Along with the repeated headlines that our youth are leaving the church in droves I do sometimes hear that many scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution. I recently started reading The Language of Science and Faith by Karl W. Giberson and Frances S. Collins and was quite surprised to read the following:
“The percentage of scientists who reject evolution is very small–so small that in most large gatherings of scientists you would not find one person who rejects the theory of evolution. And almost all Christian biologists accept evolution as well.”
“Critics of evolution challenge these claims. You may have heard that ‘many scientists are abandoning evolution’ or that ‘a large number of scientists have publicly repudiated evolution.’ The Worldview Weekend organization, for example, states confidently that evolution is receiving ‘fatal’ blows and will soon die. ‘Like a cat whose nine lives are running out, evolution is, bit by bit, discovery by discovery, coming to a point of total demise.’ We find this claim quite remarkable, as we are unaware of a single discovery any time in the last decade that, even with great exaggeration, could be described as ‘fatal.’”
“The author goes on to make the even more extraordinary claim: ‘Few premier scientists any longer believe in Darwin’s evolution,’ and that eventually only the ‘terminally stubborn will accept evolution.’ We wonder about the basis for this statement. Just as we are unaware of any ‘fatal blows’ that evolution has received, we are equally unfamiliar with any premier scientists who reject evolution. There are certainly a few scientists who reject evolution, just as there are scientists who reject relativity, big bang cosmology, quantum mechanics or that HIV causes AIDS and every other mainstream scientific idea. There are even a couple of ‘scientists’ who reject the sun-centered model of the solar system, insisting that the earth does not move. But these are never premier scientists.”
“Unfortunately, these claims abound within the anti-evolutionary literature and are repeated so often by so many different apparently credible people that it is easy to be misled. These claims are simply false. They are not mere ‘differences of opinion.’ They are aimed at laypeople unfamiliar with science and the scientific community, which is why they can take root and flourish. Scientists, for example, are constantly refining the details of evolution, but they are not abandoning it. If they were, this would be newsworthy and would circulate both informally in the scientific community and in the trade publications that report on developments in science. The scientists at the BioLogos Foundation are unaware of any biologists who have abandoned evolution in the past few years. Not one.”
They then bring up the “famous list called ‘Dissent from Darwin’ where more than five hundred ‘scientists’ have signed the following statement: ‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” (31-32)
Upon closer look they make the following observations:
1) “Many of the scientists listed are not trained in biology and so are not in a position to evaluate the central theory of that field.” (32)
2) “Many names on the list are of emeritus professors from various institutions. . . The presence of so many emeritus faculty on this list is another red flag, alerting us to the fact that these ‘dissenters’ are not active members of the scientific community.” Their education would have finished a half-century ago, “before the developments of the past few decades provided so much support for evolution.” (32)
3) Five hundred names may seem impressive but it is, in fact, “an insignificant fraction of the whole.” (33)
4) Strictly speaking “merely expressing skepticism about the inadequacy of these two features of evolution [random mutation and natural selection] to explain everything is hardly equivalent to repudiating the theory.” (33)
5) “Scientific truth is not decided by the number of names on a list, or who wins the debate or convinces the most people. It is based on evidence.” (33)
“For these and other reasons we suggest that the opposition to evolution has been greatly exaggerated. The evangelical literature is so filled with misrepresentations and outdated information about evolution that even a lot of research might not lead an honest seeker to the truth. We caution that Christians should take no comfort in the misplaced hope that the scientific community is gradually abandoning the theory of evolution. The case is quite the opposite.” (34)
Jeff Lewis
December 21, 2011 at 9:19 am
The craziness here is that both of these authors also, still, hold to evolution themselves. You can label it Theistic Evolution or whatever you want, but at the core they both are still evolutionists. But with that, they are very profound academics and intellectuals. I do enjoy they’re writings, and even look into them with critical thought.
But… that being said, people should also know that these scientists views are not at all unlike most all views that permeate in the scientific community. The only difference being is that the authors inject a little God here and a little faith here.
I have found that it seems these wuthors seem to hold more strickly to the scientific method as a whole, as compared to many other scientists who deviate from the method.
Just a Thought…