinks and behaves. A worldview informs every aspect of life. All in all, both definitions are satisfactory, but I think philosopher Nancy Pearcy most concisely and accurately defines a worldview simply as a “mental map.”[4]

Whatever a person’s preference is concerning the definition of a worldview, the point for our purposes in this short essay is to understand that one of the primary purposes associated with a worldview is to provide its owner with a set of intellectual resources upon which to draw in case of a problem or crisis. Such problems and crises are common to the human experience, and for this reason each person, whether he or she realizes it or not, has a worldview, a set of presuppositions about the world, to help him or her make sense of such issues.

In our class, “Existentialism,” we have been comparing and contrasting two competing worldviews: classicism and existentialism. Classicism, the worldview that has dominated most of philosophy since the discipline’s pre-Socratic birth in Miletus centuries before Christ, sees the world basically as objective and subject to universal laws that organize it. Existentialism, a recent development of the last two centuries, posits the idea that the world’s underlying structure is not objective, but subjective. According to the existentialist, during the course of experiencing the world subjectively, a certain intelligibility structure gets imposed on the world by the subjective perceiver. The world, in and of itself, lacks such structure.[5]

Upon careful thought and reflection, I find that my own worldview fits much more within the parameters of the classical worldview than the existential worldview. There are several reasons for this, all of which are related to the main features we have discussed in class with regard to each respective worldview.

First of all, I believe that the world is certainly objective. There are certain universal principles and parameters unite all that is. Furthermore, I would take this a step further and say that while I believe such principles and parameters unite the world, it is the personal and Living God who makes provision for and governs such unity. The world has an underlying, universal, consistent, and objective framework because the world has a Creator and Sustainer who is universal, consistent, and objective. Now, I understand that not all classicists are theists, but theists like myself, because we believe the world is objective under the governance of laws enacted by God, fall within the parameters of a classical worldview. We believe that God is there. He is willing, able, and ready to be revealed and discovered in the life of any person on earth who would receive Him.

My worldview also falls within the classical one because I believe that essence precedes existence. The existentialist believes the opposite. To the existentialist, meaning is created within one’s own experience. Therefore the essence of something comes only through an experience. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that essence certainly precedes existence. The best theological illustration with regard to this concept is the idea that man was made “in the image of God.” In the original Hebrew, this phrase from the book of Genesis carries with it the connotation of a certain something being created not just “in” the image of God, but “according to” the image of God. This image, made manifest in the numerous Theophanies of the Old Testament, is that of Jesus Christ. How does this illustrate the Christian belief that essence precedes existence? God’s original intent for man was not to experience the life that was given him subjectively. He was not to create His own meaning. Rather, man was created “according to the image” of God, an image that preceded man’s own existence, for purposes defined later in Scripture. As a Christian theist, I am also a classicist because I believe there is an objective model in the universe which serves as a standard by which all human experience is to be judged. This model is not a mere set of principles, precepts, or parameters, but a person: Jesus Christ.

My worldview is classified as classical also because of the method in which I engage to solve problems. When faced with a problem or crisis, my first course of action is certainly to define and diagnose the problem. Have I violated one of God’s physical, spiritual, or relational laws that are universal? Have I violated it in such a way that my relationship with and standing before Him have been put in jeopardy? If so, what must I do to make the relationship between He and I right again? The existentialist would question my perception of such a problem as, in fact, a problem. He or she might charge that the issue at hand, rather than being a problem, is an opportunity for me to discovery the truth about myself and engage in an exercise of authenticity. I would fundamentally disagree with the existentialist position on this point because whether or not my sin is authentic is irrelevant. In the eyes of God, all sin must be punished or else God’s status as perfectly just is compromised. It may be beneficial to discover the sin inside of me, and I would even say that such a discovery is essential in order for a person to become a follower of Christ. After all, why else would a person need the Savior unless he or she first was convinced of his or her need for the forgiveness of sin? However, this discovery is not an end in itself. The realization of individual authenticity does not solve the problem of a strained relationship with a personal God. The diagnosed problem must be corrected, and the presupposition that such a problem can and should be corrected is a classical presupposition.

One example of a moment that has contributed to my conclusion concerning my worldview revolves around several experiences with death. As I was growing up, I could not escape the fact that some of my relatives were dying. Their life was over, their presence departed, and somehow this seemed horrific to me. Why do people have to die? Why do I have to die? Why is life limited? This was a problem. Like a good classicist, I recognized it for what it was and began searching for answers. After years of study coupled with a personal experience with God, I came to the conclusion that the teachings of the Bible and those of Christ Himself offered the best possible explanation of life, death and eternity. History, logic, archaeology, science, theology, and my own personal experience all pointed to the fact that God was who He said He was. Death was universal because sin was universal, and the only escape from death was made possible by the only being in the universe qualified and competent to give life: God Himself.

Another example of my worldview in action would concern my decision in high school to abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage. As any honest man will admit, certain changes happen in the body around the time of high school. These changes seem to call the body to act in a certain way and even engage in a certain activity – sexual intercourse. When I came upon this point in my life, I was forced to deal with this issue. My body, my friends, and even the media seemed to say, “Go for it!” My parents said the opposite. Who was right? What was the best way for me to deal with this new physiological desire? At the point I found myself in this predicament, I had already made a lifelong commitment to follow Christ. Hence, the framework from which I drew resources to deal with this situation was an objective one. The Bible is clear that sex, although a great and God-ordained activity, is limited to the confines of a committed lifelong relationship between a man and his wife. Because I “discovered” this principle or law that existed prior to my own experience, my worldview would qualify as a classical one.

All in all, I believe the classical worldview to be the common sense worldview. The existentialists raise some legitimate concerns about getting the most out of life, not making excuses, and embracing the reality of the individual’s situation. I believe there are certain lessons to be learned from giving a hearing to their perspectives. However, at the end of the day it makes little sense not to recognize that there is an objective order to things. In conclusion, I am a classicist because I believe not only that there is such an order, but that such an order can and should be known.

---

[1] The Univeristy of Utah, PHIL 3810, Class Lecture by Dr. Paul Haanstad, 8/24/2007

[2] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, Fourth Edition (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 17.

[3] Ibid., 18.

[4] Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 17.

[5] The University of Utah, PHIL 3810, Class Lecture by Dr. Paul Haanstad, 8/27/2007

Existentialist Themes: Death, the Absurd, and Billy Graham

This essay was written to introduce those of you who are unfamiliar with existentialism to a few of the themes associated with the subject. By no means to I agree with all the existentialist themes, but I did want to represent them here is an effort to foster further conversation - either in person or via this blog. After you read the essay, I would be glad to entertain any questions or comments you wish to offer. --Dr. J

"EXISTENTIALIST THEMES: DEATH, THE ABSURD, AND BILLY GRAHAM"
BY: DR. JASON EPPS, DECEMBER 2007, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

One of the primary foci for existentialist writers is the concept of human experience. They lead us to ask the questions, “Where is meaning in life found?” and “What does it mean for us to experience the world as a subject?” In delving into how we might answer such questions, we discover that there are many themes that the existentialists use as angles from which to approach the questions. In this short essay, we will outline three of these notions: “freedom,” “absurdity,” and the “leap of faith.” Reflecting on how each of these notions might look in a concrete, real-life experience, we hope to glean a basic understanding of the implications behind the original questions above, and we hope to cultivate an appetite for further study of the existentialist writings.

The first notion to be considered is that of “absurdity.” While the concept of “the absurd” is dealt with by many philosophers, our focus will be that of Albert Camus and his work, The Myth of Sisyphus. Written about the same time as The Stranger, Sisyphus is a work that is perhaps meant by Camus to complement the darker view of the world of The Stranger. Whereas The Stranger is presented as a philosophy narrative form, Sisyphus takes the form a philosophical theory.

Overall, Camus’ philosophy, and the philosophy of existentialists in general, could be summed in the phrase, “life is the point of life.” While the classical worldview and its overtones of objectivity would tend to evaluate the possibility of life’s meaning based upon some external standard or set of standards, an existentialist like Camus would reject such an exterior perspective. To illustrate this point, Camus turns to the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, a story about a man who is eternally condemned by the gods to a futile task. Sisyphus’ daily routine involved rolling a large and heavy rock up a hill each day, only to have the rock roll back down the hill. This eternal task was futile and absurd. Why? Each day Sisyphus would toil and labor to perform a task that would ultimately be undone at day’s end. There was no point. His existence, therefore, was absurd. However, Camus might suggest that the life of Sisyphus was only absurd because we are viewing it from our perspective and not from the perspective of Sisyphus. In other words, we are viewing the situation from the outside, much like we would view a person who is screaming into the receiver while inside a soundproof telephone booth. Neither situation makes sense to us, and both are absurd because we are not the subject of either experience.

To Sisyphus, however, the experience may not seem so absurd. It may very well be that in his years of pushing the rock up the hill, he has come to love his task. He has come to love being outside and near the mountains. He has come to appreciate the contours and the beauty of the rock. All in all, Sisyphus may have found meaning in the experience itself even though such meaning is unavailable to the external observer. Similarly, there is meaning in the phone booth even though it, at least to us on the outside, seems absurd. If this is the case, then what are we to make of this concept of “absurdity?” Is its value isolated merely to that of an obscure philosophical theory? Or does it somewhere contain an element of wisdom that may enrich the quality our lives? The answer lies, most likely, somewhere in between.

Even though Camus was an atheist, he believed that God’s existence, were it to be proven, would be irrelevant to the fact that “death makes life absurd.” Any way you look at it, life is boring, futile and pointless. The fact that we die and leave nothing of significance is illustrative of such. Furthermore, as we will discuss in the next section, death can even be seen as a blessing in the sense that it provides us a way of escape from such eternal boredom – an escape that Sisyphus never had the opportunity to enjoy.

This brings us back to Camus’ primary belief that “life is the point of life.” If, viewed from the outside, our completed lives were meaningless, then we are pressed to find meaning within our own personal and subjective experiences. The meaning for which we search, rather than being found in the relation of our lives to some external and objective standard, is to be found within ourselves and within our own lives. If so, how then might Camus’ philosophy be seen in a contemporary example?

Imagine a university economics professor who is passionate about capitalism. All his life has been devoted to the advancement of the capitalist ideology in the minds and lives of his students. After a “successful” career of over forty years teaching at the university, the professor dies. He has certainly left a legacy of capitalist ideology, but the year after his death witnesses a communist revolution and the eradication of any capitalist ideas from society. Ten years after his death, there is not even a whisper of capitalistic thought anywhere in the country. His best students have either been killed or forced to “convert” to communism. As a result of these events, we look back at all the hard work and toil in which he was engaged during life and are forced to confess that his life was futile and absurd. From the present and external point of view, his life had little or no meaning. However, if we were to go back several years and walk through his life in his shoes and experience what he experienced from his own perspective, we might find a life full of rich meaning indeed. This is the heart of Camus’ message and the existentialist message in general: life is the point of life. As long as you are looking outside your own perspective and outside your own experience in an effort to find meaning, you will miss where meaning truly resides, which is in your own subjective experience.

The next notion to be addressed is related to the first. In the concept of absurdity, we found Camus positing the idea that “death makes life absurd.” In this section of the essay, we will explore the existentialist notion of how death, or at least one’s acceptance of the reality of his or her own future death, brings freedom.

In Durrenmatt’s The Tunnel, we are invited to participate in an experience that is headed toward disaster. A student boards a train and finds, after entering a tunnel, that the train is begins travelling faster and faster, and is beginning to point downward. Ultimately, the train is headed straight down in a type of nosedive from which there is obviously no hope of recovery. The train keeps going downward, gaining speed, while the prospect of any hope that the situation will be safely resolved rapidly deteriorates. This story is, among other things, illustrative of the immanency of death. Like the passengers on the train, people board life expecting to arrive at some destination which will provide fulfillment, only to discover that the final stop is the end of existence itself.

The existentialists seem to suggest that many people fail to experience life to its fullest capacity because they have yet to accept the reality of their own death. These people falsely believe that the meaning of their lives will be found in some objective destination when, in actuality, such fulfillment is to be found in the journey itself. Because such people mistakenly believe this, they are kept from experiencing the life that is found in the journey. This is where the concept of “death as freedom” comes into play.

In The Tunnel, the student and the conductor experience various stages of coping as their train races toward the darkness and as the situation grows more horrifying. Similarly, people go through many stages in life when confronted with the reality of their own mortality. Some block it, some ignore it, and others rationalize it while still others deny it. In any case, all such options fall short of acceptance of death, which, for existentialists, is the point that must be reached if freedom is to be achieved. At the point a person can embrace, acknowledge, and take hold of the fact that he is going to die, he can then begin to truly live. Now that he understands that “life is the point of life,” he has the freedom to experience that life. He is no longer under the illusion that the train will one day arrive at some desired destination, but that the train’s end is the very end of existence itself. The absence of such an illusion now brings clarity and color to the ride itself. Hence, for existentialists, the reality of death brings the possibility and realization of freedom.

The final notion to be addressed is that of the “leap of faith.” This notion relates primarily to the writings of Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher who attributed situations regarding ethics and religion to the realm of subjectivity. According to Kierkegaards’s thinking, there are certain questions that arise in one’s consideration of religion that simply cannot be verified objectively. When such a question arises, one must make a decision as to whether or not to commit. If a commitment is made, it should be followed with passionate action. This is referred to as a “leap of faith.”

The name, “Billy Graham,” is a familiar one to many from the evangelical tradition in America. One of the most well-known Christian evangelists, Graham has communicated his message to multiplied millions of people over the past sixty years. As a matter of fact, he is a figure to whom many Christians look as the example of man who is “full of faith.” However, many people are not familiar with an interesting aspect of his faith journey regarding his position on the Bible. In his autobiography, Graham reflects upon when he was a young man searching for the truths about God and His Word. He was familiar with many of the criticisms of Scripture and realized that certain passages seemed to present some difficulty. In telling this story, Graham acknowledges that there was a point in which he had to make a decision and commit to the Bible being God’s inspired and infallible Word. After making that decision, Graham says he never went back to considering critical questions about the Bible.

Now, with the example of Billy Graham, we see what looks like a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith.” Many evangelicals, the author of this essay included, would choose to deal more extensively with the criticisms aimed at the Bible. They would point to the objective truth of the Bible and assert that all criticisms of Scripture can be plausibly and effectively defended. In essence, these evangelicals would not agree that a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” is required to believe in the absolute truth of Scripture. Graham, however, did seem to make such a leap of faith. His acknowledgement of the possibility of alleged biblical inconsistencies put forth by certain scholars of the early 1900’s thrust the young minister into something of an existential crisis. Graham reacted by taking a leap of faith and never turning back. As a result of his passionate and inward commitment, the kind of commitment Kierkegaard calls us to, Graham’s ministry has continued to gain momentum and has ultimately become one of the most successful in the history of the modern Christian Church

There are many other existentialist themes that can be explored including issues such as the paradox of subjectivity, trans-valuation of values, authenticity and even self-deception. However, this brief essay has focused on freedom, absurdity, and the leap of faith. In these themes we can begin to form a general understanding of the existentialists’ message and can use the themes as a springboard for further study and reflection.

An Assessment of the Intelligibility of Philosophical Skepticism

Introduction

When Aristotle penned the famous words, “All men by nature desire to know,”[1] the subject of epistemology[2] had yet to blossom into the freestanding discipline it has become in modern times. Nevertheless, the words of Plato’s student have resonated for millennia not only in the minds and writings of vocational philosophers, but also in the thoughts of ordinary people. Human beings desire knowledge and have expressed and sought such in a diversity of ways throughout history. However, those who have engaged in the pursuit of knowledge have, in some sense, presupposed a monumental proposition: that the attainment of knowledge is actually possible.

The nature, scope, and possibility of knowledge have been studied by philosophers of various schools of thought, but the most notable concept pertaining to epistemology comes from the position known as “skepticism.” And contrary to the everyday type of skepticism which we encounter daily, a skepticism asserting that “most people’s epistemic standards[3] are too low or laxily applied,”[4] philosophical skepticism[5] is a more serious position. Undermining the very epistemological distinctions upon which “everyday skepticism” depends, philosophical skepticism is “not simply different, but precludes skepticism of the ordinary kind.”[6] Simply stated, the philosophical skeptic advances the notion that we cannot have knowledge.[7] Such a powerful position demands attention. The discipline of epistemology, to be sure, has the potential to deal effectively with this position. It is “up to the task” in that it exists primarily to defend the possibility of knowledge against such a position.[8] Therefore, in studying epistemology, philosophers aim at providing an adequate response, and even a solution,[9] to this kind of skeptic. However, before setting out on such an ambitious journey, the question of skepticism’s “intelligibility” and “coherence” must first be addressed. It seems only wise that we must first explore such issues. A position that is not intelligible is not understandable, and if a position is not understandable, it makes little sense to try to attack it or defend an attack from it. A position that is incoherent is logically inconsistent, and if a position is logically inconsistent, can it hold much value for such a rational endeavor as philosophy? Only when we have effectively answered the questions of intelligibility and coherence might we be justified in investing further time and effort in formulating a more detailed response to the problem of philosophical (radical) skepticism. Hence, this short essay will address the following preliminary epistemological questions: Is philosophical skepticism intelligible, and is it coherent?

The question of intelligibility is truly a simple one. In ascertaining such, we are simply asking if the philosophical concept in question[10] is capable of being clearly understood. In other words, can it be presented in a fashion that leaves little of no ambiguity with regard to its definition and parameters? In addition, is the concept coherent?[11] If we can, with regard to philosophical skepticism, answer these questions in the affirmative, then we can reasonably assume that the position is intelligible and coherent. However, as we will discover, intelligibility may not necessitate coherence and coherence may not necessitate intelligibility.

Our method of addressing this subject will begin by defining a specific type of philosophical skepticism. The purpose of this paper is not deal with every variety of philosophical skepticism. Hence, we will restrict our reflection to and focus our attention on what is commonly referred to as “Agrippan skepticism.” The reason for our choosing this form of skepticism is related to its being regarded as the stronger mode of skepticism, at least when compared with Cartesian, or “External World” skepticism.[12] After defining this brand of skepticism, we will proceed by outlining the arguments that are available to support it. The essay will then conclude by offering arguments that will assess whether or not this type of skepticism is self refuting or self undermining. At this point we will be able to offer a reasonable conclusion as to whether Agrippan skepticism can be taken as an intelligible and coherent philosophical position. We may then decide whether further reflection concerning the subject is warranted.

Agrippan Skepticism: Definition and Preliminary Modes

Little is known about Agrippa except for the fact that the “Five Modes” of Agrippan skepticism are credited to him. These five modes actually codify a form of argumentation that can be seen in Sextus Empiricus’[13] account of ancient skeptical procedures.[14] Presented in a dialectical context, the modes are best viewed as occurring in two parts: preliminary and primary. We will refer to the first two modes as “preliminary” because they set the stage for the more challenging “primary” modes that will occur subsequently.

The first preliminary mode is that of “Discrepancy.” This mode points out that human beings can disagree about almost anything. The second mode, that of “Relativity,” makes the case that any claim can and/or should be qualified with the phrase, “according to you.”[15] In assessing these two modes, it would seem that they provide little in the way of absolutely discrediting the possibility of knowledge. However, that is not their purpose. Rather, their purpose is bring the non-skeptic to a place where the next three “primary” modes will become relevant. Figuratively speaking, the skeptic wants to bring his opponent onto a playing field where the skeptic is the champion of the game. Truly, the purpose of these first two modes is simply to lead the non-skeptic to acknowledging this fact: that it is reasonable to ask a person to explain why he puts forward a claim as more than mere personal opinion, or why he puts it forward as more than a report of his own perspective. These two modes are crucial to Agrippan skepticism, but primarily because they lead to the next three, which are known as “Agrippa’s Trilemma.”

Agrippan Skepticism: Demonstration and Primary Modes

Suppose Jim claims that God exists. If he makes such a claim, it is perfectly acceptable for Ann to ask Jim whether he is assuming this to be true, or if he knows that it is true. If Jim then claims that he knows it to be true, Ann is then permitted to ask Jim how he knows. Jim will then have to respond by pointing to some kind of support. He may point to what he perceives as empirical evidence for the existence of God; he may point to the testimonies of others who have allegedly seen God; or he may point to what he believes to be self-evident reason in support of his claim. Whatever form Jim’s appeal for support takes, Ann is still permitted to respond to his citation by asking whether said citation is something Jim is assuming or something he knows. If Jim is assuming, that cannot count for knowledge because knowledge cannot be based on assumption. However, if he claims that his statement is knowledge, then each statement he will make in defense of it has the potential to invite another challenge similar to the one just illustrated. If this is the case, what can Jim do? He has only three options, and these options are illustrated in the three “primary” modes of Agrippan skepticism. This is also known as “Agrippa’s Trilemma.”

Jim’s first option is to resort to an infinite regress. In this case, he will continue trying to provide answers and justifications for his claim to knowledge of God’s existence. This option illustrates the “Mode of Infinity.” Jim continues his attempts to justify his claim, but his attempts at justification never stop. His next option is to, at a point of his own choosing, refuse to answer any more questions and therefore halt the chain of justification. This option is known as the “Mode of Assumption” because Jim will have to resort to dogmatism[16] in order to salvage his claim. Jim’s final option is to simply repeat a previous argument. This is called the “Mode of Circularity,” and is sometimes referred to as “circular reasoning.”

At the end of the day, the skeptic will point to these three primary modes for support of his belief that no claim is ever, even in the slightest degree, justified. Why? The Mode of Infinity is a strong objection because it is not within reason for Jim to run through an infinite series of prior justifications. The Mode of Assumption is even stronger because knowledge cannot be justified on the basis of an assumption, and the Mode of Circularity is equally powerful because a statement cannot function as a conclusion and a premise simultaneously. Hence, we see that the philosophical (Agrippan) skeptic’s position is a truly radical one: He is not claiming, as an everyday skeptic might claim, that justifications can always be questioned further if there is ample reason to enact such questioning. Rather, the skeptic posits that no claim is ever justified, therefore rendering the prospect of knowledge impossible.

Agrippan Skepticism: Intelligible or Unintelligible; Coherent or Incoherent?

Recognizing that we have now identified, defined, and demonstrated Agrippan skepticism as a force to be reckoned with in the discipline of Epistemology, we shall now turn our attention back to our original question of whether or not the concept is intelligible. The first and primary criterion for discerning intelligibility in a philosophical concept is that the concept be understandable. In other words, are there clear conceptual parameters associated with the concept that would allow us to distinguish it from other concepts? Can we offer a definition that others can “wrap their brains around?” The second criterion builds on the first and asks the question, “Is the concept coherent?” In order to effectively consider these questions, we shall examine some common objections to Agrippan skepticism along with possible Agrippan responses to such objections. We will then proceed in evaluating the strength of the Agrippan apologetics.

The most common charge of unintelligibility and incoherence towards Agrippan skepticism comes in the form of what we may refer to as the “self-defeating argument.” Here, the critic charges that skepticism is self-defeating in the sense that it is self-defeating to argue that nothing can ever be justified. Simply put, if one argues that “nothing can ever be justified,” how can the statement “nothing can ever be justified,” be justified? This seems, at least on the surface, to be self defeating. However, the Agrippan skeptic disagrees on three grounds: First, the implied incoherence can be avoided simply by adjusting the formula. The skeptic can claim that “the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing.” In doing so, he re-forges the formula into something more consistent. Second, the Agrippan argues that the purpose of skeptical argumentation is the production of doubt, uncertainty, or suspension of judgment. Hence, it is not necessary for such arguments to produce stable or credible conclusions in order to pose problems. Finally, the Agrippan suggests that it is permissible to assume something to be true for the sake of refuting it. According to him, there is nothing self-refuting about such an activity.

With these Agrippan apologetics in mind, how are we to respond to the skeptic’s defense that his position is not self defeating and hence incoherent? Are we to accept his reasoning? Or are we to reject it as weak?

At first glance, the skeptic’s initial defense seems plausible. If we alter the formula to say that “the only thing I know is that I know nothing,” should this not solve the problem? The skeptic certainly thinks so, but does it not seem quite convenient that he makes such an alteration so easily? Imagine if Jim were playing poker with a group of people who did not know the rules of the game. He teaches the rules to the group, but then, after losing a hand, proceeds to tell the group that while they all need five of a kind to trump any other hand, he can do so with a full house. In other words, because Jim has not been able to win by playing by them, Jim has changed the original rules he initially taught the group in order that he might now succeed in winning the game. In the end, this is exactly how the skeptic attempts to escape the implications of his own system. His entire position revolves around the belief that nothing can constitute knowledge because nothing can ultimately be justified. When pressed with the charge of “self-defeating,” he alters his formula so as to exempt himself from this position. The problem? Not only has he has failed to justify his a original position, but he has also failed to justify his alteration. If the rules of the game state that justification is impossible, then such rules must apply to everyone at all times. This includes the skeptic.

The second defense is equally as incoherent. Again, the skeptic conveniently changes the rules to suit his own purposes. Any other philosopher who makes a claim must demonstrate how his claim produces a stable and credible conclusion. If he refuses to do so, he is usually written off as irrational. However, the skeptic, in advancing his position, conveniently exempts himself from this rule. In doing so, though, he effectively banishes himself outside the realm of reason because while he demands that others submit to the demands of reason, he himself refuses to do so. His inconsistency demonstrates his irrationality.

The third of the skeptic’s defenses, stating that “there is nothing self-defeating about assuming something to be true for the sake of refuting it,” seems less prone to inconsistency. However, it still does nothing to salvage the problems associated with the first two defenses. Therefore while some claim that Agrippan skepticism is not self defeating, it seems to require some serious philosophical gymnastics in order to free itself from its own self-imposed prison.

Another common charge of unintelligibility and incoherence directed toward Agrippan skepticism involves its basic premise that knowledge is fundamentally different from assumption, and that this difference has something to do with an ability to justify whatever can properly said to be known. The problem? Who defines and sets the standards for what constitutes justification? Two possibilities present themselves at this point: First, the skeptic could define the parameters for justification. In this case, we are back to the poker game where Jim gets to make up the rules as he goes along – rules that will, of course, go along with his own agenda. The other possibility is to concede that there are not evident and objective standards of justification available. However, if this is the case, then how is he to charge a belief with being “unjustified” when the standards of justification are not clear? In this sense, Agrippan skepticism could be said to be a bit unintelligible because we would have significant difficulty in assessing any claim because there were no independent and objective standards by which we could judge that claim.[17]

Conclusion

Our purpose in this essay has been to assess the intelligibility and coherence of philosophical skepticism, and specifically the Agrippan form of philosophical skepticism. In offering a final conclusion, it is important to point out that many see intelligibility and coherence as two sides of the same coin. It could be suggested that one could not be present without the other. However, in our evaluation of Agrippan skepticism, we have differentiated between the two, as our conclusions will demonstrate.

We have taken “intelligibility” to simply mean “understandability.” In other words, is this system something that we can define and understand? Our final evaluation is that Agrippan skepticism is, at least at some level, intelligible. Even though we have raised one possible objection above,[18] it would still seem plausible that the system has clear parameters and can be understood as a defined position.

The issue of “coherence,” however, has been defined in this essay as a type of “logical consistency.” With regard to this issue, Agrippan skepticism seems to be blissfully skating on thin ice, attempting maneuvers it hasn’t the rational dexterity to execute. Philosophers have and will continue to disagree about the coherence of this system of skepticism, but our assessment of it has been that it is not an overwhelmingly coherent position. In addition to his desire to dictate the rules of the game, the Agrippan skeptic takes his game a step further by exempting himself from the rules he himself has set. In the opinion of this author, such action is logically inconsistent and lacking in philosophical integrity. Therefore it is the position of this essay that while intelligible, the Agrippan brand of philosophical skepticism is incoherent.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that there are a myriad of issues that are highly relevant to this discussion that were dealt with in this essay due to its brief and focused nature. The relation of Agrippan skepticism to foundationalist theories and more advanced coherence theories is a notion that has the potential to add even more color to this already profitable discussion. Hence, the prospects for future study of this subject are rich indeed.

---

[1] Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1.1

[2] That is, the study of knowledge, or the study of knowledge theories.

[3] That is, standards upon which to ground knowledge.

[4] Michael Williams, Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 60.

[5] Also known as “Radical Skepticism”

[6] Williams, 60.

[7] Peter Klein, “Skepticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, edited by Paul K. Moser (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 337.

[8] Epistemology deals with other knowledge problems as well, but many philosophers believe that skepticism is the primary problem with which epistemology deals.

[9] Although it is generally agreed that there is no clear-cut solution to the problem of philosophical skepticism.

[10] Philosophical skepticism, in this case

[11] By “coherent,” we mean “logically and consistently connected”

[12] Clifton McIntosh, PHIL 5300 Class Lecture, 1/12/2008.

[13] Sextus Empiricus, an ancient physician and philosopher who lived near the second of third century B.C., left the most complete surviving account of Greek/Roman skepticism.

[14] Williams, 61.

[15] Williams, 61-62. “You” in this context can refer to you personally, your school of thought, your culture generally, and perhaps even your species.

[16] Dogmatism is the adherence to a belief that, although not justified or in some cases even rational, is still presented to be (possibly absolutely) authoritative.

[17] However, as will be seen in the essay’s conclusion, we will grant the benefit of the doubt to the skeptic in this case.

[18] See p.11

*** Reflections and Response to Lamarck's "Zoological Philosophy"

Introduction: Lamarck, a French soldier, naturalist and academic was credited with being one of the first proponents of evolutionary ideas. Even so, Lamarck’s evolutionary hypothesis was, according to Appleman, unconvincing. As a result, he was systematically attacked and ridiculed by virtually the entire scientific establishment. Lamarck’s bitter experience is one of the reasons Darwin hesitates to publish his own work, a work which also challenged the conventional norm of “fixity of species.”

With that brief introduction, here are my thoughts.

I. Lamarck’s Problem: How did the “lowest organizations” of life succeed in giving rise to others less simple with the gradually increasing complexity observed throughout the animal scale?

A. Two principles by means of which Lamarck believes he has perceived the solution to the problem:

1. A number of known facts proves that the continued use of any organ leads to its development, strengthens it and even enlarges it, while permanent disuse of any organ is injurious to its development, causes it to deteriorate and ultimately disappear if the disuse continues for a long period through successive generations. Hence we may infer that when some change in the environment leads to a change of habit in some race of animals, the organs that are less used die away little by little, while those which are more used develop better, and acquire a vigour and size proportional to their use.

2. When reflecting upon the power of the fluids in the very supple parts which contain them, Lamarck soon became convinced that, according as this movement is accelerated, the fluids modify the cellular tissue in which they move, open passages in them, form various canals, and finally create different organs, according to the state of the organization in which they are placed.

B. The Species Question: According to Lamarck, any collection of like individuals which were produced by others similar to themselves is called a species.

1. Lamarck “attacks” (his own words) the idea of a “fixity of species.”

2. He says it is increasingly difficult to classify “species”

II. Lamarck’s Two Steps Which Prove His “Zoological Principle”

A. Step #1: It first has to be observed that even in the waters nature has established considerable diversity of conditions.

B. Step #2: Diverse environments so greatly influenced the habits and organs of aquatic animals of all ranks that the regular gradation which they should have exhibited in complexity of organization is often scarcely recognizable.

III. Lamarck’s Conclusions

A. “Zoological Principle:” Progress in complexity of organization exhibits anomalies here and there in the general series of animals, due to the influence of the environment and of acquired habits.

B. Two Laws

1. “In every animal which has not passed the limits of its development, a more frequent and continual use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.”

2. “All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.”

C. Lamarck Believes His Findings Absolute

1. He says, “Nothing of all this can be considered hypothesis or private opinion; on the contrary, they are truths which, in order to be made clear, only require attention and observation of facts.”

2. He also says, of the two laws above, “Here we have two permanent truths, which can only be doubted by those who have never observed or followed the operations of nature.”

Summary and Conclusion: Even though Lamarck was quite confident in his “findings” (as scientists often are), he was ultimately shown to be in error, and Darwin’s theory became the “accurate” theory of evolution.

Blessings,

Jason

*** Reflections and Response to William Paley's "Natural Theology"

Introduction: In his autobiography, Darwin states that he was initially convinced by Paley’s arguments when he read the book during his student years. However, as time went on, his views changed. William Paley was a British Christian apologist, philosopher, and utilitarian. His book, The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, was used as an ethics text at the University of Cambridge, where Darwin studied, and passed through about fifteen editions during Paley’s lifetime. Paley also was a passionate supporter of the abolition of the slave trade, and in 1789 wrote a paper on the subject.

With that brief introduction, here are my thoughts.

I. Section #1: State of the Argument

A. Paley sets forth the argument for design via the use of the “watchmaker” analogy.

B. Paley’s Two Examinations

1. The examination of the watch, of its works, construction, and movement. This suggests that it must have had, for cause and author of that construction, an artificer who understood its mechanism and designed its use.

2. The watch is found, in the course of its movement, to produce another watch similar to itself; and not only so, but we perceive in it a system or organization separately calculated for that purpose. What effect should this have on the former inference? To increase beyond measure our admiration of the skill which had been employed in the formation of such a machine. To deny this is atheism.

II. Section #2: Application of the Argument

A. Eye vs. Telescope analogy: There is a s much evidence for believing a telescope was designed as there is for believing that an eye was designed.

B. Contrasting the human eye with the fish eye as a manifestation of a “difference in design”

Summary and Conclusion: The argument for design, as Paley originally presented, is still used today. My question: what are the primary objections to this argument? And are those objections based upon a different type of reasoning that those upon which the argument for design are based?

Blessings,

Jason

Aren't the "Scientists" Who Doubt Evolution Really "Not Scientists?"

If you believe that, then I would invite you to consider evaluating the following document. Originally published in The Weekly Standard as a response to the seven part PBS series, Evolution, this document challenged the series' primary assertions that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world. The document was first published in 2001, but new signatures have been added each year.

Now, before you view this list, realize that the names here, over 700 of them, are not those of merely Christian college professors who have a theological axe to grind. These are secular biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, bio-engineers, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Standford, Cornell, Yale, Rutgers, Chicago, Princeton, Purdue, Duke, Michigan, Syracuse, Temple, and Berkeley.

If you believe that all credible scientists support the "theory of evolution," please take a look at the following document.

Click here to see the document.

Blessings,
J

Is it "Logical" for Public Schools ot Teach Darwin's Theory as "Fact?"

Here is an example of a formal argument that is philosophically interesting for two reasons: First, it is an argument that includes, in its content, the concepts of induction and deduction, which we have been studying in class this week. Secondly, it seeks to question a popular mainstream scientific teaching not on the basis of science, but on the basis of philosophy and logic.

1. If Darwin’s theory of transmutation of species is based upon what Darwin called the “Baconian method,” that is, inductive reasoning, and…

2. If inductive reasoning does not guarantee truth, but can only indicate probability, then....

3. If public schools should, in their teaching, label as “fact” only those theories which have been arrived at in a fashion that guarantees truth (i.e. deductive reasoning), then…

4. Darwin’s theory of transmutation of species should not be taught in public schools as guaranteed truth, but only as a theory with a certain measure of probability.

Let’s have a look at this argument piece by piece. Premise #1 points to Charles Darwin’s own admission that his theory was arrived at via straight induction. According to Philip Appleman, editor of Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, this is a generally agree upon truth – at least by biographers of Darwin. Premise #2 points to what first year philosophy student learns about induction: that it cannot guarantee truth, but can only hope for high probability. Premise #3 is where it gets interesting. This premise suggests that public schools should only label a concept as a “fact” if the concept can be logically demonstrated. If this is the case, then it only follows that the conclusion (see #4) is not to teach Darwin theory as “fact” in the public schools.

Now, on the surface it seems that this argument is logically valid because the conclusion seems to follow from the first three premises. The question, which really relates to premise #3, relates to whether or not the argument is sound. In order for the argument to be sound, all three premises must be true. The first two premises are true, but is it true that public schools should teach as “fact” only those things which are arrived at via a logical or epistemological method that yields certainty? One’s initial answer to this question may be, “Yes, of course! Why would you teach something as fact if you weren’t SURE that it WAS?” However, this opens up a whole new realm of philosophy, and this is where the conversation becomes interesting. If we are to accept that initial response just quoted, then do we not also seem to be accepting the notion that only epistemically certain concepts should be taught in public schools? Is there such a thing as an “epistemically CERTAIN” concept? The skeptics would have a field day with us were we to answer in the affirmative. So then, what are we to conclude regarding premise #3 above? Again, this is why it is interesting to have the discussion from a philosophical standpoint rather than a scientific one – because philosophy provides the logical framework without which science would not be able to function.

P.S. Now, my own position, as irrelevant as it may be, would be to teach such a theory for what it is: a theory that, in the estimations of many (but not all) scientists, is the “most probable” explanation for the evidence collected by Darwin and subsequent evolutionists. If, then, Darwin’s theory is only “highly probable” rather than certain, I would then want the students to hear what the dissenting majority of credible scientists (and contrary to popular dogmatic belief, the litmus test of a scientist’s credibility is not in his adherence to or dissent from Darwin’s basic theory) have to say about 1) why they believe the theory to be “not probable” and 2) what alternatives, if any, they offer? In the end, our challenge to students should be to “study,” not to “swallow.” At some point in their lives, they must learn to think, evaluate evidence, and reason for themselves. If we do not promote such a philosophy of learning, we become no different than those of opposing viewpoints and ideologies who we continually accuse of “brainwashing” the less knowledgeable.

Happy Monday!

J

*** Reflections and Response to Thomas Robert Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population"

Introduction: This essay is significant in that Darwin discovered his “clue” (see p.20 of this anthology) to the principle of natural selection after reading it.

With that brief introduction, here are my thoughts. This essay was pretty short, so my assessment of it (probably) be as well. Also, it has no definite sections, so my thoughts will follow my own outline on this occasion. The entire essay is not reproduced in this anthology, so I will comment only on those 50 or so lines that are included. As far as Malthus goes, he was an English demographer and political economist who wrote the following essay in 1798.

I. Section #1: Malthus’ “Two Postulata”

A. Food is necessary to the existence of man,

B. The passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.

C. Malthus believed there was no reason to believe that these two laws will ever change.

II. Section #2: Malthus’ Primary Supposition

A. Population increases geometrically (exponentially), while subsistence increases on arithmetically.

B. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be felt by a large portion or mankind.

III. Section #3: The Implications

A. Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple. They are all impelled by powerful instinct to the increase of their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about providing for their offspring.

B. Wherever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted, and the super-abundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment, which is common to animals and plants, and among animals, by becoming the prey of others.

Summary and Conclusion: Seems straight and to the point. The earth doesn’t have the ability to provide for the immense potential that is possessed by life to create life. The population must be regulated. My question is this: If this was Darwin’s “clue” to the principle of natural selection, how is one to reasonably claim that Darwin was not aware of the social implications of his own claim, namely, that the population would have to be “checked?” Is this not eugenics? Is this not exactly how the Nazis justified their proactive attempt to cleanse the earth of the Jews and foster a new super-race? I await well-reasoned answers to these questions.

Blessings,

Jason

*** Reflections and Response to Gavin de Beer's "Biology Before the Beagle"

Introduction: I’m not entirely sure of the nature of this essay. Is it the complete essay or merely portions of it? I say this because there seem to be a few asterisks that may separate portions of the original essay. In any case, a brief word concerning this author: Gavin de Beer (1899-1972) was a British evolutionary embryologist whose worked centered on paleornithology and general evolutionary theory. Largely responsible for elucidating the concept of mosaic evolution, de Beer was also the director of British Museum of Natural History.

With that brief introduction, here are my thoughts. This essay was pretty short, so my assessment of it (probably) be as well. Also, it has no definite sections, so my thoughts will follow my own outline on this occasion.

I. The Subject of the “Mutability of the Species” Taken Up by Philosophers Before Darwin.

A. By looking at various examples (imaginable gradations that could be arranged in series) in the natural order, many thinkers (including Montesquieu, Maupertius, and Diderot) concluded by deduction that species must have been mutable.

B. Darwin’s father, Erasmus, believed in the mutability of species because of the changes undergone by animals during embryonic development.

II. Lamarck’s Contribution to the Development of Evolutionary Theory

A. Lamarck recognized the unlimited amount of time required to account for the history of the earth, deduce the organic origin of sedimentary rocks, and pointed out the importance of fossils for the estimation of past changes to climate, valuable services to science, largely ignored even today.

B. Lamarck was the first to suggest “transformism” or “evolution.”

C. He accounted for evolution by means of the action of two factors:

1. A supposed tendency to perfection and to increased complexity, which Lamarck held responsible for the existence of the scale beings from the simplest organism at the bottom to man at the top.

2. He supposed that as a result of new needs experienced by the animal in its environment, its “inner feeling,” comparable to Erasmus Darwin’s “internal impulse” or “living force,” set in motion bodily movements and instituted habits that produced new organs satisfying those needs, in other words, adapting the animal to its environment.

3. Lamarck’s conclusion: animals’ evolution was conditioned by the direct effects of the environment. He was therefore unable to provide a unitary theory of evolution. These views led contemporary scientists to reject them, and the theory of transmutation along with them.

D. Cuvier

1. Cuvier accepted “progressionism,” over “transmutation.” He rejected transmutation for two reasons:

a. The absence of any known intermediate forms

b. The fact that organisms found in the oldest tombs of Egypt were identical with those still living and had therefore undergone no transmutation during the intervening period of time.

2. In substituting four plans of structure for the scale of single beings, Couvier introduced the concept of “divergence.”

3. He also introduced the “correlation of parts”

4. Cuvier viewed adaptation as evidence of purpose or of final causes: organisms had been created with their organs as they are in order that they might exploit their several ways of life and enjoy their environments. Teleology had been introduced into the details of anatomy and physiology.

E. Lyell

1. Lyell rejected Lamarck and Cuvier, preferring “uniformitarianism” over “progressionism” and “catastrophism.”

2. Lyell’s Conclusion: He accepted the fact that species could become extinct, as a result of failure in the struggle for existence, and he knew that extinct species had been replaced over other species, but as to how this occurred and by what process fresh species originated, he had nothing to offer.

F. Two books having profound, but unexpected, effects on the future of natural history:

1. Essay on Population by Thomas Robert Malthus: population, when left unchecked, increases in a geometric ratio while subsistence increases only in arithmetical ratio.

2. Natural Theology by William Paley: the argument for design, ending with Paley’s conclusion, “The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God.” Paley had difficulty addressing the problem of suffering. Paley’s work was what had to be overcome in order for evolution to take hold.

Summary and Conclusion: This essay sets a a good, basic framework that helps me to understand the context into which Darwin was born and worked. Particularly interesting are the conclusions of Malthus, and the potentially horrifying implications (eugenics?) that may be associated therein. It bears noting that it was Malthus’ essay that inspired Darwin’s theory. This fact may support the often criticized correlation between Darwin’s “pure intent” and the applied “Social Darwinism” that Appleman so paranoidly defends Darwin against in the anthology’s opening essay (see previous post on that essay). Paley’s work and conclusions are also quite interesting. His logic makes sense to me, but I found it interesting that de Beer offered no reasons as to why Paley’s argument was weak – outside of the fact that Paley had trouble dealing with the so-called “problem of suffering,” which of course had nothing to do with dealing with Paley’s argument itself. However, I am hoping that subsequent essays will reveal the scientific or philosophical weaknesses in Paley’s methods and conclusions. I am interested in understanding the evolutionists’ response to him.

Blessings,

Jason

*** Reflections and Response to Ernst Mayr's "Who is Darwin?"

Introduction: With regard to the author of this essay, hardly a more qualified writer could be found to write on the life, works and influence of Charles Darwin. Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) was one of the leading evolutionary biologists of his day. Mayr proposed Darwin’s problem of how multiple species could evolve from a single ancestor, taught at Harvard, and produced numerous publications in the fields of biology, taxonomy and genetics.

With that brief introduction, here are my (somewhat random and surface-level) thoughts concerning his essay, which is broken up into four sections.

I. Section #1: Introduction

A. Mayr places Darwinism at the top of a list of ideas that influenced certain periods in world history: Greek philosophy, Christianity, Renaissance thought, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Darwinian revolution.

B. Arrogant statement on Mayr’s behalf: “The worldview formed by any thinking person in the Western world after 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, was by necessity quite different from a worldview formed prior to 1859.”

C. Mayr: “Darwin refuted the belief in the individual creation of each species, establishing in its place the concept that all life descended from a common ancestor.” What, in Mayr’s estimation, qualifies as “refutation? Later, Mayr says that Darwin “demonstrated that evolution brings about change and adaptation.” How did Darwin “demonstrate” this?

D. Mayr: Darwin upset current notions of a perfectly designed, natural world and substituted in their place the concept of a struggle for natural survival.

E. The shift Darwin brought about in philosophy

1. Before Darwin: philosophy of science dominated by a methodology based on mathematical principles, physical laws, and determinism.

2. Darwin: introduced the concepts of probability, chance, and uniqueness into scientific discourse. His work embodied the principle that observation and the making of hypotheses are as important to the advancement of knowledge as experimentation.

F. Even outside of his Theory of Evolution, Darwin was a remarkable scientist who made significant contributions in more than one area of science.

II. Section #2: The Man and His Work

A. Darwin was English; his father was interested in evolutionary principles

B. Darwin was bored by the classics in school. He preferred studying nature. He originally was sent to medical school, but medicine appalled him. He eventually got a B.A. from Cambridge.

C. Darwin’s success as a naturalist and scientist was tied to his persistence to experiment and pursue the answers he sought.

D. Two important sets of material Darwin read on the Beagle

1. Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1832)

2. Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s arguments for (and Lyell’s arguments against) evolutionary thinking

E. Darwin’s first clue to a common ancestor was his observation of evidence in the Galapagos Islands

F. Process of geographic speciation: how Darwin understood that a new species can develop when a population becomes geographically isolated from its parental species.

G. Darwin began by believing in the gradual origin of species through geographic speciation, but he figured out the mechanism of evolution, the “principle of natural selection,” as he read Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population.

III. Section #3: On the Origin of Species

A. Darwin’s years of work in taxonomy, morphology, and ontogenetic research provided invaluable research experiences that helped him prepare for the writing of Origin.

B. Wallace and Darwin arrived at essentially the same theory of evolution by common descent through means of natural selection. After publishing the original findings with Wallace, Darwin abandoned his “big species book” in order that he could publish what he called an “abstract,” which was called On the Origin of Species (1859).

C. Mayr: “Every modern discussion of man’s future, the population explosion, the struggle for existence, the purpose of man and the universe, and man’s place in nature rests on Darwin.” If true, this statement is quite a credit.

D. Mayr includes a brief summary of Darwin’s works with a short phrase or sentence of explanation for each.

E. Darwin was a humble man who did not want to hurt others’ feelings. He was remarkably persistent in his work .

F. In Darwin’s lifetime, he was attacked harshly by a Harvard zoologist. Such negative receptions continued until his death in 1882. (Cf. Appleman’s implication that the world was turned upside down by Darwin’s work during his own lifetime.)

IV. Section #4: Darwin’s Scientific Method

A. Darwin asserted that he followed “true Baconian method,” that is, straight induction.

B. For Darwin, observation was a means to an ends. He says: “How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!”

C. Darwin’s inductive method was rigorous, and he was deemed a great man simply because his genius was seen not in one field, but in his ability to be a bridge-builder between fields.

Summary and Conclusion: Another good essay by a capable authority on the subject. It contains the usually tone supporting the idea that evolutionary theory is an “established fact.” I am quite anxious to get into the scientific essays in order that I may see, firsthand, some of the evidence supporting this theory. I only hope, with my weak background in the natural sciences, that I will be able to comprehend such material when I arrive there.

Blessings,

Jason

*** Reflections and Response to Philip Appleman's "Darwin: On Changing the Mind"

Introduction: Before beginning my reflections on this essay, I would like to say a brief word about the author. I always believe a student should know at least something about an author before he begins reading that author’s work. Why? Simply because being privy to such information can aid the reader in putting the work in perspective. In addition, the author may have a battery of credentials that lend some significant weight of credibility to the work in question. With this in mind, here are a few brief facts about Philip Appleman. Thank you in advance for overlooking any typos or formatting errors caused by this incredibly non-versatile blogging software :)

1. Appleman is an English Professor (Emeritus) at Indiana University, Bloomington.

2. While Appleman is considered an authority on Darwinian literature, he is usually regarded for his poetry. I could find no information concerning any training Appleman has in biology or philosophy.

3. Appleman’s works are widely published, the most notable of which being poetry inspired by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

To be honest, I wish there were a bit more information on Appleman available on the internet. Perhaps there is, but if so, I was unable to find it. Interestingly enough, Appleman lists his home phone number on his faculty web page at IU. Should I call him for a phone interview? J

With that brief introduction, here are my (somewhat random and surface-level) thoughts concerning his essay, which he breaks up into eight untitled sections.

I. Section #1: Could be titled, “A Brief History of Darwin’s Life and Work”

A. Darwin originally went to Cambridge to study for the ministry. This was based on his father’s advice and not on any inward sense of calling on Darwin’s part.

B. When Darwin boarded the Beagle, he had just completed a B.A. His coursework included the classics, mathematics, and philosophy. Although his hobbies revolved around collecting and studying beetles, it seems that he had no formal/advanced training in biology other than that core coursework which would have been included in his three years of baccalaureate coursework.

C. Darwin say Christianity as a “brutal” religion that threatened to condemn his freethinking father, brother, and best friends to everlasting punishment.

II. Section #2: Could be titled, “Event Leading to Darwin’s First Publication of The Origin of Species in 1859”

A. Lamarck tried to challenge the convention of “fixed species” with the notion of “transmutation of species” just before Darwin with an unconvincing evolutionary hypothesis, and was systematically attacked and ridiculed by the entire scientific establishment.

B. Darwin was always a tenacious empiricist – a tireless gatherer of facts which would ultimately be used to support his theory.

C. The Original publication of Origin was a condensed version of Darwin’s work – an “abstract” according to Darwin.

III. Section #3: Could be titled, “The Initial Response to Origin”

A. During the time of Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley wrote that “we are in the midst of a gigantic movement, greater than that which preceded and produced the Reformation.” He was referring to the persuasiveness of the scientific method, so clearly burgeoning at the time.

B. Appleman says that “no reconciliation was possible” between Darwin’s ideas and the literal words of Genesis.

C. Paley’s Natural Theology vs. Darwin’s Origin of Species

1. Paley (1802): Universe carefully designed by a provident Creator

2. Darwin: Natural selection functions not by design, but by incessant opportunism. Such a process is time-consuming, and 6,000 years were a mere instant on an evolutionary time scale.

D. By the end of the 19^th Century, hardly any field of thought remained unchanged by Darwin’s exciting new concept.

IV. Section #4: Could be titled, “The Influence of Origin on Various Disciplines of Study”

A. Science has a special “way of knowing” that was stimulated in the 17^th century by a new focus on inductive reasoning.

B. Evolution has been called a “gigantic complex jigsaw puzzle” that utilizes pieces in the form of contributions from scores of scientific disciplines.

1. Question: If evolution is such a complex puzzle, is it intelligible? Can it be simply stated and defended?

2. Question: Is there a “definitive compendium” of basic evolutionary thought? A propositional evolutionary “canon” as it were? What is the authority for evolution in 2008?

C. Examples of contributions from some of these disciplines are listed

1. Question: Why is no example given of the “countless new facts about human genealogy” that Paleontologists are revealing? How are these findings linked, logically, with the greater Theory of Evolution? No answer is given to these questions by Appleman – and understandably so – the purpose of his essay is not to do so. However, why is no citation given to aid the student in understanding the basis upon which he makes such statements? How is it academically credible to assert something like this without even offering so much as a simple reference? If Appleman were to turn this into a professor, he would most likely be docked for failing to support his statements – unless, of course, that professor shared his presuppositions.

2. Question: Appleman refers to the “sequencing of the human genome” and quotes geneticist Jon Seger as pointing out that the genome was “evolution laid out for all to see.” He also refers to Nobel laureate David Baltimore’s assertion that “the genome shows that we are all descended from the same humble beginnings and that the connections are written into our genes.” Have there not been other scientists who thought that the same event demonstrated a Designer? I would be interested to know how the reasoning methods of these two opposing points of view differ. Are both logical? Which proceeds based on validated assumptions, and which proceed based on conventional ones?

3. Question: With regard to the argument pointing to the fact that humans share 98% of their genetic identity with chimps, the question must be asked, “how much difference in substance is enough to justify a difference in essence or classification?” If I compare a house and a boat, I might conclude that their materials are 98% the same. They both have metal, wood, and water, so 98% of their make-up is the same. Does that mean that they are the same thing? Does that mean they descended from a common essence? This argument for evolution presupposes a metaphysical truth that I have yet to be substantiated by any evolutionist. This is not to say that such a justification does not exist – only that I have not seen one. It seems that proponents of evolution, when utilizing this argument, simply assume such a metaphysical justification because it conveniently supports their theory. No one in the evolutionary community objects to this because they share the belief. If someone outside the community objects, as I am presently doing, they are written off as “unscientific,” as irrational as their reasoning may be.

4. Question: Appleman asserts that his examples demonstrate that “natural selection remains fundamental to all fields of biological research; and biologists universally acknowledge and respect Darwin as the architect of modern biology.” I am not a biologist, so any disagreement I might offer with regard to these statements would carry little weight. However, I find it interesting that Appleman, throughout his short essay, repeatedly uses global and absolutist words and phrases such as “universally acknowledged” when referring to the Theory of Evolution. Do proponents of evolution believe they have absolute knowledge of the truth of this theory? Are they open to the possibility that they are wrong? If the former, I am hoping to see the overwhelming evidence that would lead one to conclude that we have such absolute knowledge of this theory’s truthfulness. If the latter, then perhaps the rhetoric should be toned down a bit and left a bit more open to discussion.

V. Section #5: Could be titled, “The Difference Between Darwinist and Darwinistic”

A. Morse Peckham draws the following distinction:

1. Darwinism: a scientific theory about the origin of biological species from pre-existent species

2. Darwinisiticism: can be an evolutionary metaphysic about the nature and reality of the universe…an economic theory, or a moral theory, or an aesthetic theory, or a psychological theory

B. Appleman defends Darwin’s sexism as his simply being a “product of his time.”

C. Social Darwinism: the spurious (according to Appleman) claim that Darwinian competition in nature constitutes a proper model for “survival of the fittest” in human society – in which everyone competes to survive, but only the wealthy have proven themselves “fit.”

D. Appleman quotes the celebrated Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer as predicting that evolution seemed to make progress inevitable. Spencer say that evolution would end in “the establishment of the greatest perfection and most complete happiness.”

1. Question: If this view of the end result of evolution is true, then how are we to reconcile it with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

2. Possible Response: The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that all material systems in the universe will, if left to their own devices, tend to disorder. This notion, does not seem to conform to the key tenets of the above outlines Darwinian theory, which postulates a marked increase in not only the order of biological life, but in the social order as well.

E. Appleman spends much of this section outlining how the scientific community has shifted away from the evolutionary theme of “competition.”

F. Current scientific debate:

1. The extent of genetic influences on both altruistic and selfish behavior

2. The role that gender played in the development of various human cultures

3. The extension of biological principles, not only into the study of modern psychology and medicine but also into the social sciences, and potentially even into the humanities.

VI. Section #6: Could be titled, “Implications of Darwinism as ‘Scientific Revolution’”

A. Appleman suggests that evolution passed rapidly (by 1872) through all three stages that all great scientific discoveries must pass though: First, “it’s absurd;” second, “it’s contrary to the Bible,” and third, “oh, we’ve known that all along.” In the last edition of Origin published during Darwin’s lifetime, Darwin says that “almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.” This seems a bit difficult to swallow considering the slow movement of information in the 19^th century along with the fact that there are still “naturalists” of outstanding credibility that do not “admit the great principle of evolution.” An example would be the 100 scientists (all from reputable universities) that signed their names to a manifesto of skepticism concerning a similar statement make by the PBS series on evolution. This manifesto was published in a major America newspaper.

B. Darwinism was a total worldview shift – not just a shift in biological thinking or method.

C. Appleman charges that the only hearing non-evolutionists have been able to get is with themselves.

D. According to Appleman, the greatest danger the theory posed to the established religion was that “Darwin’s universe operated not by design but by natural selection, a self-regulating mechanism.” In other words, Paley’s watchmaker was now “unemployed.” In addition, he says Darwinism was “uncompromisingly nonteleological and nonvitalist, and that fact was anathema to theologians.”

E. Curiously, Appleman refers to the science of evolution as “fact” while relegating dissenters to the “domain of speculation.”

F. Theologians had always seen man as God’s special creation, just a little lower than the angels, but Darwin challenged this.

G. Appleman intiates a flagrant attack on Creationists in the latter part of this essay. According to him:

1. The term “Scientific Creationism” is oxymoronic.

2. The litmus test of whether one is a “genuine biologist” is his belief in evolution.

3. Creationism is not only “un”scientific, but also “anti”scientific.

4. Creationists are to be included in the same category of other “assorted charlatans” such as fortune tellers, channelers, and UFO visionaries.

5. He associates bigotry with the disbelief in evolution.

H. Appleman refers again, three more times (four total in this section alone), to evolution as “fact” and “natural law.”

1. Question: Is not science supposed to be continually open to criticism?

2. Question: If evolution is fact and those who disbelieve are charlatans, even though many of these dissenters are department heads at major universities with commendable advanced degrees from ivy league schools, then would that make evolution more of a dogma or a religion than a science?

I. In this section, Appleman includes his “personal testimony” of how he was liberated from the myths of Genesis by the Theory of Evolution. The second to the last paragraph of this section sounds like some sort of a subjective, religious conversion experience. Quite interesting, actually.

J. Appleman believes children are being denied a “sound education in biology” as a result of creationist political pressures.

VII. Section #7: Could be titled, “Darwinism’s Influence on Literature”

A. Some assert that Darwinian theory eroded human values and therefore destroyed high tragedy. Appleman counters by claiming that the death of tragedy occurred in the century before Darwin.

B. Appleman refers to Design as “hypothetical” while continuing to refer to evolution as “reality” and “fact.”

C. While Appleman states that “many” ethical thinkers have rejected the notion that Darwinism undermines human values, he again fails to provide a citation or even a basic reference. Also, is it not interesting that he uses the descriptor “many” rather than “most” or “all.”

D. The above “ethicists,” which Appleman seems to endorse, believe that, based on the theory, we should “accept out finiteness” and “rely on our personal resources, and to determine for ourselves our own best values.” This is problematic because:

1. Such an assertion is completely man-centered. Contrary to the apocryphal saying, “God helps those who help themselves,” the Bible actually teaches that God helps those who realize they can’t help themselves – and this includes all of humanity. Relying on ourselves is dangerous to say the least.

2. Determining our own values? This is too relativistic. Who gets to determine those values? And on what knowable ultimate reality are they to be based? And what happens when one group fundamentally disagrees with the other groups values? Is violent conflict then justified?

E. Appleman again attacks those who believe in a Designer as “superstitious,” while awarding evolutionists the badge of “scientific fact.”

VIII. Section #8: Could be titled, “Darwinism’s Relation to Ethical Thought”

A. Appleman errs in suggesting that the “Golden Rule” is concept that is not the unique property of any one culture or religion. However, it seems we must give credit where credit is due. It is often mistakenly asserted by those with a minimal knowledge of the history of religious thought that the “Golden Rule” was principle shared by many religions – not just Christianity. However, this reflects a deficient understanding of the principle, which was originally given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Here’s a quick summary:

1. Confucius: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” In other words, refrain from doing bad.

2. Ancient Stoics: "What you do not want to be done to you, do not do to anyone else.” Again, the principle is to “refrain from doing evil to others.”

3. Greek Philosopher Epictetus: “What you avoid suffering yourself, do not afflict on others.” Again, refrain from doing evil.

4. Jewish Rabbi Hillel: “What is hateful to yourself do not to others.” Same principle – do not do evil to others.

5. Tobit: “What thou thyself hatest, to no man do.” Same principle – do not do evil to others.

6. Jesus Christ: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Do you see how this is remarkably different than the above quotations? The first five quotations ascribe virtue to the one who doesn’t do something evil to someone. Jesus on the other hand, makes it more difficult, more virtuous, and hence shows how His “Golden Rule” is distinctive. He ascribes virtue not to the one who simply refrains from doing something bad. Rather, virtue is ascribed to the person who proactively does good to others. In other words, for Jesus, virtue is not so much about what you don’t do as it is what you do do.

B. Appleman implies that evolution teaches us that we are “one people, one species, one world.” He contrasts this with “folklore and superstition,” which of course means the Bible. This is interesting because the Bible has always taught all three facets he mentions above.

C. Appleman devotes some of this essay to the idea that “scientists are now in the vanguard of ethical thought.”

D. Appleman offers another absolutist statement regarding the theory: Evolution is “the true story” of not only our physical, but also our emotional history.

E. In the second to the last paragraph, Appleman refers to “our place in the universe.” I think I understand what he means here, but I must admit that it is hard for me to imagine ascribing a “place” to “us” without the phenomenon of intentionality; i.e. the notion of a Designer.

Summary and Conclusion: All in all, I found this to be a very interesting, well-constructed and informative essay. Appleman has an obvious slant to the Theory of Evolution, but seems to provide no actual evidence for it. In truth, I do not think this was his purpose in writing the essay. Rather, his purpose was to sketch a brief portrait of the intellectual history and impact of Darwin. He does a good job at this, although I could personally do without his arrogant and pejorative anti-Creationist remarks. If you must compare Creationists with charlatans, channelers, and fortune tellers, you’d better be able to defend your remarks. However, because Appleman seems to engage in the same practice he accuses Creationists of, namely presenting his work only to a certain breed of scholars who will not ask him for adequate reasons for his inflammatory remarks since they share his assumptions, no such defense is offered. My experience has been that such rhetoric is typical of “academic” Darwinists. They seem to assume something for which they are never able to produce the overwhelming evidence upon which they claim their assumptions are based. Now don’t get me wrong. As I’ve said earlier, I’m open to being enlightened with such evidence. And it may be that the genre of this present essay of Appleman’s does not allow for such technical support. I understand that. This is why I continue to study. It may be that one of the forthcoming works that we study will provide such evidence. It is in that hope that we proceed to the anthology’s next essay, “Who is Darwin?” I will post my reflections on that essay soon.

Blessings,
Jason

Diving into Darwin

For some odd reason or another, it seems that many people outside the Christian faith often view those on the inside as closed-minded anti-intellectuals. I cannot be sure as to the exact cause of such a phenomenon, nor do I wish to speculate concerning the motives of those who hold such an opinion. I merely mention this because I believe it provides an appropriate backdrop against which to set my present academic endeavor which will find its commencement in the subject of the short reflections that follow.

In the Fall of 2007, I was privileged to meet a fellow student of philosophy during the course of one of the classes I was taking for personal enrichment at the University. And while he is not a church-goer like myself, he and I shared a common interest in philosophy. We began studying together for our classes in metaphysics and ethics, and eventually the subject of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution surfaced. Roger (Click here to view his blog) was taking a class on in the philosophy of science that semester and was eager to talk with me, a person who was suspect of the theory. During the course of many hours of conversation, conversation which was quite respectful and very profitable to us both, Roger asked me the following question: “Jason, are you open to the idea that what Darwin’s theory is correct? In other words, would you accept it if you found it to be true?” I answered immediately, “yes.”

Now, Roger knew that I had serious objections to the theory, but I think he found it a bit surprising that I would be willing to reconsider the issue. And why would I be willing to reconsider the issue? Why not simply write the theory off as some kind of anti-God abomination that should not even be given a hearing? Surely, this is a question that some of my Christian friends may ask me. I think it is a fair question, so allow me to answer briefly. I am willing to consider Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for the following reasons:

1. The impact of the theory on every discipline under the sun in, at present in 2008, undeniable. Whether one works in the field of biology, geology, philosophy, law, physics, or even theology, evolution has had a significant impact on these disciplines. Because I believe my responsibility as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes the mandate to understand, engage, and love the culture in which I live, it makes little sense to me as to why I should ignore such a significant development in Western civilization’s intellectual history. If my goal is to love the world, the same world God loves and sent His Son to die for, I believe it is my responsibility to understand the world as best I can first. After all, I see no qualitative difference or value or worth between myself and others outside the Christian faith. Why should I retreat from the world in which I live as if I am somehow better than those in it when I know, in truth, I am not. Therefore, I believe the study of Darwin’s theory will be profitable to me because it has had such a profound impact on the intellectual and practical lives of so many people.

2. Whether or not I end up in agreement with the Theory of Evolution, I believe that there are many people, Christian and non, who have done significant and rigorous work in this area. Such work should be commended rather than ignored. I am of the firm belief that I can disagree with my neighbor regarding his conclusion while still respecting his struggle to reach such conclusions. In a day when both evolutionists and non-evolutionists seem to continually trade blows, I believe it important that we set an example of charitable academic conversation. Now, by no means do I mean to endorse some type of pedestrian relativism in my saying this. Rather, I simply strive to respect all those who work hard in their attempts to attain knowledge. The Bible teaches that all people are created in the image of God, and regardless of whether they ever realize or accept that truth, I believe that I should afford them the respect that I am convicted they should be given.

3. The Bible teaches that God is a rational God who gave men and women minds with which to think, struggle, and be creative. If this is true, then it only follows that His people should have nothing to fear in the utilization of such faculties. Truth is such that it can stand on its own, regardless of whether or not I do a decent job at defending it, and regardless of whether or not another does a decent job of attacking it. In the end, it would seem to me that I would have more to fear from not pursuing knowledge than I would from pursuing it. If, in the end, I find that the Theory of Evolution is epistemologically strong, then what have I lost? Only my ignorance, of course – and maybe a few friends. But if I conclude that the theory is in fact a weak one, then I have still gained the knowledge of where other people are at in their understanding of the world and its origins. Either way, I win! I have learned something and have therefore honored God by my being a good steward over the mental faculties with which He has so graciously blessed me.

4. I like philosophers and I like having discussion with them. Contrary to what some believe or have experienced, I have found those who love philosophy to be kindred spirits. The friends I have made at the University, most of whom do not share my faith, are people with bright minds and an honest and praiseworthy desire to know. I cannot begin to tell you how much I admire and long to be in collegial relationships with such people. Whenever I hear someone refer to philosophers as generally mean-spirited people who are always trying to demean others, I wonder of whom it is they speak? I have found my friends to be as interested in truth and knowledge as I am, and I have never participated in a conversation with any of them that I did not, in retrospect, find in some way beneficial. During this study, I will be meeting weekly to discuss Darwin and Darwinism with my good friend Roger and three other philosophers whom I will meet tomorrow.

5. I am a nerd and like to learn. Those who know me best know this. Most guys hang out at the gym working out or playing basketball in some league for fun. I, on the other hand, have somehow found contentment in my scrawniness and find it far more fulfilling to spend my free time in pursuit of those things which I do not understand, or in pursuit of those things of which I seek a more sufficient understanding.

Well there you have it. That is why I have made the decision to embark on a study of Darwinian Evolution. I think it is profitable for many reasons, the most substantial of which are listed above.

Now, it may be that you have a similar interest in learning about this subject. If you are interested in following along and adding your comments to the mix via this blog, you’ll need to order the following textbook. Now, this is not your typical “Pop-Evolution” material. It is fairly academic and comprehensive, and it is written from a pro-evolution standpoint. If that makes you nervous, then good. You should participate in the study. Remember, you have nothing to fear from what is, only from that which you think is but is actually not. Here’s the book information:

Philip Appleman, ed. Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, 3^rd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001). ISBN: 0-393-95849-3

If you decide to follow along, I’ll be posting thoughts regularly concerning my study. The Darwin text above is a collection of texts, essays, and commentaries, all of which are of the utmost relevance to the subject. Therefore, each of my posts will most likely deal with these individual portions. Happy reading, and I’ll be posting some comments soon on the first essay, “Darwin: On Changing the Mind,” by the text’s editor, Philip Appleman.

Blessings,
Jason

A Christian Employee of Planned Parenthood?

Ok, here's the situation. You are a church leader. Pastor, elder, toilet scrubber, whatever. Anyway, a church member you've known for quite some time, her name is Pam, excitedly engages you in a conversation about a new job she's just landed...with Planned Parenthood! Your spiritual adrenaline begins to flow as every red flag you can perceive begins to wave violently. Just when you are about to frown and consider calling into question your friend's decision to take this job, she offers the following set of reasons for why she's taken it. Here they are:

1. Pam believes abortion is wrong and thinks that it is no less than a barbaric act that is reprehensible in the sight of God.

2. Pam believes that Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S.

3. Pam believes that as a women's counselor with Planned Parenthood, she will have an opportunity to counsel young women with unwanted pregnancies to choose life rather than abortion. This line of advice, as she understands it, is a perfectly acceptable option which she may present to women who come to the center for counseling with Pam.

4. The drawback is that Pam must, per her job description, walk step-by-step through the process of abortion with those who ultimately reject Pam's encouragement to choose life.

5. At the end of the day, Pam reasons that at the end of a ten year career with Planned Parenthood, she will have had the opportunity to save a significant number of human lives. And even though she will have to have participated in the process of several abortions as well, there are two other considerations to this: First, even if Pam had not been an employee of Planned Parenthood, these abortions still would have taken place. Pam feels she would have done her job by presenting the pro-life alternative to these women, and in so doing, she has done God's will by simply "bringing His message." Secondly, Pam reasons that she will be able to minister to and share Christ with the women who have the abortions when they begin to have the regrets that most women do at some point following this procedure.

Now, here's the question. As a church leader, how do you respond to Pam? Many of you who have read my other blog are pastors and church leaders. Others are not. Whatever your position, your answer to this may stir up controversy among those with whom you associate (but could such controversy be a healthy phenomenon in the life of a thinking community?). So if you feel you must post without leaving your name, I understand - but please post a comment nonetheless.

The Question: Do you affirm Pam's decision, or do you criticize it? Why?

Look forward to your answer - if you are brave enough to post it :0)
J