Wayne State University Religion and Science Conference notes

I attended the Wayne State University Religion and Science Conference a week
ago. As I typed up my notes last night I realized I had concentrated more on
listening than taking notes, and should have written them up sooner following
the conference. For what it's worth, here they are:

Notes from the Wayne State University Religion and Science Conference 21 April
2006

Co-Sponsors
The Academy of Scholars
Department of Biological Sciences
Department of English
Department of Philosophy

Schedule of speakers

9:15 Provost Nancy Barrett Opening Remarks
9:30 Professor Edward Davis (History of Science)
10:30 Professor Mark Baskaran (Geology)
11:10 Professor Herbert Granger (Philosophy)
11:50 Professor Richard Grusin (Chair, English)
Lunch Break
1:45 Professor Michael Ruse (Philosophy)
2:45 Professor Markus Friedrich (Biology)
3:25 Professor William Moore (Biology)
4:15 Professor Bruce Russell (Chair, Philosophy)- Respondent

Ted Davis began his talk by showing slides of religious cartoons from the 20’s.
Generally these cartoons denounced methodological naturalism and evolution.
Many expressed themes that have been used by modern antievolutionists.

He devoted some time to the Scopes trial, pointing out that what led Bryan to
oppose evolution was a book called “Headquarters nights,” written by Vernon
Kellogg. In it Kellogg relates his conversations with German officers during a
time when he was working in Germany prior to the United States’ entry into
World War I. The German officers were Darwinists and claimed that, “Darwinism
has shown that Germany’s conquest will be inevitable.” Reading this book
evidently cemented Bryan’s resolve to oppose evolution.

I believe one of Ted’s main points was that not much has changed in the attacks
of Christians on the sciences.

Professor Baskaran appears to be a Christian believer. He spoke about the
reliability of the various dating methods geologists use, emphasizing that
geologists are reluctant to be certain of a date that is not verified by
multiple means of dating.

Professor Granger spoke about Greek philosophy of the 6th and 5th centuries BC,
and pretty much lost me.

Professor Grusin spoke about the changes in communications and styles of
working and speculated how they have changed the creation/evolution debate. For
example pictorial representations have changed from drawings to photographs on
film/plates to digital photographs (and noted that digital photographs can be
manipulated). Another example of changes in communication is the emergence of
the blogosphere – which permits nearly anyone to be a publisher. Styles of
working have changed too. Kids tend to multitask more than their parents do.
All of these he claims are factors in the modern form of the creation/evolution
debate, which is as much about education as it is about science.

Michael Ruse spoke on “Darwin and the Bible: A very American story”

He noted that the creation/evolution debate is a debate between educated people
(as exemplified by Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Steven Gould and Richard
Dawkins), not between educated and uneducated.

Augustine taught that metaphorical or allegorical interpretation should be used
where literal interpretation is ruled out by science.

The enlightenment

During the 18th century enlightenment people came to consider the possibility
that Christianity could be wrong. Two responses developed: Faith or reason:
Faith demands continued reliance on the Bible. Reason can lead to atheism.

Benajmin Franklin was a deist but absolutely committed to science.

Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was a very good friend of
Benjamin Franklin.

Darwin began looking at God’s working things out via law as a proof of God’s
existence. He was inspired by Thomas Malthus’ writings on competition.

Darwinism was built on things Christians take for granted (e.g. adaptation)

John Henry Newman wrote, “I believe in design because I believe in God, not
vice versa.”

He raised the question: why didn’t America become an enlightenment country?
(which I take to mean why wasn’t America influenced by the enlightenment to the
extent Europe was?) He answered his question: Because America is a self-made
nation.

He asserted the creation/evolution debate is not about gaps in the fossil
record. It’s about morality.

He displayed a red/blue state map and asserted creationism resides primarily in
the states that made up the Confederacy: Republican country = antievolution
country as well as the south and the west. He claimed that significant support
for ID is found in the South and the West.

Professor Markus Friedrich (Biology)

Mentioned that ID advocates are active in Germany.

Raised the question: Why does evolution matter?
* It is a unifying umbrella for the biological sciences
* Essential for approaching real-life problems (e.g. pesticide resistance,
viral pandemics)
* A question of truth in the sense of scientific fact v. error/misconception

How did organismic complexity originate?
www.ns.msu.edu/genetics (apologized for mentioning MSU’s web site at Wayne
State)

The same genes (HOX) seem to control body plans in different species.
Like a game of chess, a limited set of figures gives rise to endless move
histories

Science explains how the way things work develops. It cannot explain why.

Science explains many aspects of the human condition:
* Intelligence
* Sex
* Language
* Variability of social behavior
* Mortality
Science cannot explain
* What is truth?
* Why is truth a desirable goal?

William Moore (Biology)

Scientists believe natural law operates the same everywhere at all times. That
is methodological naturalism.

Bacon developed the two books concept and stipulated that the book of nature
should be used to interpret the book of Scripture, not vice versa.

Newton viewed the solar system as God’s recent creation. Moore characterized
Newton as a “Partial uniformitarian”

Darwin and Wallace operated in the British Natural Theology tradition. But they
were uniformitarians and by applying natural law to biology derived evolution
by natural selection.

Hutton seems to be the first to recognize earth’s antiquity. He realized that
for the strata he observed to come about by natural law would require enormous
time.

Lyell influenced Darwin. Lyell was a vigorous champion of uniformitarianism.

Prior to Darwin scientists accepted uniformitarianism with respect to physical
phenomena, but not with respect to life.

Is uniformitarianism accepted by scientists as an article of faith? Yes, but
it’s more complicated. Without uniformitarianism we would be inclined to give
up early in the search for the causal factors that lead to the phenomena we
observe.

If natural law is uniform and eternal where did it come from?

Bruce Russell (Philosophy)
Asserted that uniformitarianism is simply inference to the best explanation.
Claimed there is no faith involved in science.

Perhaps Ted Davis can add to this.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Apr 28 08:28:11 2006