PERSPECTIVES on Science and Christian Faith

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION

In This Issue … Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

Order from Chaos

The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” Psalm 111:10

VOLUME 69, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 2017

(US ISSN 0892-2675) (CPM #40927506) Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Manuscript Guidelines © 2017 by the American Scientifi c Affi liation The pages of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) are open Editor-in-Chief to original, unpublished contributions that interact with science and Christian faith in a manner consistent with scientifi c and theological integrity. A brief J C. P (Roanoke College and description of standards for publication in PSCF can be found in the lead Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine) editorial of the December 2013 issue. This is available at www.asa3.org under 221 College Lane publications  PSCF  index. Published papers do not refl ect any offi cial Salem, VA 24153 position of the American Scientifi c Affi liation. [email protected] 1. Submit all manuscripts to: James C. Peterson, Editor, Roanoke College, 221 College Lane, Salem, VA 24153. E-mail: [email protected]. Book Reviews Submissions are typically acknowledged within 10 days of their receipt. P F (Providence 2. Authors must submit an electronic copy of the manuscript formatted Theological Seminary), Editor in Word as an email attachment. Typically 2–3 anonymous reviewers 10 College Crescent critique each manuscript considered for publication. Otterburne, MB R0A 1G0 [email protected] 3. Use endnotes for all references. Each note must have a unique number. Follow The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., sections 14.1 to 14.317). Subject Area Editors 4. While fi gures and diagrams may be embedded within the Word text fi le A L (Calvin College) of the manuscript, authors are required to also send them as individual 1726 Knollcrest Circle SE electronic fi les (JPEG or PDF format). Figure captions should be provided Grand Rapids, MI 49546 as a list at the end of the manuscript text. [email protected] ARTICLES are major treatments of a particular subject relating science to a S S T (Northwestern College) Christian position. Such papers should be at least 2,000 words but not more 101 7th St SW than 8,000 words in length, excluding endnotes. An abstract of 50–150 Orange City, IA 51041 words is required and should be in both the text of the email submission and [email protected] at the beginning of the attached essay. Publication for such papers normally takes 9–12 months from the time of acceptance. D C. S (Calvin College) 3201 Burton St SE COMMUNICATIONS are brief treatments of a wide range of subjects of Grand Rapids, MI 49546 interest to PSCF readers. Communications must not be longer than 2700 [email protected] words, excluding endnotes. Communications are normally published 6–9 months from the time of acceptance.

Editorial Board BOOK REVIEWS serve both to alert readers to new books that appear R B, Wheaton College signifi cant and to engage these books in critical interaction. When a subject D B, Gordon College area editor selects a book for review, the book is then off ered to a scholar S M. C, Westmont College with the best match in expertise. ASA/CSCA members who would like to be E B. D, Messiah College considered as potential reviewers are welcome to express interest to the book O G, Harvard-Smithsonian Center review coordinating editor for inclusion in the reviewer database. Publishers for Astrophysics may also contact the book review coordinating editor if they are not sure S G. H, North Carolina State University which subject area reviewer would best consider a particular book. R . I, American Scientifi c Affi liation D. G J, University of Otago • Patrick Franklin ([email protected]): book review editor; subject R K, Princeton University areas: ethics, philosophy, and theology. D A. L, Massachusetts • Arie Leegwater ([email protected]): cosmology, history of science, Institute of Technology mathematics, and physical sciences. T L III, Westmont College • Sara Sybesma Tolsma ([email protected]): biology, environment, K MF, The King’s University genetics, and origins. K B. M, Kansas State University • Derek Schuurman ([email protected]): computers, engineer- A G. P, Luther Seminary ing, and technology. R P, Massachusetts Institute of Technology The viewpoints expressed in the books reviewed, and in the reviews A S, Bethel University themselves, are those of the authors and reviewers respectively, and do not R S, Calvin College refl ect an offi cial position of the ASA. J A. T, Trinity Western University D L. W, Eastern University LETTERS to the Editor concerning PSCF content may be published unless marked not for publication. Letters submitted for publication must not be longer than 700 words and will be subject to editorial review. Letters are Managing Editor to be submitted as electronic copies. Letters accepted for publication will be L B (American Scientifi c Affi liation) published within 6 months. 218 Boston Street, Suite 208 Topsfi eld, MA 01983 ADVERTISING is accepted in PSCF, subject to editorial approval. Please [email protected] address inquiries for rates or further information to the Managing Editor. The ASA cannot take responsibility for any orders placed with advertisers in PSCF and does not imply endorsement by carrying the ad. Manuscript Editor E M AUTHORIZATION TO PHOTOCOPY MATERIAL for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the internal or personal use of specifi c clients, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is granted by ASA, ISSN: 0892-2675, provided that the appropriate fee is (USPS 28-3740, ISSN 0892-2675) is published paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, quarterly by American Scientifi c Affi liation, 218 Boston Danvers, MA 01923 USA for conventional use, or check CCC online at the Street Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983. Periodicals following address: www.copyright.com/. No registration with CCC is needed: postage paid at Topsfi eld, MA, and additional mailing simply identify the article being copied, the number of copies, and the journal offi ce. POSTMASTER: Send address changes title (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). For those who wish to to: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, request permission for other kinds of copying or reprinting, kindly write to 218 Boston Street Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983. the Managing Editor. Editorial

A View from a High City

James C. Peterson

am writing to you from the annual meeting of the the best of Christian theology and the sciences. The American Scientifi c Affi liation that founded this sciences, social sciences, humanities, and theology I journal. We are meeting this year at the Colorado interact at this juncture with lives at stake. School of Mines in Golden, just west of Denver. Den- ver has long been known as the Mile High City, and Judith Toronchuk gets us started working together has doubled down on that reputation with the legal- on this challenge with her invitation essay posted on ization of recreational marijuana. Golden has its own the web pages of both ASA and CSCA. Toronchuk provision for intoxication as the home of MillerCoors, (PhD, McGill University) teaches physiological the brewing company. I have not regarded this meet- psychology at Trinity Western University. Her ing locale as an opportunity to seek out legally spiked essay informs readers of the latest developments in brownies. My theory is that there could be no good addiction research, and raises key questions for our result from trying them. If I do not like their effect, understanding and response. Readers are encour- it would be a waste of time and money. The alter- aged to take up one of the insights or questions that native, that I might discover that I like them, would she raises, or maybe a related one that was not men- be the worst case scenario. While many new experi- tioned, and draft an article that contributes to the ences can be fascinating or a delight, would this one conversation. These can be sent to her at toronchu be worth the risk of being drawn to, or maybe even @twu.ca. Tornochuk will send the best essays on to psychologically or physically hooked on, a substance peer review, and then we will select from those for that is illegal where I live? publication in a theme issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF). And beyond legality, for many, these and other substances quickly become deeply addictive. How The lead editorial in the December 2013 issue of many lives have been sapped, crippled, or even lost PSCF outlines what the journal looks for in article over one addiction or another? One may hope to toy contributions. That piece, along with all other PSCF safely with substances that are not always addictive, content published more than nine months ago, is but how does the person experimenting know in available through an index at http://network.asa3 time, which ones will become deadly for him or her? .org/?page=PSCF. For best consideration for inclu- Circumstances and susceptibility dictate that the sion in the theme issue, manuscripts should be danger ranges from hard to impossible, to predict. received electronically before October 31, 2017.  And indeed addictions can become deadly. Deaths from addiction to prescription opioids, fentanyl, her- Looking forward to learning from your contributions, oin, crack, and alcohol fi ll the obituary columns even James C. Peterson, editor-in-chief when the cause of these deaths is not specifi cally noted. Legal nicotine has one of the most compulsive and deadly records of all. And behavioral addictions such as gambling and pornography stagger individ- ual lives and our society in their own way as well. Why do so many bright and able people harm them- selves and others, often against their best intentions?

Can we gain some insight here from both Romans 7 and neurology? We need “all hands on deck,” all the help we can get, including that available from

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 129 A Paid Advertisement

RECENT TITLES from EERDMANS EVOLUTION AND THE FALL William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith, editors Foreword by Michael Gulker “This book salted my thinking with new ideas and sailed into what, for me, were some uncharted waters. Such mind-stimulating and faith-affirming contributions should be welcomed for thorough sifting as we work together to address the issues that so desperately cry for our attention.” — John H. Walton ISBN 9780802873798 • 261 pages • paperback • $26.00 HUMAN ORIGINS AND THE IMAGE OF GOD Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen Christopher Lilley and Daniel J. Pedersen, editors Foreword by M. Craig Barnes How did human beings originate? What, if anything, makes us unique? These questions have long been central to philosophers, theologians, and scientists. This book continues that robust interdisciplinary conversation with contributions from an international team of scholars whose expertise ranges from biology and anthropology to philosophical theology and ethics. ISBN 9780802875143 • 336 pages • hardcover • $60.00 THEOLOGY AS INTERDISCIPLINARY INQUIRY Learning with and from the Natural and Human Sciences Robin W. Lovin and Joshua Mauldin, editors Foreword by William Storrar Leading scholars in ethics, theology, and social science sum up three years of study and conversation regarding the value of interdisciplinary theological inquiry. . . . An essential and challenging collection for all who set out to think, write, teach, and preach theologically in the contemporary world. ISBN 9780802873880 • 202 pages • paperback • $32.00

eerdmans.com 7028

130 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves Pablo de Felipe

Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scorched, if not slain. (Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin on the Origin of Species, 1860)1

One typical “knee jerk” answer to the question, “What is the relation between science and religion?” is, “There is a confl ict.” The roots of this widely held response go deep. Malcolm A. Jeeves It is easy to select historical examples to justify it and arrive at a narrative in which religion (and here we study, in particular, Christianity) is driven into permanent retreat by science. However, using a different set of historical examples, it can be argued that, at times, Christianity, under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend for science. The conclusion of a wealth of historical information is that a “confl ict-retreat” portrayal of science-religion relations tells only part of a story that, in fact, is much more complex.

cience has become a defi nitive part combat: science and religion are thus of contemporary culture. As this at war with each other, and that war has happened, awareness of the will continue until one of them is S 4 narrative of the history of science has eradicated. become a key element in explaining how However, he also reminds us that this we have arrived where we are today. In warfare metaphor “is not seen by his- understanding science and religion rela- torians of science as being particularly tions, historical examples provide crucial reliable or defensible”5 as “the rela- insights. tionship between science and religion has always been complex.”6 The com- In 1990, Ian Barbour proposed a four- plex nature of this relationship has way classifi cation of the relationship been defended and studied in detail for between science and religion: confl ict, decades.7 independence, dialogue, and integration.2 Although other classifi cations have been proposed, Alister McGrath, another lead- Pablo de Felipe is the fi rst lecturer in science and faith at Facultad SEUT, ing fi gure on science and religion, has a Protestant school of theology in Madrid, Spain, where he coordinates the Centro de Ciencia y Fe (Centre for Science & Faith). He earned a PhD argued that “despite its limitations, the in chemistry (molecular biology) in 2000 at the Universidad Autónoma de framework set up by Barbour remains Madrid (Spain) and later worked as a Research Fellow at the University of helpful.”3 St. Andrews, Scotland (2001–2008) before joining the Spanish Medicines Agency (2008–2016). He is a PhD student in classics at the University of Relevant here is his identifi cation of Reading, England. confl ict as the most pervasive way of rep- Malcolm Jeeves is Emeritus Professor in the School of Psychology and resenting the relation between science Neuroscience at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He was formerly and religion. McGrath makes it clear that President of Christians in Science (UK) and is Past President of the Royal the confl ict and warfare themes have con- Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s National Academy. His most recent books tinued to be important. He writes, are Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods (IVP, 2013) and The Emergence of Personhood: A Quantum Leap? (Editor and contributor, Eerdmans, … some scientists and religious 2015). believers see them as locked in mortal

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 131 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

In a recent paper, McGrath has observed that Certain key historical episodes have prompted this view. Our focus here is on Western Christianity, as to those in the know, this “science versus religion” historically this is the usual context for this confl ict narrative is stale, outdated and largely discredited. model, and the context in which we ourselves live It is sustained not by the weight of evidence, but and work. In some cases, Christians have enlarged the by endless uncritical repetition, which studiously dominion of “religion” to compete for the territory avoids the new scholarship which has undermined of science. To a certain extent, there was not only its credibility.8 an interest in controlling scientifi c ideas per se, but An example of how better awareness of the history also a question of authority related to the desire of of science can illuminate science-religion relations the Christian churches to buttress their authority in is the 1989 work of historian Colin A. Russell, who as many fi elds as possible. At other times, Christians criticized what he called “the widespread myth of unfortunately indulged in a god-of-the-gaps approach an endemic confl ict between science and religion,” between religion and science, in which scientifi c gaps whose origins he located in the late nineteenth cen- were improperly fi lled with references to God. In 9 tury. He claimed that this “confl ict metaphor,” as due time, these occupied territories were reclaimed he called it (which has also been named as “war- by science; hence, the inevitable retreat. Indeed, fare model,” “confl ict thesis,” “military metaphor,” theologians themselves have criticized the god- “confl ict model,” etc.), “is not an assertion in the of-the-gaps as a false god that is indeed in retreat. philosophy of science but rather in history of science, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote most perceptively in 1944: alleging what actually happened in the past and If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being continues to the present day.”10 In studying the foun- pushed further and further back (and that is bound dations of this confl ict model, Russell pointed out to be the case), then God is being pushed back with that “the evidence points strongly in the direction them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We of a myth conjured into being on the slender basis of are to fi nd God in what we know, not in what we a few causes célèbres […].”11 don’t know.13 More recently, another historian of science, John This “confl ict-retreat” model could be seen as a Henry, has pointed out how some causes célèbres (he refi nement of the general “confl ict model” for sci- mentioned the Copernican revolution, the Galileo ence and religion relations. Some presentations of affair and Darwinism) “are too often regarded as the confl ict model do not have a historical angle and demonstrating clearly and irrefutably that science are content with an epistemological argument for and religion just do not mix, and indeed are essen- incompatibility along the lines of the above point 1. It tially incompatible with one another.”12 is interesting to mention that to see science and faith as competing, it is necessary to consider them as sep- arate domains—something that was not so until two A Confl ict-Retreat Model for or three centuries ago. The history of their separation Science and Religion has been recently charted by Peter Harrison.14 In this In this article, we wish to illustrate how these causes regard, we have used, throughout this article, the célèbres are frequently used to foster one specifi c words “science” and “scientists” for historical peri- variety of the confl ict model that claims that science ods from the ancient world to our own time. This has and religion are locked in a perennial confl ict, and been done for the sake of simplicity, but Harrison’s that there is a progressive historical “retreat” of reli- observation should be taken into consideration, as gion in this confl ict. This view comprises three core an additional layer of complexity, in that the profes- beliefs: sionalization of science became a reality only in the 1. A confl ict between “science” and “religion” (in nineteenth century. general terms) is inevitable, as both compete for In other cases, we can see the history of science (and the same territory; religion) enlisted to portray, as Russell pointed out, 2. This is an age-old, perennial confl ict; and not just a metaphysical/ideological confl ict, but a 3. In this battle, “religion” is in an inevitable historical continuous combat (like a trench warfare), retreat, losing ground in the face of the victori- giving this purported confl ict a centenarian or even ous advance of “science.” millennial-deep perspective, as suggested in point 2,

132 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves that illustrates the inevitability of such a confl ict. Christians and frequently even scientists (as well as However, many proponents of the confl ict model go persons who combined both trainings) on both sides further and combine the idea of a historical confl ict of the argument, as in the case of Galileo: with the idea of scientifi c progress (point 3 above) The Galileo affair […] was not a matter of to add directionality and create a historical account Christianity waging war on science. All of the of a purported long struggle of science to free itself participants called themselves Christians, and from the shackles of a retreating religion! In the all acknowledged biblical authority. This was a recent words of Harrison, struggle between opposing theories of biblical The history of Western thought is understood interpretation: a conservative theory issuing from in terms of a protracted struggle between these the Council of Trent versus Galileo’s more liberal opposing forces, with religion gradually being alternative, both well precedented in the history of forced to yield more and more ground to an the church.19 advancing science that offers superior explanations. However, we would like to go further and argue Wherever possible, religion has resisted this ceding that by selecting those particular historical examples, 15 of territory, thus hindering the advance of science. an agenda is already set that is designed to reach The way this struggle is framed is by picking selected the conclusion that there is a confl ict, consisting of examples of science-Christianity confl icts (those so- a continuous retreat of the positions of Christians, called causes célèbres) that are historically aligned and who “got it wrong” on science. Using a different set in which Christianity is predictably subjected to an of historical examples, we suggest that this has not inevitably continuous retreat in the face of the tri- always been the case. As an example, we can recall umphant scientifi c fi re, thus making a case for this the founding father of the Big Bang theory, the priest enduring struggle between science and Christianity. and scientist Georges Lemaître, who, during a visit The enumeration of examples such as the debates to the US in 1933, affi rmed that he had “no confl ict to surrounding Galileo or Darwin, or others, marching reconcile”20 between his Christian faith and his scien- in historical chronological progression, is enough to tifi c work. In cases like this, no trench seems to be lost create by itself the impression that there is a connect- by Christians and no retreat found. Similarly, other ing thread among them all, a continuous pressure to examples are offered, not with the intention to show push Christianity out of the frame by progressive sci- that the opposite of the “confl ict-retreat” model is the entifi c achievements.16 Of course, this argument has a case, but rather, to indicate that the history of science moral: the long battle will continue until the annihi- and Christianity relations is more complex than what lation of the retreating religious enemy is complete, this model pretends to show. and until an idealized future with science free of religious interference is achieved. This can be consid- ered as reminiscent of Comte’s view of directionality Learning from the Past: in human history.17 Unnecessary Family Quarrels In the hands of a good narrator, the succession of In the abstract of a seminal 1987 paper, David C. clashes—almost always depicted with two con- Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers pointed to the testing sides, and always with the same side need to contest the traditional examples, the causes (Christianity) shown defending nonsense views that célèbres, of the confl ict model throughout history: were destroyed by science—promoted an irresist- Recent scholarship, however, has shown the ible moving narrative: in short, a victorious science “warfare” thesis to be a gross distortion—as this pushing a defeated religious enemy that would be paper attempts to reveal, employing illustrations smashed and would retreat time after time and even- from the patristic and medieval periods and from tually fade away and disappear. the Copernican and Darwinian debates.18 In support of the science versus Christianity narra- Apart from debunking many false pseudo-historical tive, four episodes are typically described: (1) in the details in the “confl ict” literature, the main straight- ancient/patristic times, the debate over the shape forward method of confronting such biased historical of the earth; (2) in the medieval times, the denial of reconstruction is to realize that these debates were the antipodeans; (3) in the modern era, the debate on hardly “science vs. religion.” As a host of historians the movement of the earth; and, fi nally, (4) in con- have shown, in each of these occasions, there were temporary times, the rejection of evolution. In all

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 133 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived these cases, we are told that Christianity fi nally had (fi fth–sixth centuries) recommended the work of to abandon its formerly held positions/trenches and the prominent Roman astronomer and geographer, retreat, recognizing the authority of science over the Ptolemy, to his monks and also mentioned a trans- disputed ground until a new confl ict broke out at the lation, now lost, by his contemporary Boethius. new science/Christianity border. Starting with Bede (seventh–eighth centuries), a con- sistent exposition and defense of the sphericity of the However, a strong case can be made that more care- earth was clear in Western Europe and made its way ful research of these oft-repeated historical episodes into university teaching.21 Nobody in the Middle shows a much more complex picture, one that resists Ages took notice of Lactantius’s rejection of the sphe- these simplistic and neat battleground realignments. ricity of the earth.

The Ancient/Patristic Age: The Medieval Age: Christian Flat-Earthers Augustine against the Antipodes The sphericity of the earth was already known by Much more complicated problems were posed by the Plato’s time in the early fourth century BC and possible existence of the antipodeans (i.e., humans became the standard view during the Hellenistic who lived on the opposite side of the earth). While and Roman periods, enshrined in the geographi- they were an impossible race of people for fl at- cal and astronomical work of Ptolemy in the second earthers, the acceptance of the sphericity of the earth century AD. Although popularizers still believe that did not necessarily imply by itself the existence of the cosmological view of ancient (and even medi- dry land on the other side of the earth, and even less eval) Christians was that of Cosmas Indicopleustes’s that it was populated by “antipodeans.” In fact, the fl at-earth/chest-shaped universe, we can fi nd in his idea of a symmetrical continent on the other side own time (sixth century) criticisms of his views from of the earth had no scientifi c or historical basis.22 Christians: the Alexandrian philosopher/scientist/ Therefore, there were plenty of non-Christian writers theologian Philoponus (sixth century), the Armenian who rejected it (such as Lucretius; see also refer- scientist/mathematician Anania Shirakatsi (fre- ences to this rejection in Pliny, Plutarch, and Lucian) quently known as Anania of Shirak, seventh century), or ignored it as in the case of geographers (e.g., the and the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (ninth second-century Alexandrian Ptolemy, who concen- century). Cosmas enlisted several quotations from trated his efforts in describing the known world: the earlier Christian writers to support his position, Euro-Asian-African landmass or “oikoumene”). mainly connected with the particular theology of the School of Antioch, which by Cosmas’s time had Although the earliest Christian mention of the antip- become the stronghold of Nestorianism. However, odes by Clement in the late fi rst century seems to it is interesting that although Cosmas had predeces- have accepted their existence, later when Augustine sors, he had hardly any disciples. Even though his famously denied the existence of antipodeans, he did texts survived in the Eastern Mediterranean and so, not in association with a fl at earth, as previously were copied in the medieval and modern times, it Lactantius and later Cosmas, but on the basis of the is important to note that they went unnoticed in the lack of historical evidence, the speculative nature of West until translated into Latin and printed in the the “symmetrical” argumentation for the antipodes/ eighteenth century. antipodeans, and, fi nally, on the theological threat of having humans that could not be descended from The only ancient Christian fl at-earth author that Adam or Noah. Nothing changed in the scientifi c/ was well known in the West was Lactantius, who geographical knowledge during the next millennium in the fourth century mocked the sphericity of the that could move the argument forward. The issue earth, although, interestingly, not on theological was resolved on empirical grounds (as it should grounds. Later, Augustine (fourth–fi fth centuries) be) during the age of exploration by Portuguese and Isidore (sixth–seventh centuries) were some- and Spanish seafarers in the fi fteenth–sixteenth times not completely clear about the sphericity of centuries. They found both: continents in the antipo- the earth. However, they neither denied the sphe- des—although not arranged in a symmetrical way ricity of the earth and never defended a fl at earth, as Crates expected—and antipodean inhabitants on as did Lactantius and Cosmas, while Cassiodorus them.23 Interestingly, the discoveries did not imply

134 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves any of Augustine’s feared theological problems, as can be seen from this brief summary (and the quota- it was soon realized by the Spanish Jesuit José de tion above corresponding to note 19), all the people Acosta in the late sixteenth century that humanity mentioned were Christians, so the confrontation of remained a single species, with the inhabitants of science vs. Christianity does not help in understand- America and Oceania related to the Asian people. ing the situation.24

The Modern Age: The Contemporary Age: Galileo and the Inquisition Darwin and Christianity Again, in the seventeenth century it is simplis- It is popularly assumed that the only response from tic to speak of Galileo vs. the Inquisition as science Christians to Darwin’s 1859 On the Origin of Species vs. Christianity. In fact, in the 1616’s condemna- was that of a bitter and vicious opposition based on tion of Copernicanism, the three books condemned theological prejudices. However, detailed study of were written by churchmen—Nicolaus Copernicus, the contemporary reactions shows us at least three Diego de Zuñiga, and Paolo Foscarini; and even important and often overlooked considerations for more tellingly, the publication of Copernicus’s De the case we are making here. Revolutionibus had been urged by several friends of the author, all clerics: Bishop Paul von Middelburg, First, some notable scientists at the time, although future Bishop Tiedemann Giese, and Cardinal Christian themselves, opposed Darwin on real sci- Nikolaus von Schoenberg, and dedicated to Pope entifi c grounds: for example, Adam Sedgwick, Paul III. On the Protestant side, several people, such Charles Lyell, St. George Jackson Mivart, Louis as the mathematician Rheticus and the theologian Agassiz, and Richard Owen. The famous Anglican Osiander, contributed to the publication of the book Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, an amateur scientist in the city of Nuremberg. Later, in the 1633 trial of himself, has been universally mocked as the proto- Galileo, on the one side, his judges rightly con- type theologian talking nonsense in a famous 1860 sidered themselves supported by the mainstream debate against Darwin’s defender, T. H. Huxley. science of their age and also of the previous two mil- However, Wilberforce based his criticisms on scien- lennia. On the other side, Galileo was supported by tifi c grounds, as can be seen in the critical review of theologians and churchmen, including disciples such Darwin’s book that he wrote before the debate and as the Benedictine mathematician Benedetto Castelli, published the following month. Darwin wrote about and a helpful friend, the Archbishop of Siena, it to his friend Hooker: “It is uncommonly clever; it Ascanio Piccolomini, who hosted Galileo for several picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and months at his palace after the condemnation by the brings forward well all the diffi culties.”25 Inquisition. The second conclusion is that Christian responses to As with the antipodeans and Augustine, this was in evolution were not always negative: Babbage, 1837; the context of scientifi c evidence that was not at all Kingsley, 1859; Baden Powell, 1860; and Henslow clear at the time of Galileo. Although some of his dis- (Darwin’s mentor), 1860;26 are telling examples. coveries such as the phases of Venus had ruled out Babbage even proposed a sort of evolution long the geocentric system of Aristotle/Ptolemy, Galileo before Darwin (although we have to keep in mind was never able to completely discard the geo-helio- that Babbage was, as the 1859 Darwin, closer to centric system of the sixteenth-century astronomer deism, and that not all Christians who accepted evo- Tycho Brahe, a Lutheran who was followed with lution supported Darwin’s mechanism, in that it was enthusiasm by the Jesuit enemies of Galileo, and he based on natural selection). As with the previous even declined to discuss it. Galileo thought that he examples from the medieval age and the modern age, had proven the Copernican system beyond doubt this position has particular merit here, because, con- with his particular theory of the tides, which was trary to the assumed view, Darwin did not solve all probably his worst scientifi c blunder. It took another the problems posed by his theory and had to face stiff generation, and Newtonian mechanics, to discard opposition on purely scientifi c grounds (it took up to Brahe’s overcomplicated system in which all planets the twentieth century to solve some of these points). circled the Sun that in turn circled the earth, and to In any case, the study of Darwin’s correspondence establish the Copernican system beyond doubt. As has shown that hundreds of his correspondents

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 135 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived belonged to the clergy. During the rest of the nine- the conscious sphere to the unconscious with his teenth century, several Christian scientists were also psychoanalytic theory.31 supportive of evolution: Asa Gray, Charles Lyell (after initial criticisms), Aubrey L. Moore, James D. This well exemplifi es the idea of a continuous confl ict Dana, George F. Wright, and Alexander Winchell, with a retreating religion. However, it is an incor- as well as various well-known theologians: John H. rect view of the historical events, not only in their Newman (Catholic), the Archbishop of Canterbury individual description, but also in the way they are Frederick Temple (Anglican), Aubrey L. Moore forced into a fi ctitious parallelism and progression. (Anglican), James McCosh (Presbyterian), Benjamin Copernicus did remove the earth from the center of B. Warfi eld (Presbyterian), Augustus Hopkins Strong the universe. But that was hardly a degradation for (Baptist), and George F. Wright (Congregationalist). humankind, as the earth was considered from both Furthermore, in recent times, there have been careful physical and moral points of view as the bottom of historical studies of what have been called the nine- the universe, its lowest and fi lthiest place. The cen- teenth-century Christian “defenders” of Darwin and ter of the earth was also the center of the universe 32 evolution.27 And they continued active during the and was the abode of the devil and hell. In contrast, twentieth century (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin, Ronald with Copernicanism, humans were raised to the sky, Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky) and into our own to the abode of the planets that moved in perfect and days (e.g., Francis Collins, Francisco J. Ayala, Simon divine circles closer to God. Among those thus wel- 33 Conway Morris). comed was the new “planet” Earth. Freud was a victim of a historical anachronism (“Copernican cli- The third point we would like to stress is that, inter- ché”), as in a very short time, between the sixteenth estingly, Darwin himself did not show an aggressive and the seventeenth centuries, a great intellectual anti-Christian position, even though he abandoned mutation took place, reversing the importance given his Christian faith years before 1859. By this time he to the “center.”34 was a deist, believing in a Creator that had ordered If evolution challenged fi xism in biology by intro- the world by laws, as we will see below. Furthermore, ducing a dynamic history for the living beings, then while at an advanced age Darwin considered himself the parallel challenge to fi xism at the cosmological an agnostic, he still dismissed the inevitability of a level was not heliocentrism, but the Big Bang theory science and Christianity confl ict over evolution: “It that ironically developed during the lifetime of seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an Freud. This new cosmology challenged the immuta- ardent Theist & an evolutionist.”28 In that view he bility and the eternity of the world, an idea that went was followed by none other than T. H. Huxley.29 back to Aristotle, and introduced a dynamic history for the universe at large. However, this parallel does Aligning the Historical Examples not fi t well in the confl ict-retreat model of science of “Confl ict” to Build the against Christianity: whereas Christianity was used Confl ict-Retreat Model by some to resist heliocentrism, Christianity was sus- pected of promoting the Big Bang (see below). This The rhetoric of science and faith confl ict-retreat has explains why the birth of the modern Big Bang is not been built simply by accumulation of histori- omitted from the confl ict models. What is even more cal examples of confl ict. Some authors have aligned interesting is that if we are to fi nd a common pat- them according to presumed historical parallels as tern between heliocentrism, evolution, and the Big a fi rst step to the idea of directionality in the pro- Bang, it is not in the retreat of Christianity, but in the cess that will be seen as moving toward the demise demise of Aristotelianism (in its geocentricism, its of religion. It is a known blunder of Freud that fi xity of species, and its eternally static universe). Darwin’s removal of humans as the center of biol- ogy, by making us descendants of other animal It would, however, be a travesty of the truth to species, parallels Copernicus’s removal of humans’ conclude this section by pointing out only adverse planet from the center of the universe. According infl uences of Aristotelianism upon science. In the to Freud, these were “two great outrages upon its Middle Ages, Aristotelianism reinvigorated the [humanity’s] naïve self-love.”30 In fact, Freud viewed Christian intellectual culture and stimulated an inter- himself as infl icting a third blow to humanity’s pride est in science. However, modern science needed later by removing the core of the human personality from to overcome its limitations (see below).

136 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

Challenging the Hidden Agenda Learning from the Past: of the Confl ict-Retreat Model How Christianity, under the Guise The overview given above shows how a robust of a Foe, Did the Work of a Friend response to the “confl ict-retreat” model can be artic- for Science ulated on historical grounds. It is crucially important To stimulate further debate, we offer instances in to mention that this clarifi cation of the historical which Christianity does not seem to have “lost” circumstances should not be used as an excuse to any battle or “abandoned” any trench, inspired avoid acknowledging the mistakes of the past: there by the challenge formulated by John H. Evans and was indeed confl ict in these examples. Twenty-fi rst- Michael S. Evans in a provocative way: century Christians should not feel obliged to defend or seek to justify the errors of fellow Christians of It is interesting to note that there is no literature (of past centuries, and lessons must be learned from which we are aware) of science infl uencing religion 37 those mistakes to avoid future episodes of this kind. in which science is predicted to lose. However, Geoffrey Cantor and Chris Kenny give an By way of argument and illustration, we select four important observation: “Our main point is that while examples: (1) in ancient/patristic times, Augustine’s numerous confl icts have occurred, the confl ict thesis criticism of astrology—his criticism was mainly is highly problematic as a general claim about the based on the idea of human free will and on relevant relationship between science and religion.”35 empirical evidence (like the study of twins); (2) in medieval times, Philoponus’s (and some medieval The fact remains that by choosing these particular theologians and scientists) criticisms of Aristotelian four historical episodes, the result was that the popu- physics/cosmology—their criticisms were based on lar media and some outspoken anti-Christian authors the idea of creation and some particular scientifi c (from the late nineteenth century to present days) ideas (anti-Aristotelian mechanics); (3) in the mod- set the agenda for most contemporary science and ern era, the infl uence of Christian theology on the Christianity discussions. In this way, they take the development of the modern concept of the laws of initiative and choose a suitable battleground to jus- nature; and, fi nally, (4) in contemporary times, the tify their continuous “retreat” picture. Unfortunately, birth pains of the Big Bang model, rejected by some this conditions the science and Christianity dialogue, scientists as the embodiment of the Christian idea of in the sense that most debates and propaganda on creation. the historical relations of science and Christianity revolve around these few particular historical cases, In all of these cases, the situation differs from what even for those authors opposed to the confl ict model we saw before. However, these are not counter- paradigm. Indeed, Jason M. Rampelt has observed: examples in the sense of Christianity fi ghting against It is easy to see how one would be led to believe science and winning any battle. They can be seen that there is a confl ict if the only information rather as Christian faith supporting a matrix of ideas before them were examples where scientifi c ideas that contributed to the development of science (in destroyed religious ones (the immortality of the particular, in examples 2 and 3), at the same time soul, Transubstantiation, physical resurrection, fi ghting some previous preconceptions, but ones that etc.). It has been less common to have examples of today we would not regard exactly as “science,” for the doubly opposite case, that is, where science has example, astrology and Aristotelian philosophical not destroyed religion, but instead religion assisted physics (examples 1 and 2). In example 4, the situa- in the growth of science.36 tion is more complicated, since the science of the Big Bang was not created in the name of Christianity, but While the examples that Rampelt gave are not the was a development from Einstein’s general theory of ones that we might have chosen for a relevant his- relativity. The problem was rather that some scien- torical overview, his point is nevertheless well made. tists were suspicious of the Big Bang theory as being We suggest that it is time to replace this paradigm too close to a Christian model of creation. not only by a more- or less-detailed refutation/clari- fi cation (as outlined above), but also by opening the It hardly needs saying that we, as those engaged windows to contemplate other historical episodes in scientifi c research for many years and who are that illustrate an even more complex but more rep- enthusiastic about scientifi c progress, will not make resentative account of science-Christianity relations. a knee-jerk claim that “science” was defeated or

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 137 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived retreated in any way. Playing with Moore’s famous The enduring infl uence of Augustine on this topic observation that Darwinism, “under the guise of a dominated the medieval era, up to the Renaissance, foe, did the work of a friend”38 for Christianity, we when Giovanni Pico della Mirandola again com- suggest that at times, Christianity too, under the bated astrology, following the ideas of Augustine. guise of a foe, did the work of a friend for science. It went to such a point the strength that he displayed, that the position of Augustine remained The Ancient/Patristic Age: as the paradigm of the rejection of the Church Augustine’s Anti-astrology to pseudoscience and it provided plenty of argumentation to those who, after him, attacked While it is very common to fi nd Augustine being it again.43 criticized for his rejection of the antipodeans and for his unclear attitude to the sphericity of the earth, it Interestingly, and sadly, we have to say that for all is not so common to read about his views on astrol- the good insights that Augustine’s criticisms pro- ogy in the context of science and faith. Augustine, vided, their general effect was minimal over the along with other Christian theologians both before centuries on the large majority of the population. and after him, proposed a well-thought-out series of Things changed only toward the late seventeenth objections to the popular beliefs about astrology. We century, when scientists fi nally turned their backs should remember that astrology, having its origins on astrology for good (most notably Descartes and in Mesopotamia, became common in the Hellenistic Newton)—although at a popular level astrology is culture and later in the Roman Empire. Astrology still as strong as ever today. was not separated from astronomy at that time, and both were supported by the top scientists of the time. It is an irony that ancient Church Fathers, frequently mocked in the confl ict literature as ignorant and In spite of the acceptance of astrology and its inclu- superstitious, could be closer at some points to what sion in astronomy, some Christian authors, and we regard as “science” today than those who, at the Augustine in particular,39 challenged astrology and time, were supposed to be the expert “scientists” criticized it on the basis of Christian ideas that can (e.g., Ptolemy). In ancient times, what today is sci- be seen as rooted in the Hebrew Bible and some later ence, philosophy, and religion—and even, at times, Jewish literature, as well as in the New Testament: superstition—were all merged into a single body of (1) the defense of free will against deterministic knowledge, as in the Platonic or Aristotelian sys- astral fatalism, (2) the view that all things were tems, and even more confusing in the Neoplatonic not supernatural, including planets and stars, and thinking of the late antiquity. The problem was that were created under the dominion of the Creator, for common Christians, who were not trained in and (3) the criticism of idolatry, particularly the the study of the natural world, it was very hard to astral cultic practices. Very importantly, Augustine discriminate between things that differed. How, for also relied on empirical arguments, going back as example, could Lactantius know that the sphericity far as Carneades in the third–second centuries BC of the earth was sound knowledge and that astrol- and other philosophers through Cicero (fi rst cen- ogy was not? Both were proclaimed by the top tury BC):40 in particular, the divergent fates of twins 41 experts of Alexandria. Indeed, the same Ptolemy and the similarity in behavior (e.g., cultural customs) who wrote the great astronomical treatise Almagest of entire nations that have no simultaneous birth of and the Geography, also wrote the astrological clas- all their individuals. However, Augustine was able to sic Tetrabiblos. It is easy for us to see the difference in recognize a material infl uence of the heavenly bodies retrospect, but it had to be very hard for Christians on the earth (seasons, tides, etc.). Interestingly, it was of that era.44 It needed a Christian scientist/phi- the theologian Origen, another infl uential Christian losopher such as John Philoponus to clarify things. critic of astrology (although he was willing to give Although he criticized the divinity of the heavenly more room for the astral infl uence on the material bodies, Philoponus was able to recognize that other affairs on Earth than Augustine, centering his attack ideas, such as the sphericity of the earth, had sound on the astral fatalism) who was the fi rst to deploy scientifi c foundations and should be retained by an innovative scientifi c argument against astrology Christians (see below). using the astronomical concept of the precession of the equinoxes attributed to Hipparchus.42

138 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

The Medieval Age: tary on Genesis 1, De Opifi cio Mundi, in which he Philoponus’s Anti-Aristotelianism aired his views on science and Christianity.48 A century after the “revolt of the medievalists,” the medieval period is still sadly portrayed as the Dark What was the impact of Philoponus? Most of his Ages, refl ecting, in fact, our own enduring ignorance books disappeared, but his views were never forgot- about this millennium of history. If there is an area in ten. Although his pagan enemies criticized him as a 49 which the imagination of today’s generation believes dangerous anti-Aristotelian, his infl uence survived that this age was particularly dark, it is in relation to in Eastern Christianity. In the ninth century, Photius 50 science. A recent example is the fi lm Ágora, which praised Philoponus’s commentary on Genesis 1. portrays the life and death, at the hands of Christian The Muslims, soon after Philoponus conquered extremists in Alexandria, of the philosopher and Egypt, preserved some of his ideas and transmit- mathematician Hypatia in 415, indicating that this ted them to the West, where some of his books were was the end of ancient science.45 However, the last already printed by the sixteenth century. glorious days of ancient Alexandrian science were to A controversy among experts has raged in the late come in the sixth century with the much less popular twentieth century to determine the extent of his fi gure of John Philoponus. infl uence on medieval and modern science. This has Educated by pagan philosophers who still taught in been a polemical topic with much ideological con- Christian Alexandria, Philoponus became the most tent fueling some debates. Of particular interest is prominent critic of Aristotle in antiquity. He par- his idea of “impetus,” which resurfaced with some ticularly targeted aspects of Aristotle’s physics and medieval Muslim scientists and also in Buridan at the metaphysics. Sometimes, in debates, his criticisms University of Paris in the fourteenth century, and its that we would consider more philosophical/theolog- potential relation with the modern concept of “iner- ical (eternity of the world vs. creation) were made in tia” (this latest connection is not generally favored the name of Christian ideas. However, at other times, by historians, although it helped to soften the domi- Philoponus combined ideas of theological inspiration nance of Aristotle). Furthermore, the application of with philosophical/scientifi c refl ections in order to this idea to cosmology, and even to cosmogony, in overturn some key aspects of Aristotelian science, as the context of the Christian idea of creation, is not 51 52 when he fi ercely attacked the perfection of the heav- so different in Philoponus and Buridan, both of ens, defending the view that the heavenly bodies whom criticized the idea of planets moved by “intel- were of the same matter as the earth, comparing the ligences” or angels. sun with fi re, and leading to a certain unifi cation in Regardless of the extent of Philoponus’s infl uence on science. All this scandalized the pagan philosophers, medieval and modern science, what he did is suffi - who considered the sun a divine being.46 Philoponus cient for the sake of the argument we are presenting also held other ideas of a scientifi c nature, which, here. He was an example of a remarkable Christian although with some precedents among certain Greek thinker who does not fi t the science and Christianity scientist/philosophers, were almost forgotten by his “confl ict model.” Indeed, it could be argued that his time, and continued to be so until the late medieval theology, rather than suppressing his science, helped and early modern periods, such as the possibility of it. It was a tragedy that circumstances prevented his movement in a vacuum and the idea of impetus to ideas from becoming better known. Instead, medi- explain the movement of projectiles.47 eval Christianity in the West followed Aristotle, To complete an extraordinary career, Philoponus who was non-Christian. Following him forced theo- made a vigorous defense of the sphericity of the logians to make diffi cult compromises in order to earth against fellow Christians who denied it. He “conciliate” his ideas with Christianity. That paradox also mocked those who believed that the heavenly shows to what an extent medieval Christians, rather bodies were moved by angels (a Christianized con- than suppressing ancient pagan knowledge, made cordist view based on pagan gods or “intelligences” all sorts of efforts to assimilate it, even against their which animated the heavenly bodies). Rather, he own interests. Samuel Sambursky writes: argued that it was God’s initial creation that set them One is tempted to speculate on how the course of in movement until today. He even wrote a commen- the history of ideas would have been changed had the doctrine of Philoponus been accepted by the

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 139 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

Church instead of the Aristotelian conceptions. Had in the modern era. In parallel, Greek mathematics for instance Thomas Aquinas chosen Philoponus’ provided the scientists of the sixteenth and seven- ideas and incorporated them in the scientifi c teenth centuries with the tools to fi nd these laws. foundations of Christian philosophy, the birth A further development was to fuse all these ideas pangs of the Copernican and Galilean revolution and to bridge the Aristotelian gulf between natural would perhaps have been less severe and scientifi c philosophy and mathematical astronomy to obtain progress possibly accelerated.53 mathematical laws in physics. The idea of a rational/ mathematical Creator helped considerably to build The Modern Age: that bridge. As the twentieth-century scientist Carl F. Creation and the Laws of Nature von Weizsäcker pointed out: One of the key pieces of Western European “mod- The concept of exact mathematical laws of nature ern” science, and one that was strongly advocated which was only dimly present in Greek thought by the leaders of the scientifi c revolution of the six- gained far greater convincing power by means of teenth and seventeenth centuries, was the idea of the the Christian concept of creation … it was a sort “laws of nature,” still a fundamental notion in sci- of Christian radicalism which transformed nature ence today. Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, from the house of gods into the realm of law.56 Newton, and Leibniz all shared the belief in the A recent general study of the development of the existence of laws imposed on nature, typically pre- concept of laws of nature by historian Peter Harrison scribed by a rational “lawgiver” God at the moment points to that more specifi cally: of the creation of the universe. Nature was docile in That there are laws of nature, however, seems to following these laws that were the same in any place, be a presupposition of science, rather than the at any time, and independent of the human observer. outcome of its investigations. In light of this we can Galileo, for example, explained it clearly in his pub- ask three important questions about such laws of lic letters on science and Christian faith of the early nature: Why are there laws at all? Why are these 1610s: laws mathematical? Why are they necessary or, For the Holy Scripture and nature both equally to put it another way, what gives these laws their derive from the divine Word, the former as the exceptionless character? In the seventeenth century, dictation of the Holy Spirit, the latter as the most when the modern notion of laws of nature was fi rst obedient executrix of God’s commands; … nature articulated, the answer to each of these questions is inexorable and immutable, and she does not entailed reference to God. The very idea of a law care at all whether or not her recondite reasons of nature, from the moment of its birth, was thus and modes of operations are revealed to human underpinned by theological considerations.57 understanding, and so she never transgresses the Twentieth-century historians of science have pointed terms of the laws imposed on her …54 to a larger religious context in which some biblically This idea was inherited from philosophical-theologi- based ideas contributed to the inspiration and sup- cal views that can be traced back to the medieval age, port of modern scientists who often appropriated with even earlier precedents: (1) the views held by and customized them for their own goals: some Greek/Hellenistic thinkers; and (2) the bibli- • a desacralization/mechanization view of nature cal view of God as the creator and lawful ruler of the as it belonged completely to the created realm, universe. One particular verse that summarized this view, and has been cited over and over by Christian • the rationality of the Creator God that implied the authors, is found in Wisdom 11:20b: “You, how- rationality of the creation and humanity as part of ever, ordered all things by measure, number and the creation, weight.”55 Jewish and Muslim scholars shared these • the contingency of creation by the free will of ideas with medieval Christians. God that considered the universe, not as a “neces- It seems that biblical theology on the concept of cre- sary” being that could be understood by a priori ation, and the relation between the Creator and its abstract speculative thinking, but as a creation creation, matured during the medieval age and was that has to be explored by experimentation in a pervasive infl uence in developing the concept itself order to discover the precise laws chosen by God of the law applied to nature that crystallized later to govern it,

140 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

• the status of humans as a fallen image of God that Alexander Friedmann proposed, in papers published implied the optimistic hope of unraveling the laws in 1922 and 1924, alternative “dynamic” models of of nature imposed by the Creator, with a realistic a nonstatic universe, including the possibility of an dose of pessimism about human rationality and expanding, contracting, or oscillating universe. the suspicion, again, that rationality abandoned to itself was not suffi cient to understand nature, In a famous 1927 paper, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian mathematician-physicist, defended again, inde- • a desire to recover the wisdom of “Adam” before pendently of Friedmann who had died in 1925, a the Fall that inspired the scientifi c activity to nonstatic universe; he also interpreted some astro- recover “dominion” over the creation, lost due to nomical evidence (red-shift of galaxies) to show that the original sin, the universe is actually expanding. By 1931, Lemaître • a positive view of manual labor that favored concluded that the expansion had a “beginning” or experimental work, contrary to classical tradi- an “origin” in a “primeval atom” which had given tion, and was inspired by the Bible (in particular rise to everything we now know: matter, energy, among Protestants, also in connection with the space, and time. principle of the “priesthood of all believers”), and • a more “literal” reading of the Bible that infl u- What was remarkable was that this proposal ini- enced a more straightforward reading of the tially evoked an incredible visceral reaction, as some, “book of nature,” contrary to the traditional “alle- including Einstein, felt a “biblical” fl avor in the idea gorical” reading in which one looked for moral of an expanding universe. Of course, it did not help allegories in nature (in particular among Protes- the early development of the Big Bang model that tants).58 Lemaître was a Catholic priest. The opposition to the possibility of the Big Bang was fi erce in some quar- If seventeenth-century physicists and astronomers ters, as the physicist von Weizsäcker remembered sought to understand the physical universe with decades later a confrontation that he had had in 1938 the concept of “laws of nature,” it was none other with the old Nobel Laureate Walther Nernst regard- than Darwin who, in the fi rst page of On the Origin ing the origin of the universe: of Species (1859), at a time when he was no lon- ger Christian but deist, still used the quotes of two He said, the view that there might be an age of Christian philosophers of science, Francis Bacon the universe was not science. At fi rst I did not understand him. He explained that the infi nite (1605) and William Whewell (1833), to advance an duration of time was a basic element of all scientifi c evolution of life governed by laws, while attempting thought, and to deny this would mean to betray the to preempt criticism on religious grounds.59 very foundations of science … He was just angry, and thus the discussion, which was continued in The Contemporary Age: his private study, could not lead to any result; … Lemaître’s Big Bang … I think, a deeply irrational trait of scientism was The “consensus” view among scientists before the revealed in his view: the world had taken the place theory of relativity, regarding the history of the uni- of God, and it was blasphemy to deny it God’s verse, was one of static eternity—in some ways, not attributes.61 different from the Aristotelian view—unchallenged The Big Bang model was relaunched at the end of on this point by the “classical” Newtonian physics. the 1940s by the Russian scientist George Gamow That was so even though, from a philosophical/theo- (who studied under Friedmann and later emigrated logical point of view, Jews, Christians, and Moslems to the US), only to be confronted with the same kind had traditionally been reticent to accept an eternal of criticisms, that this time went much further, to the universe (we should remember here Philoponus), point of giving rise to a counter-theory: the steady although later Aquinas defended the view that an state model that, contrary to the fi rst law of thermo- eternal universe could be compatible with Christian dynamics, postulated the continuous creation of theology.60 However, as soon as Einsteinian relativity matter to keep the density constant in an eternally came along, it was clear that it had possible impli- expanding universe. It was precisely one of the chief cations for views about the history of the universe. advocates of the steady state model, Fred Hoyle, While Einstein himself supported a static model who coined the term “Big Bang” as a kind of insult! of the universe in 1917, the Russian mathematician

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 141 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

Probably the most remarkable aspect of this story mer, is a modern tale, with a clear anti-Christian axe is that Lemaître himself never used the Big Bang in to grind. This confl ict-retreat model, it seems, did Christian apologetics. Rather the opposite, he differ- not become popular until the fi nal decades of the entiated between the scientifi c idea of “beginning” nineteenth century.64 R. L. Numbers has traced its for the universe and the philosophical-theological beginnings at least as far back as an 1845 article in idea of “creation.” He made public his views on sci- a US newspaper in which it was stated: “Every new ence and Christianity relations in an interview to the conquest achieved by science, involved the loss of a New York Times in 1933 and in a lecture at the Sixth domain to religion.”65 However, this idea was already Catholic Congress of Malines in 1936, where he in the intellectual milieu of the Enlightenment.66 defended the idea—very much in line with what we saw in the previous section—that the main contribu- The confl ict model is an oversimplifi cation, since the tion of Christianity to science was history of science and Christianity relations shows a much more complex and richer story. The eight the advantage of knowing that the enigma has a examples in the two sets of historical episodes dis- solution, that the underlying logic is ultimately the cussed above tell us that these relationships can, at work of an intelligent being, that, therefore, the times, take unexpected twists. Therefore, general problem posed by nature was posed to be solved, overarching historical models of friends and foes are and that its diffi culty is probably proportionate to our human abilities, be it today or tomorrow.62 inaccurate. If the idea of confl ict as the explanation for science and Christianity relations is inadequate, Later, he famously disagreed with the “apologetic” then the use of historical episodes that give the 63 use of the Big Bang by Pope Pius XII. impression of a historical directionality—that is, a Christian retreat under the marching of science, here In the end, the empirical fi nding of the microwave described as a “confl ict-retreat” model—is pure fabri- background radiation, a key prediction of the Big cation and manipulation of the evidence. Pointing to Bang model, by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, ensured the fact “that one and the same scientifi c innovation the triumph of the Big Bang. Since then, we have could be given both sacred and secular readings,” seen, on the one hand, the rise in the “apologetical” John H. Brooke has reached the conclusion that “the use of the Big Bang in favor of “religious” world- ‘relations between science and religion’ cannot be views, worryingly crossing the line that Lemaître reduced to a simple pattern of religious retreat as did not want to cross. On the other hand, legitimate the sciences advanced.”67 In fact, one should be more speculations on pre-Big Bang stages of the universe, critical and question even the possibility of any gen- or even the possibility of multiverses, are seen with eralization, as Brooke himself pointed out years ago: suspicion among Christians. While Christians fre- “There is no such thing as the relationship between quently have a skewed interest in the Big Bang science and religion. It is what different individuals apologetics, these other speculations frequently and communities have made of it in a plethora of dif- attract an infl ated interest as “liberating” views from ferent contexts.”68 Recently, Peter Harrison has also the inexorability of a Creator felt by many nonreli- questioned the very use of the words “science” and gious people in the current situation. This is also a “religion” in generalizations spanning centuries, as biased abuse of science. We should affi rm science, these words have had huge transformations in their and follow it wherever it leads without pressing it meanings over time.69 into a pre-defi ned “religious” or “irreligious” mold. Christian scientists should have the confi dence to be If we focus on the examples in the second set of at the front line in so doing. historical episodes described above (pp. 139–42), it is clear that we will get a very different picture After the Confl ict and Anti-confl ict of science and Christianity relations than what is usually conveyed with the fi rst “traditional” set of Models: Resetting the Agenda on historical episodes (pp. 134–36). Focusing on the the History of the Science and Faith second set will paint a much more positive image of Relationship Christianity. However, we do not intend to use this The popular idea of a confl ict, a battle between sci- image to propose an “anti-confl ict” model, only to ence and Christianity, in which the latter is in a provide a corrective to the usual bias and to illustrate millennial-old retreat and losing ground to the for- that a more complex description should be provided.

142 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

That is the reason why we cannot accept some of the Acknowledgments “apologetic” attempts to deny/minimize the histori- This publication was made possible through the cal debates surrounding the relations of science and support of a donation from the Templeton World Christianity, in particular with thorny issues that, for Charity Foundation, Inc. The opinions expressed in good or bad reasons, were seen in some historical this publication are those of the authors and do not periods as controversial. necessarily refl ect the views of the foundation.

An anti-confl ict thesis to advance the cause of The activities of the Centro de Ciencia y Fe (cienciayfe Christianity should not be acceptable when bend- .es) during the preparation of this paper were ing the historical evidence. This anti-confl ict thesis funded initially by the BioLogos Foundation (2013– has been justly counted as a myth about science and 2015, biologos.org, US), the Templeton World Charity religion in a recent book.70 In the past, historians Foundation (2016–2017, templetonworldcharity.org), such as Duhem and Jaki, and even Hooykaas, have and are currently supported generously by Fundación been criticized for this kind of reasoning. It is true Federico Fliedner (fl iedner.es, Spain). The Fara day that they emphasized the positive contributions of Institute for Science and Religion (faraday-institute Christianity to the development of modern science .org, UK) supports Pablo de Felipe in his PhD stud- (with some of the historical episodes we noted here ies at the Department of Classics of the University of in our second set of examples), although it is debat- Reading (UK).  able to what extent their views overstated the limits of both the historical evidence available and sound interpretation.71 This kind of debate goes beyond the Notes scope of this article, but should remain as an impor- 1Thomas H. Huxley, “Darwin on the Origin of Species,” 72 tant warning. Westminster Review, 2nd ser., 17 (1860): 556. 2Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco, Nowadays, historians have moved away from con- CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), chapter 1. 3 fl ict and anti-confl ict models73 to fi nd the complexity Alister McGrath, Science and Religion: A New Introduction, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell, 2010), 50. of real life, as noted by David C. Lindberg: 4Ibid., 1. Thus the story recounted in this chapter is not one of 5Ibid. 6Ibid., 11. warfare between science and the church. Nor is it a 7A very good historical review of how the confl ict model story of unremitting support and approval. Rather, has been dismantled among historians during the twen- what we fi nd, as we ought to have suspected, is tieth century can be found in the introduction to the a relationship exhibiting all of the variety and book by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed., complexity with which we are familiar in other God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Berkeley, CA: University of Cali- realms of human endeavor—confl ict, compromise, fornia Press, 1986). The complexity of such relations was accommodation, dialogue, alienation, the making defended with many examples by John H. Brooke, Science of common cause and going of separate ways.74 and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991). See also endnote 73 We would like to fi nish by pointing out that although below. historians have studied intensively in the last cen- 8Alister McGrath, “Confl ict or Mutual Enrichment? Why tury the relations between science and Christianity Science and Theology Need to Talk to Each Other,” Science and Christian Belief 27, no. 1 (2015): 7. and most have reached that balanced view, popular 9Colin A. Russell, “The Confl ict Metaphor and Its Social media have still to discover these complex inter- Origins,” Science and Christian Belief 1, no. 1 (1989): 3, actions. A complete account of science and faith abstract. 10 relations must make sense of the peaceful events as Ibid., 4. 11Ibid., 7. well as of the confl icts. It is, we believe, time for a 12John Henry, “Religion and the Scientifi c Revolution,” in resetting of the agenda in the dissemination of the his- The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter tory of science and faith, in particular at popular Harrison (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, levels—TV, fi lms, plays, press, educational resources, 2010), 39. 13From a letter written in 1944 from a Nazi prison cell, school textbooks, and others. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (London: SCM Press, 1971), 311. 14Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2015).

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 143 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

15Peter Harrison, “That Religion Has Typically Impeded the 22The most common model, dating back to Crates of Mallus Progress of Science,” in Newton’s Apple and Other Myths in the second century BC, included the existence of four about Science, ed. Ronald L. Numbers and Kostas Kam- isolated land-masses, one in each of the quarters of the pourakis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, surface of the spherical earth. 2015), 195. 23A classical survey of the evolution of views on the shape 16A similar strategy has been denounced in the character- of the earth and the antipodes can be found in William ization of Enlightenment, in contrast to the seventeenth G. L. Randles, “Classical Models of World Geography century, as promoting secularization, because and Their Transformation Following the Discovery of the methods and conclusions of the natural philosophers America,” in The Classical Tradition and the Americas, were turned against the authority of the established vol. 1, European Images of the Americas and the Classical Tra- Churches. With carefully selected examples, this story can be dition, ed. Wolfgang Haase and Reinhold Meyer (New attractive and plausible. (Our italics) York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 5–76. Reprinted in from John H. Brooke, “Science and Religion,” in The W. G. L. Randles, Geography, Cartography and Nautical Sci- Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century ence in the Renaissance: The Impact of the Great Discoveries Science, ed. Roy Porter (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000). See also de Felipe, “The versity Press, 2003), 741. Antipodeans and Science-Faith Relations.” For a more 17For Comte, history could be viewed in three phases: popular introduction, see ———, “The Modern Myth of the (1) a theological phase with supernatural explanations Medieval Flat Earth,” in Evangelische Akademie im Rhein- for natural phenomena, (2) a metaphysical phase with land (2017), http://www.theologie-naturwissenschaften reasoned explanations using abstract ideas, and (3) posi- .de/startseite/leitartikelarchiv/flat-earth-myth.html, tive science giving the right explanations based on the accessed on February 16, 2017. scientifi c method. For more on that, see John H. Brooke, 24Stillman Drake, Galileo: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, “Science and Secularization,” in The Cambridge Companion UK: Oxford University Press, 1980); Ernan McMullin, ed., to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge, UK: The Church and Galileo (Notre Dame, IN: University of Cambridge University Press, 2010), 103–23 (in particular, Notre Dame Press, 2005); and Annibale Fantoli, Galileo: For p. 104). A striking example of this approach can be seen in Copernicanism and for the Church, 3rd English ed. (Vatican: Anthony Wallace, Religion: An Anthropological View (New Vatican Observatory Publications, 2003). York: Random House, 1966): 25The review was published in July 1860 in The Quarterly The evolutionary future of religion is extinction. Belief Review, and contained this telling declaration: in supernatural beings and supernatural forces that Our readers will not have failed to notice that we have affect nature without obeying nature’s laws will erode objected to the views with which we are dealing solely and become only an interesting historical memory … on scientifi c grounds. We have done so from our fi xed belief in supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all conviction that it is thus that the truth or falsehood of over the world, as the result of the increasing adequacy such arguments should be tried. We have no sympathy and diffusion of scientifi c knowledge. (p. 265) with those who object to any facts or alleged facts in 18David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, “Beyond War nature, or to any inference logically deduced from them, and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Chris- because they believe them to contradict what it appears tianity and Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian to them is taught by Revelation. We think that all such Faith 39, no. 3 (1987): 140. This was a minimally corrected objections savour of a timidity which is really inconsis- and revised version of a paper previously published in tent with a fi rm and well-intrusted faith. Church History 55, no. 3 (1986): 338–54. Quoted in John R. Lucas, “Wilberforce and Huxley: 19Lindberg and Numbers, “Beyond War and Peace,” A Legendary Encounter,” The Historical Journal 22, no. 2 145. For a recent book with more details, see Ronald L. (1979): 318. Darwin’s letter to Hooker is quoted by Lucas. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about For more on the Oxford debate, see Sheridan Gilley, Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University “The Huxley-Wilberforce Debate: A Reconsideration,” Press, 2009). in Religion and Humanism, ed. Keith Robbins (Oxford, 20Duncan Aikman, “Lemaître Follows Two Paths to Truth,” UK: Blackwell, 1981), 325–40. See also John H. Brooke, New York Times (February 19, 1933): 18. “The Wilberforce-Huxley Debate: Why Did It Happen?,” 21For details on these debates, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Science and Christian Belief 13, no. 2 (2001): 127–41. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians 26Henslow criticized the Christian geologist Sedgwick in (New York: Praeger, 1991); Lesley B. Cormack, “That defense of Darwin during a public lecture in May 1860: Medieval Christians Taught That the Earth Was Flat,” in I got up, as Sedgwick had alluded to me, and stuck up Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Sci- for Darwin as well as I could, refusing to allow that he ence and Religion, 28–34; Pablo de Felipe, “The Antipodeans was guided by any but truthful motives, and declaring and Science-Faith Relations: The Rise, Fall and Vindication that he himself believed he was exalting and not debas- of Augustine,” in Augustine beyond the Book: Intermedial- ing our views of a Creator, in attributing to him a power ity, Transmediality, and Reception, ed. Karla Pollmann and of imposing laws on the Organic World by which to Meredith J. Gill (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2012), do his work, as effectually as his laws imposed on the 281–311; Lesley B. Cormack, “That before Columbus, in organic had done it in the Mineral Kingdom. Geographers and Other Educated People Thought the I believe I succeeded in diminishing, if not entirely Earth Was Flat,” in Newton’s Apple and Other Myths about removing, the chances of Darwin’s being prejudged by Science, ed. Numbers and Kampourakis, 16–22; Louise M. many who take their cue in such cases according to the Bishop, “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” in Misconceptions views of those they suppose may know something of the matter. about the Middle Ages, ed. Stephen J. Harris and Bryon L. Letter from J. S. Henslow to J. D. Hooker, May 10, 1860, Grigsby (New York: Routledge, 2008), 97–101. published in L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Sir J. D. Hooker,

144 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

vol. 1, p. 512, and quoted here from Nora Barlow, ed., 36Jason M. Rampelt, “Religion as a Cause in Scientifi c Darwin and Henslow: The Growth of an Idea (London: Ben- Research,” Annals of Science 67, no. 1 (2010): 121. tham-Moxon Trust, 1967). 37John H. Evans and Michael S. Evans, “Religion and Sci- 27Two “classical” studies are James R. Moore, The Post- ence: Beyond the Epistemological Confl ict Narrative,” Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle Annual Review of Sociology 34 (2008): 97. to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and Amer- 38Aubrey L. Moore, “The Christian Doctrine of God,” in Lux ica, 1870–1900 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Mundi, ed. Charles Gore, 10th ed. (London: John Murray, Press, 1979); and David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgot- 1890), 99. ten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology 39There were other previous attacks against astrology by and Evolutionary Thought (Vancouver, BC: Regent College the church fathers, such as Hippolytus in the third century Publishing, 1984). Many more books and papers have with his The Refutation of All Heresies. been published on the Christian responses to Darwin- 40The main anti-astrological texts by Augustine are in ism in the nineteenth century, studying specifi c historical Confessions 7.6,8–10 and the City of God 5.1–7. For discus- characters and key events. A recent book on the subject is sion, see Cristóbal Macías Villalobos, Ciencia de los Astros David N. Livingstone, Dealing with Darwin: Place, Politics, y Creencias Astrológicas en el Pensamiento de San Agustín and Rhetoric in Religious Engagements with Evolution (Balti- (Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Clásicas, 2004). more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014). 41A particularly problematic situation was the birth of twins 28Darwin’s letter to John Fordyce, May 7, 1879, in Darwin of different sex that were conceived at the same time and Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk that were different only by a brief difference in the tim- /entry-12041, accessed on February 16, 2017. ing of birth; the timing could not affect the sex that was 29Thomas H. Huxley, “The Interpreters of Genesis and already determined before birth. the Interpreters of Nature,” in The Nineteenth Century 18, 42Origen, “Commentaria in Genesim,” in Patrologiæ Græcæ, no. 106 (1885): 849–60, writes, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862), vol. 12, The antagonism between science and religion, about col. 79. On that point, see Stephan Heilen, “(2002–2003): which we hear so much, appears to me to be purely Teaching ‘Astrology in Greece and Rome,’” The Classical factitious-fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted Journal 98, no. 2 (2002–2003): 201–10 (see footnote 44 and religious people who confound a certain branch of sci- the references within). ence, theology, with religion; and, on the other, by 43Villalobos, Ciencia de los Astros y Creencias Astrológicas en equally short-sighted scientifi c people who forget that el Pensamiento de San Agustín, 162 (our own translation). science takes for its province only that which is suscepti- 44Thus, although at times Augustine wrote showing an ble of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside interest in science, he also wrote, in 397, in relation to the boundaries of that province, they must be content astronomy: with imagination, with hope, and with ignorance. Knowledge of this kind in itself, although it is not allied Quoted from the republication in Science and Hebrew Tradi- with any superstition, is of very little use in the treat- tion (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1895), 160–61. ment of the Divine Scriptures and even impedes it 30 Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis: through fruitless study; and since it is associated with the A Course of Twenty-Eight Lectures Delivered at the Univer- most pernicious error of vain prediction it is more appropri- sity of Vienna, trans. Joan Riviere (London: George Allen ate and virtuous to condemn it. and Unwin, 1922), 240–41. Quoted in Dennis R. Danielson, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.29.46, trans. W. D. “That Copernicanism Demoted Humans from the Center Robertson (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), 66. of the Cosmos,” in Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Quoted in Albert E. Wingell, “Dante, St Augustine and Other Myths about Science and Religion, 50. Astronomy,” Quaderni d’italianistica 2, no. 2 (1981): 124 31 Friedel Weinert dedicated a whole book to this idea, (our italics). Copernicus, Darwin & Freud: Revolutions in the History 45The fi lm appeared in 2009 and was created and directed and Philosophy of Science (Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell, by Alejandro Amenábar. 2009). He apparently was unaware of the criticism offered 46He even suggested that the different colors in the heav- in the references in endnote 34. enly bodies were related to different temperatures, as in 32That was the typical medieval cosmology refl ected, for the terrestrial fi res. See Samuel Sambursky, The Physical example, in Dante’s Divine Comedy, in the early fourteenth World of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge and Kegan century. Paul, 1962), 158–60. 33The title of a book by John Wilkins defending the Coperni- 47Some of his criticisms of Aristotle are rooted in the ideas of canism is very telling: A Discourse Concerning a New Planet Xenarchus, who was an Aristotelian philosopher himself, (London: John Maynard, 1640). and who already criticized the Aristotelian idea of ether in 34Danielson, “That Copernicanism Demoted Humans from a lost book entitled Against the Fifth Element. In some way, the Center of the Cosmos,” 51. A longer detailed analysis the fi fth element of Aristotle was continuously challenged of this topic was offered before by the same author in “The in Antiquity by Platonists, Stoics, and Neo-Platonists who Great Copernican Cliché,” American Journal of Physics 69, held to the fi ery nature of the heavens. However, different no. 10 (2001): 1029–35. This topic has also been discussed from Philoponus, they considered the heavenly fi res as by Michael N. Keas, “That the Copernican Revolution beings endowed with a soul and as almost divine entities, Demoted the Status of the Earth,” in Newton’s Apple and and so, in the end, all divinized the heavenly bodies. See Other Myths about Science, ed. Numbers and Kampourakis, Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity. 23–31. 48Ibid. 35Geoffrey Cantor and Chris Kenny, “Barbour’s Fourfold 49His better-known critic was his contemporary, the Aristo- Way: Problems with his Taxonomy of Science-Religion telian philosopher Simplicius, whose name was later used Relationships,” Zygon 36, no. 4 (2001): 769. by Galileo in the Dialogue of the Two Chief Systems of the World (1632), to represent a foolish follower of Aristotle.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 145 Article Science and Christianity Confl icts: Real and Contrived

50Photius, Library XLIII. about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, 51Philoponus, De Opifi cio Mundi 1.12, quoted in Sambursky, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment The Physical World of Late Antiquity, 151–52. of general laws. (William Whewell, Bridgewater Treatise) 52Buridan, Quaestiones super octo physicorum libros Aristo- To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak con- telis 4.4, trans. Marshall Clagett, The Science of Mechanics ceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or in the Middle Ages (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well Press, 1959), 536. The topic appeared again at the end of studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of Quaestiones in Aristotelis de Coelo et mundo 2.12, published God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men in Iohannis Buridani, Quaestiones Super Libris Quattuor de endeavour an endless progress or profi cience in both. Caelo et Mundo, ed. Ernest A. Moody (1942; reprint, New (Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning) York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1970), 176–81. In the second edition (1860), a further quotation from 53Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity, 174, 175. Joseph Butler’s Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed 54Galileo’s Letter to Castielli (December 21, 1613). The Essen- was added in between the above two quotations: tial Galileo, ed. and trans. by Maurice A. Finocchiaro The only distinct meaning of the world “natural” is (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008), stated, fi xed, or settled; since what is natural as much 104, 105 (reprinted from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to ren- History, trans. and ed. Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley, der it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, CA: University of California Press, 1989). Nearly the same as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it arrangement of words are used in the even more famous for once. 60 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615): William E. Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmol- For the Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from ogy: Creation and Beginnings,” Science and Christian Belief the Godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy 24, no. 1 (2012): 5–18. Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of 61Carl F. von Weizsäcker, The Relevance of Science (London: God’s orders; … nature is inexorable and immutable, Collins, 1964), 152ff. never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her, 62G. Lemaître, “La culture catholique et les sciences posi- and does not care whether or not her recondite reasons tives,” in Actes du VIe congrès catholique de Malines, vol. 5, and ways of operating are disclosed to human under- Culture intellectuelle et sens chrétien (Bruxelles: A.S.B.L., standing; (p. 116) 1936), 65–70. Translated in Pablo de Felipe, Pierre Bour- 55The New Jerusalem Bible (1985). Available online, http:// don, and Eduardo Riaza, “Georges Lemaître’s 1936 www.catholic.org/bible/ (accessed on February 16, 2017). Lecture on Science and Faith,” Science and Christian Belief There are parallels there with this text in Job 28:23–27: 27, no. 2 (2015): 179. God alone understands her path and knows where she 63On the interplay of scientifi c and religious ideas in Lemaî- [the wisdom] is to be found. tre, see Dominique Lambert, L’itinéraire spirituel de Georges (For he sees to the remotest parts of the earth, and Lemaître (Bruxelles: Éditions Lessius, 2007) and several observes all that lies under heaven.) chapters in Rodney D. Holder and Simon Mitton, eds., When he willed to give weight to the wind and mea- Georges Lemaître: Life, Science and Legacy (Berlin/Heidel- sured out the waters with a gauge, berg: Springer-Verlag, 2012). when he imposed a law on the rain and mapped a 64Key works to popularize the “confl ict model” were the route for thunderclaps to follow, following well-known books: John William Draper, His- then he saw and evaluated her, looked her through and through, assessing her. tory of the Confl ict Between Religion and Science (1874); John 56Carl F. von Weizsäcker, The Relevance of Science (London: Tyndall, Address Delivered before the British Association Collins, 1964), 120–21. Assembled at Belfast (1874); Andrew Dickson White, The

57Peter Harrison, “The Development of the Concept of Warfare of Science (1876); and ———, A History of the Warfare Laws of Nature,” in Creation: Law and Probability, ed. of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Their por- Fraser Watts (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2008), 13 (see also trait of the historical science and Christianity relationship the detailed bibliography in footnote 1 of that paper). fi ts not only the simple confl ict model, but also the con- See also Peter Harrison, “Laws of Nature, Moral Order, fl ict-retreat model. For more details on this history, see and the Intelligibility of the Cosmos,” in The Astronomy Colin A. Russell, “The Confl ict Metaphor and its Social Origins.” Revolution: 400 Years of Exploring the Cosmos, ed. Donald G. 65 York, Owen Gingerich, and Shuang-Nan Zhang (Boca “Science and Religion,” Boston Cultivator 7 (1845): 344. Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012), 375–86 (what seems a Quoted by Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, 4. draft version of it is available online, http://www.lse 66 .ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects/ John H. Brooke, “Science and Religion,” in The Cambridge orderProject/documents/Publications/HarrisonLawsof History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science, ed. Porter, 739–61. Nature.pdf, accessed on February 16, 2017). 67 58 Ibid., 746. A departure point to navigate the immense bibliography 68 on these topics of science and faith in relation with the John H. Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Per- period of the “Scientifi c Revolution” can be found in John spectives, 321 [Canto Classics edition, 438]. 69See Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion. Henry, “Religion and the Scientifi c Revolution.” 70 59Charles R. Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Noah J. Efron, “That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in Science,” in Ronald Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, 79–89. the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859), ii. The 71 quotes were the following: A direct criticism of Jaki’s and Hooykaas’s historical views But with regard to the material world, we can at least go on the major infl uence of Christianity over the develop- so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought ment of modern science appeared in the introduction and some chapters of the book by Lindberg and Numbers, ed.,

146 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Pablo de Felipe and Malcolm A. Jeeves

God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between nal of Theological Studies 26, no. 1 (1975): 55–81. See other Christianity and Science. An even harsher criticism of discussions and criticisms of that apologetic approach Jaki’s views can be found in David C. Lindberg’s review in John H. Brooke, “HISTORY: The Rise of Science,” in of Jaki’s 1988 book, The Savior of Science, in Isis 81, no. 3 Perspectives, Christian Academic Network: http://www (1990): 538–39. Regarding Hooykaas, it is fair to say that .christianacademicnetwork.net/newjoomla/index.php the criticisms he received were mainly for his Religion /perspectives/a-i/history/the-rise-of-science, accessed and the Rise of Modern Science (1972) that has been labeled on February 16, 2017. Edward B. Davis, “Christianity as an apologetic in favor of Protestantism (in particular, and Early Modern Science: Beyond War and Peace?,” taking into account that he was Protestant himself). See, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 46, no. 2 (1994): for example, the fi erce review of this book by Lindberg in 133–35. Willem B. Drees, “Worldly Interests: Apologetics, Journal of the American Scientifi c Affi liation 26, no. 4 (1974): Authority and Comfort,” in Religion and Science in Context: 176–78. Also see the later exchange of letters between A Guide to the Debates (London: Routledge, 2009), 11–38. D. M. MacKay and Lindberg in Journal of the American Sci- 73A historical overview of how the confl ict thesis has been entifi c Affi liation 27, no. 3 (1975): 141 and in vol. 28, no. 1 undermined during the last fi fty years has been written (1976): 48. However, these criticisms do not mention his recently by John H. Brooke, “Historians,” in The Idea That work emphasizing the role of Portuguese seafarers in the Wouldn’t Die. The Warfare between Science and Religion: rise of modern science a century before the Reformation: Historical and Sociological Perspectives, ed. Jeff Hardin, Reijer Hooykaas, “The Portuguese Discoveries and the Ronald L. Numbers, and Ronald A. Binzley (Baltimore, Rise of Modern Science,” Boletim da Academia Internacio- MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, in press). Special

nal da Cultura Portuguesa 2 (1966): 87–107; ———, Science in thanks to Prof. Brooke for this reference. Manueline Style (Coimbra, Portugal: Academia Internacio- 74David C. Lindberg, “The Fate of Science in Patristic and

nal da Cultura Portuguesa, 1980); and ———, “The Rise of Medieval Christendom,” in Peter Harrison, ed., in The Modern Science: When and Why?,” The British Journal for Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, 34. the History of Science 20, no. 4 (1987): 453–73. 72An early discussion of the “apologetic” use of the his- ASA Members: Submit comments and questions on this article tory of science to foster Christianity can be found in at www.asa3.org FORUMS PSCF DISCUSSION. Rolf Gruner, “Science, Nature, and Christianity,” Jour- → →

A Paid Advertisement

seeking to recover the meaning and importance of the grand themes of the Doctrine of Creation

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 147 A Paid Advertisement

148 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article Order from Chaos Scott Bonham

Scott Bonham Behold, I am making all things new (Revelation 21:5).

Emergent transitions provide a conceptual framework to relate cosmic history, Genesis accounts, and redemption. In this framework, each new level of emergence is initially in a state of non-order (chaos) and undergoes a transition into a more ordered state; disorder results if there are competing, incommensurate domains. Cosmic history, from quarks to galaxies and from simple cellular life to complex societies, is easily described in this framework. A similar model of God’s creative activity, involving states of order, non-order, and disorder, has been elaborated by John Walton based on his analysis of the Genesis accounts in their original cultural setting. With similar models emerging from different perspectives, scripture and science seem to point toward the same under- lying truth about God’s creative activity. Furthermore, redemptive history from Adam to Christ to the end times can also fi t into this conceptual framework, suggesting that this framework refl ects important aspects of the way God interacts with the world.

n Passover Friday nearly two nor ill-health was feared, and where thousand years ago, a man died nothing was wanting which a good will O on a cross amidst the chaos and could desire, and nothing present which disorder of soldiers, mockers, spectators, could interrupt man’s mental or bodily and others. In the midst of that chaos enjoyment,”3 but that perfect state was and disorder, many believe, a new order lost due to humans’ sin. came into being. Certainly the religious movement that came out of Jesus’s death While frameworks that describe creation has had a signifi cant, enduring impact and redemption as distinct stages have on human history. The central claims of their strengths, for example, emphasiz- Christian faith go much further, assert- ing the seriousness of sin, a concern is ing that the life, death, and resurrection of that they can lead to viewing Christ’s Christ brought into being a new order, a life, death, and resurrection as something new reality that changes the relationship entirely distinct from God’s creative of God with people, between different activity, and perhaps even seeing Christ’s groups of people, between the physical sacrifi ce as a “plan B” that would not and the spiritual, between life and death. have been necessary if the fi rst man and woman had not sinned. The idea that God How does this relate to the other great might have had to resort to a “plan B,” work of God, that of creation? In the creates, of course, tension with the classi- prologue of his gospel, John affi rms cal understanding of God having perfect that they are closely related through the person of Jesus Christ.1 However, cre- Scott Bonham ation and redemption are sometimes is an associate professor of physics at Western Kentucky University. During his graduate work, he studied the order-disorder phase described as being very different types transition at the surface of Cu3Au. Supported by an NSF postdoctoral of events. Wolters, for example, divides fellowship, he shifted into physics education research, where he has worked in redemptive history into three different the development of active learning curricula and web-based tools supporting stages: Creation, Fall, and Redemption.2 them. He has also worked in instructor development at the pre-college and This type of thinking has deep roots; college levels. His current research interests are in development of student Augustine asserts that the fi rst parents science skills, including technical writing, scientifi c arguments, and the lived in Paradise “where neither death nature of science.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 149 Article Order from Chaos wisdom, foresight, and power to bring about his will. Order and Disorder in Materials The view that God’s interaction with the world can Diamond and graphite are composed of exactly the be divided into distinct stages also creates tension same thing—carbon atoms—yet have vastly differ- with the scientifi c view of cosmic and Earth history ent properties. One is a hard, clear, highly refractive, in which there are no sharp discontinuities but rather large-bandgap semiconductor, while the other is a a continuity of different processes—many of which soft, opaque, strongly absorptive, electric conduc- are still present today—shaping the development of tor. The difference is not in what they are made of, the cosmos, Earth, and life. In this article, I present a nor in the particulars of their histories, but in how conceptual framework for understanding both God’s the atoms are arranged in each solid. Likewise, the creative and redemptive activity that helps to resolve different properties of ice, water, and steam arise those tensions, rooted in both scientifi c and scrip- from the differences in how the atoms are organized. tural understanding: nucleation and growth of order A basic principle in the study of materials is that the in an emergent transition. electrical, magnetic, thermal, optical, and mechani- cal properties of materials depend signifi cantly on Throughout scripture, God is portrayed as establish- the order—or lack of order—of the atoms that make ing good order and instructing his people to do the them up. Thus, these properties are emergent—they same. Genesis 1 describes God creating in an orderly are not properties of individual atoms, but rather fashion and calling it “good.” God instructed the arise from how the atoms are ordered. However, Israelites through the Law to live orderly lives. The that order does affect the individual components: Corinthians were instructed to maintain order in the electronic bonds of a carbon atom in graphite are their devotional meetings.4 The association of order oriented differently from those in diamond because and goodness is a central theme of this article, but of the different contexts—graphite order or diamond I fi rst need to clarify how those words will be used. In order—in which the carbon atom fi nds itself. the rest of this article, the meaning of “goodness” will follow that of the Old Testament scholar John Walton The different ways things are or are not ordered who argues that “good” in the creation account refers correspond to different phases of the material. Ice, to “functioning properly,” and not to a moral or ethi- water, and steam are different phases of H2O; graph- cal statement.5 Thus, “goodness” depends on the ite and diamond are different phases of carbon. The context in which it is evaluated, and what is good in concept of phases and their associated order is far one context can be not good in another. For example, more general than atomic arrangements, though. at the single-cell organism level, a streptococcal bac- At low temperatures, iron is ferromagnetic while at terium living in my throat can be perfectly “good,” high temperatures it loses that magnetic property. that is, it functions well, takes in nutrients, expels The liquid crystals that are the heart of LCD displays waste, and multiplies. However, at the multicellular have different phases, and the application of an organism level (myself), it is not good, as the strep electric fi eld changes the ordering of the molecules. throat infection it causes severely interferes with my Other examples of phases include plasmas (such as proper functioning. in the sun where electrons are stripped out of atoms), superconductivity (where electrons move without Walton also argues that the main focus of the resistance), and superfl uidity in ultra-cold helium description of God’s creative work in Genesis 1 is (where the atoms fl ow without resistance, even best understood as bringing into existence functional uphill). Naturally, the transition of a material from order rather than material objects.6 Related to this, one phase to another—a phase transition—is a sig- the idea of “order” that I will develop has to do with nifi cant phenomenon, and has been an area of much the proper arrangement of component parts into a study for many years.7 system in which new properties and functionalities emerge, expanding a concept coming from phase A striking fact about phase transitions is that despite transitions in materials. The central thesis is that cos- different underlying physics, they have surpris- mic and redemptive history can be understood as a ingly similar behaviors. Ferromagnetism in iron long series of God bringing into existence additional comes from the alignment of the intrinsic magnetic levels of order to existing reality. First, I would like moments of the atoms. Superconductivity arises from to illustrate and develop more fully this framework electrons being paired up due to lattice vibrations. in the context of transitions in the order of materials. Superfl uidity in helium comes from the atoms fall-

150 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Scott Bonham ing into the same quantum mechanical state. Water to the material sharing a single ordering orienta- freezes at the surface of ice by the electrically polar- tion, and disorder refers to a state in which there are ized molecules attracting each other. Plasmas become domains of local order that are in confl ict with others normal gas by electrons combining with nuclei to to negate any long-range order. Note that the terms form neutral atoms. Yet all of these are continuous are being used here differently from how they are phase transitions; the measure of the amount of often used in the study of phase transitions, in which order in the system follows a power-law mathemati- what I defi ne as “non-order” is more commonly cal relationship independent of the specifi c physical referred to as “disorder,” and what I refer to as mechanism of the phase transition.8 This power-law “order” and “disorder” represent the two ends of a behavior cannot be explained through a reductionist continuum, which might instead be described by the analysis of the components themselves or the specif- size of the ordered domains. I adopt this terminology ics of their interactions, but rather requires a more for two reasons. First, ambiguity exists in the scien- holistic description of their cooperative behaviors. tifi c use of the term “disorder.” In the study of phase Phase transitions are examples of the emergence of transitions, “disorder” refers to the unordered phase general patterns, structures, and behaviors in quite above the transition temperature. In other areas of different contexts. condensed matter physics, the term can refer to a lack of long-range order existing below the transi- In a phase transition, one can identify three different tion temperature. Second, this usage is parallel to the possible conditions that will be referred to as non- terminology that Walton adopts, facilitating making order, order, and disorder for the purposes of this connections between science and scripture. article. At temperatures above the transition point, the magnetic moments in iron fl uctuate randomly in While in some practical applications disorder may all directions with no relationship to each other; this not matter or even be desirable, in others it can cre- is a state of non-order. As the material cools below a ate signifi cant problems. Disorder exists in both the critical temperature, groups of atoms start aligning crystalline atomic structure and magnetic domains their magnetic moments with those around them, of a cast iron skillet; the former has no impact on and this grows as more atoms join in. Now, there is its ability to cook eggs and the latter keeps it from not necessarily any intrinsic reason that one particu- sticking magnetically to other objects in the kitchen. lar direction is selected for the moments to align, but However, in other applications problems arise from once order is established, that one direction becomes the existence of multiple domains, in particular, the the preferred direction (referred to as symmetry boundaries between them where atoms are caught breaking, because all directions are no longer equiva- between two incompatible orientations. This condi- lent), and the rest align with it. tion generally arises when there are multiple places in the material where order begins, each place inde- A fully magnetized piece of iron is an example of pendent of the other, called nucleation sites. Silicon an ordered state. However, most pieces of iron one chip manufacturers use specially prepared silicon encounters do not behave like magnets, though the wafers cut from a single crystal chunk, grown from a reason is different from the high temperature stage. small single crystal that serves as the nucleation site At the microscopic scale, all the atoms in a region in the manufacturing process. They do this because are ordered with their moments aligned. However, the boundaries between different domains of crys- there are different regions or domains in the material talline order would introduce electronic defects that with different magnetic orientation directions, which would signifi cantly degrade the performance of the when all added together, cancel each other out. Here microelectronics. Metal parts in a high performance disorder refers not to a complete lack of order, but engine can develop fatigue where microscopic cracks rather the condition of multiple domains with some appear and grow until the part fails; these cracks degree of local order but in confl ict with each other usually start at the boundaries between domains so that no large-scale order is present. arising from multiple nucleation sites, since the boundaries are weaker than the ordered areas within To summarize, there are three conditions that can the domains. It is possible (though quite expensive) exist. Non-order refers to the complete lack of any to eliminate this by casting pieces as single crystals. of the particular order, for example, a lack of either The secret is to establish order in a single location or local or larger-scale magnetic ordering. Order refers nucleation site that is allowed to grow out to the rest

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 151 Article Order from Chaos of the piece while preventing other nucleation sites lar pumps to maintain the right level of ions in a cell, from beginning. or structures that build other proteins from DNA strands. While these molecules have interesting The concepts of phase transitions and symmetry properties in their own right, when assembled in just breaking are not limited to materials. In particle the right way relative to each other, they form liv- physics, similarities between the different families of ing cells that are able to take in nourishment, repair quarks and leptons have long been observed, though themselves, and reproduce—alive in a way that the they have quite different masses. This led to the for- constituent parts are not. Each macroscopic living mulation of a theory of symmetry breaking between organism is composed of vast numbers of these cells them due to some acquiring excessive mass; in addi- that function together as a tree, a butterfl y, or a dog. tion, this theory predicted the existence of the Higgs At the next level, different living organisms form boson, evidence for which is accumulating.9 Other complex, interrelated ecosystems. As we move up important phase transitions involving fundamental from the parts of atoms to vast ecosystems, we see physics include the separation of the four fundamen- multiple layers of order and new properties emerg- tal forces and the formation of hadrons (e.g., protons ing out of the structures below them, dependent on, and neutrons) from quarks, which are believed to but qualitatively different from, their constituent have occurred in the early stages of the universe’s parts. existence.10 The emergence of order from non-order is a feature not only of the different scales of natural phenomena, Structure and but also of natural history in a diachronic descrip- History of the Cosmos tion. Current theories of the big bang posit that the The concepts of phase transitions and emergence earliest stage of the universe was “quark soup” in arising in different fi elds of physics and related which the tremendous heat and density meant that disciplines can be generalized into a conceptual even subatomic particles such as protons and neu- framework describing transitions with emergent trons did not exist. As the universe expanded and properties. This section shows how such a frame- cooled down, a phase transition took place in which work of emergent transitions can be used to describe quarks organized themselves into stable protons and the structure and history of the cosmos, suggesting neutrons. This drastically changed the nature of the that such emergent transitions may be a fundamen- material universe into one dominated by electromag- tal element of God’s creative activity. It also offers an netic forces rather than by strong nuclear reactions alternative to a reductionist approach to understand- between its components. ing nature that seems to leave no place for divine activity. This follows emergence theory that has been After further cooling, another important phase tran- developed elsewhere 11 and uses the language of sition took place as neutral atoms were able to form. transitions to describe it. First a synchronic and then This led to the matter in the universe becoming a diachronic description will be offered. “invisible” to photons in the universe at that time; these photons which no longer constantly interact We observe synchronic emergence when, at any with matter persist today as the cosmic microwave given point in time, the properties of an entity may background. This phase transition again drastically be dependent on, but qualitatively different from, changed the properties of the matter in the universe, its components. Subatomic particles such as neu- which at that time was fairly evenly spread through- trons, protons, and electrons combine in different out it, to a condition in which the interactions were ways to form different atoms that have properties dominated by gravity. Gravitational interactions different from their parts and different from each eventually caused slightly denser spots of gas to con- other. Atoms, in turn, assemble to form molecules, dense into clouds of gas, which in turn strengthened which can be small and behave as gases, be large and the gravitational attraction until they condensed into fl exible, or form ridged arrays in crystals. Certain stars and galaxies, adding another level of order to molecules such as amino acids can further be strung the universe. together to form long chains to make more complex molecules that can serve many different functions. The formation of stars can be thought of in terms of These might function as digestive enzymes, molecu- another critical phase transition with the emergence

152 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Scott Bonham of completely new properties. Not only did fusion order emerging. Each order emerges out of pre- of atomic nuclei begin inside stars that caused them existing ones, dependent upon them but possessing to radiate electromagnetic energy, but the result- properties and structures distinct from those which ing radiation pressure pushed away the gas not yet exist in the lower level. incorporated into the star out of its vicinity, leading to dense, relatively well-defi ned bodies surrounded Another important aspect of this framework of by nearly empty space. These stars also became fac- emergent transitions is that it can provide a counter- tories for heavier atomic nuclei; the larger of them balance to the tendency for reductionist scientifi c would eventually blow much of this material into approaches to understanding the cosmos, in which surrounding space, where it could be incorporated there seems to be no place for God’s creative activ- into second-generation stellar systems like the one ity. In the reductionist approach, phenomena are we live in. Gravitational attraction caused large understood in terms of their underlying components quantities of the dust incorporating heavier ele- and material processes that brought them into exis- ments such as carbon, silicon, and iron to condense tence. Clearly, the components of material entities into solid chunks and eventually into rocky planets will themselves be material entities, and material like ours, which remained in place even after the processes will involve material entities. Thus, about solar radiation had cleared much of the gas out of the the only way that reductionist science could point to inner solar system. God would be through its failure to explain some- thing—the “God of the gaps” approach—which is The initial non-order of our planet formed by rocks fraught with diffi culties. However, an organizational and dust colliding and mixing up began to be or systems approach to understanding the world ordered. Much iron and nickel, along with many around us does not intrinsically exclude nonmaterial heavy radioactive materials, sank down to form the entities such as God. It could describe organizational earth’s magnetic core (which in turn protects us from structures that include both material and nonmate- solar bombardment), silicon, and other elements rial entities, as well as organizational structures with that form much of the rock in the earth’s crust, and properties that do not come directly from the compo- gases and water vapor above it. Earth’s once-molten nents, such as the phase transitions described earlier. surface cooled to form a solid surface, and eventu- This idea of emergent transitions illustrates such an ally cooled enough that liquid water could form on organizational structure. it, allowing the emergence of important properties of our planet that are crucial for life. In this liquid Further, an emergent as opposed to reductionist water, different atoms somehow became ordered conceptual framework provides a different way of into complex molecules which began to cooperate thinking about the seeming improbability of a world with each other as the fi rst primitive life emerged. in which intelligent life can exist. Despite the great This transition eventually led to “reshaping” the number of emergent transitions around us—present earth, including an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the and past—the entities in the under lying layer must organizing of multicellular creatures. possess certain characteristics and/or histories for the next level of order to emerge. The incredible fi ne Once again, this transition produced a layer of tuning of the universe, in which slight deviations in order with qualitatively new properties and forms, the initial speed of the expansion of the universe, which spread out from the shallow seas to inhabit the relative masses of the fundamental particles, the almost every part of the earth’s surface. One line relative strengths of the different forces, and many developed increasingly complex nervous systems, more aspects, has been explored by both non-Chris- and one of those species developed the ability to tian and Christian authors.12 Many characteristics use tools, make long-term plans, and work in com- of our earth, such as its distance from the sun, its plex organizations—yet another emergent, ordering size, magnetic fi eld, amount of water, a single large transition with new properties. From quarks to pro- moon, et cetera, have been critical to its supporting tons to atoms, from gas to galaxies and stars, from of life. Exactly how complex molecules formed and a molten ball to core and mantle to current geologi- began to cooperate in the fi rst living cells is still an cal structures, from complex molecules to single cell open scientifi c question. While genetic mutation and life, from multicellular organisms to human beings natural selection do provide a plausible explanation in complex societies, history is full of new levels of for the variety of life forms, it has been argued that

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 153 Article Order from Chaos it is quite improbable that all the diversity we see model based on relevant sections of his works, The has arisen strictly from unguided, random genetic Lost World of Genesis One, The Lost World of Adam variation. 13 When viewed through a reduction- and Eve, and (with co-author Brent Sandy) The Lost ist, materialist framework, it is hard to provide an World of Scripture. I will not attempt to lay out the explanation for what appears to be improbability arguments for his conclusions, which can be found piled upon improbability, and some are inclined to in those works, but simply summarize Walton’s reintroduce God as an effi cient or scientifi c cause.14 positions. However, in the more holistic, functional framework of emergent transitions, there is a general pattern in The accounts in Genesis were produced in a very the structure and history of the cosmos of new layers different cultural context than modern western of order emerging on top of older ones, from quarks thought. It was an oral culture in which communi- to galaxies and from big bang to human civilization, ties transmitted and preserved knowledge that may suggesting that this pattern refl ects something intrin- have originated from an authority such as Moses; sic about the functional design of the universe. the knowledge was recorded in writing at some later time. In an oral tradition, the core message is defended from change while allowing some fl ex- Non-order, Order, and Disorder ibility in the details. The text is interwoven with the in Genesis community’s identity and purpose and is not criti- In the ancient Near East, a common motif in creation cally assessed in the same manner as is common in accounts described the gods as bringing order and written cultures.20 Scientifi c, theological, and his- functionality to preexisting, non-ordered and non- torical analysis as we now know them had not yet functional material. They do not create perfect order been developed.21 These cultures made no distinction out of nothing. Following a tradition that stretches between “natural” and “supernatural” phenomena, back to some of the early church fathers 15 and gained and symbolism was quite important. The cultures of strength with the discovery of ancient Middle the ancient Near East also were not very interested in Eastern creation texts, 16 John Walton argues that the the material origins of the cosmos (where did all the creation accounts in Genesis should be understood in stuff come from?), but rather, in the functional ori- that context, that its focus is on the functional rather gins (from where did the order and functionality of than the material origins of the world. This would be the world, civilization, etc. come from?).22 consistent with the idea that what Genesis and the rest of scripture describe are the establishment of yet The accounts in Genesis focus on God’s bring- another layer of order on top of the physical and bio- ing functional, productive order to nonfunctional, logical orders as now studied by science—some sort unproductive chaos, and not on the material process of spiritual or human-divine structure. of the cosmos coming into being that our culture tends to emphasize. This does not contradict the doc- It should be noted that Walton seeks not to reinterpret trine that God brought material things into existence Genesis through modern cultural understandings, out of nothing; rather, the focus of the text is the neither to accommodate modern scientifi c accounts,17 creation of functional order and not the creation of nor to employ the hermeneutic of skepticism.18 matter.23 The darkness and deep waters in Genesis 1 Neither is he modifying or defending “traditional” and the arid land in Genesis 2 were common motifs readings of Genesis, such as six twenty-four hour in ancient creation stories representing nonfunc- days, which have their intellectual roots in nine- tional chaos, and would have been understood to teenth-century American cultural understanding, exist before God began the creative work described drawing from Scottish common-sense philosophy in the passages. Note that the darkness and the seas and Baconian understanding of science.19 Instead, are not called “good” in Genesis 1, and they no lon- drawing upon scholarship in archeology, anthropol- ger exist in the new creation described in Revelation ogy, communication theory, and other related fi elds, 20. Days one and four in Genesis 1 do not actually Walton is trying to reconstruct, as much as possible, refer to the creation of light, the sun, moon, and stars the original meaning of the text in its initial cultural as material entities, but rather the ordering of time context as would have been given to and understood into days, months, seasons, and years. The rest of by the Hebrew community that produced it. In the God on day seven, which Walton argues is the cli- rest of this section, I will present a summary of the max of the passage, does not represent that God had

154 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Scott Bonham fully completed his creative work, but rather that he Discussion was taking up residence in his temple (the world) The convergence of Walton’s interpretation of the and commencing ordinary rule from it.24 Genesis passages and the framework of emergent transitions helps address multiple sources of ten- God’s rest on day seven in which he commences ordi- sion between scripture and the understanding of nary rule immediately follows the creation of human the natural-scientifi c history of the cosmos and life beings, who bear his image and are charged to rule on Earth. First, if the focus of the Genesis text is the over the earth. Bearing God’s image involves both creation of functional order rather than of material having some of God’s characteristics—for example, entities, then its description of God’s creative work the ability to bring order to non-order—and being operates at a different and complementary level than his representatives. Thus, human beings were cre- that coming out of natural science. This is similar to ated to join God and be his agents in continuing to the statement that a particular shoe is made by Nike; bring order from non-order to the world. Human it is true at the functional level—the Nike company beings also were given a priestly role in representing planned, designed, and marketed it—but not true the world to God and God to the world. In addi- at the material level. Since Nike contracts out all its tion to the temple motifs Walton sees in Genesis 1, manufacturing, the people who assembled the shoe he associates the garden in Genesis 2 with gardens are actually employed by some other company. that were often part of ancient temple complexes and suggests that the man and woman may not have One example of how this functional perspective can lived there continuously, but rather entered into that resolve tensions is shown in the resolution of the sacred space to meet with God.25 conundrum of how one can have light on day one before the sun comes into being in day four. First, if While Walton believes the man and woman described God’s activity on days one and four is not the physi- in Genesis 2–3 were actual historical fi gures, he cal creation of day, night, sun, moon, and stars, but argues their signifi cance is as archetypes represent- is meant to establish their function for humans reck- ing humanity. They are not necessarily the biological oning the passage of time and cycles of life, then ancestors of the entire human race, but were given there is no contradiction with our knowledge that a particular priestly role. To use terminology intro- one cannot have light without a source. Second, and duced above, they were selected to be the nucleation closely related, if the texts in Genesis are about the site of a new human-divine order, which presumably establishment of functional order for image-bearing was to have been spread to the rest of the human race humans, then much of cosmic history understood through them. The trees named in the garden rep- through natural science—for example, the big resented that which is God’s to give—wisdom and bang, formation of the earth, emergence of many life. The man and woman did not possess intrinsic different forms of life—takes place well before the immortality, but had the opportunity to live forever account in Genesis 1 picks up in verse 3. Stars and by partaking of God’s provision through the tree of galaxies, oceans and mountains, animals and fi sh life. True wisdom is achieved in obedience to God, already existed by Genesis 1:2; the rest of the pas- not seeking it on one’s own terms. The disobedience sage is about God establishing their functional roles of the man and woman in seeking to achieve wis- for human existence. Third, if “good” is understood dom outside of God’s will introduced disorder into to refer to being functional and productive within the world. Disorder results when humans seek to set a system, then as in the previous example of a strep- up an order organized around themselves and their tococcal bacterium, something can be good at one desires, rather than an order centered on God and level and not good at another. Thus, we can describe his plan. The fi rst consequence of disobedience was biological death of organisms as “good,” necessary a broken relationship with God and his special pro- for proper functioning at an ecosystem level, but not vision. The man and woman did not become mortal being good in the new creation previewed at the end as a consequence of disobedience, but lost access to of Revelation and other scriptures. Order at one level the remedy for their mortality. Similarly for the earth does not automatically translate into order at a sub- and the rest of creation—the disobedience of Adam sequent level; it can translate into non-order that and Eve did not introduce chaos or evil into creation, then needs to undergo a transition to establish order. but interfered with God’s plan to bring good order to it through human activity.26

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 155 Article Order from Chaos

A particular application of this insight opens up pos- of God. For we know that the whole creation has sibilities for how to understand the Fall in relationship been groaning together in the pains of childbirth to scientifi c understandings of cosmic history, for until now. And not only the creation, but we which multiple approaches have been proposed.27 ourselves, who have the fi rst fruits of the Spirit, One set of approaches maintains that human sin is groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as the cause of evil and chaos, though with a variety of sons, the redemption of our bodies.31 different ideas about exactly what was the direct con- God commanded humans bearing his image to fi ll sequence of human sin, ranging from drastic changes and subdue the earth,32 and made Adam and Eve in the fundamental laws of physics, to physical death to work and care for the garden.33 These are both of humans, to merely altering human psychologi- consistent with an idea that humans were not to do cal and spiritual state. Another set of approaches their own thing or to lie around the garden in ease, reconsiders whether human sin is the temporal cause but rather to work in expanding the garden until of natural evil, instead suggesting there might be the sacred order nucleated in Eden fi lled the earth, retroactive causation, nontemporal causation, or a resulting in something like what is pictured at the gradual development in human understanding of end of Revelation where God is intimately present sin and its consequences over time. All of these pro- with humans, who also have access to the tree of life. posed explanations have both their strengths and Thus humans have a pivotal role as created sub- or their weaknesses. While there are major differences cocreators in helping to shape the fi nal outcome,34 between them, these different approaches are largely but operating fi rmly underneath the authority of operating out of a two-category paradigm, in which God. Along with death, things such as sickness and different entities and aspects of creation are consid- natural disasters could be understood to be in the cat- ered as belonging either to the category of that which egory of things that are not-good but are also not the is good, ordered, and within the divine will, or to the result of sin, things which are part of a lower order category of that which is evil, chaotic, disordered, and still need to be addressed in the establishment of sinful, and in opposition to God. They differ primar- the higher one. The same meteorological system that ily in what is assigned to each category and how the produces summer rainstorms to water prairies and latter category comes about. crops in the Midwest also gives rise to tornados.

The three-category paradigm proposed by Walton The framework of an emergent transition could also allows there to be things, for example, biological be extended to characterize key points in the history death, that are not good but also are not a result of of God’s interaction with humans. God’s choos- human sin that tries to set up self-centered order in ing and forming a covenant with Adam and Eve, 28 opposition to God. Thus we could accept Arthur with Noah, with Abraham, with the nation of Israel Peacocke’s argument that suffering and death are through Moses, with David, and with others through- intrinsic to the process through which self-aware out Old Testament history can be thought of in terms 29 beings possessing free will came to be, but, at the of God’s seeking to nucleate an emergent transi- same time, we can agree with Paul that death is the tion into a new human-divine order. Furthermore, 30 enemy. Rather than being the cause of suffering, a number of tensions between scripture and history/ death, and natural evils, human sin interfered with science disappear if we understand their signifi cance God’s plan to fully bring forth the order hinted at to be that of nucleation sites for divine order rather in the Garden of Eden and described at the end of than biological ancestry. Eve becomes the mother Revelation. If, as argued above, humans were cre- of all the living, and sin and death entered into the ated to be the primary agents for establishing God’s world through Adam, not necessarily as our biologi- good order on the earth, then human rebellion has cal ancestors but as fl awed nucleation sites. In the consequences for the rest of creation in what we have same sense, we are the children of Noah, even if the failed to do: fl ood was a local one in Mesopotamia, and Abraham For the creation waits with eager longing for the really is the father of all who believe. We are heirs revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was of the Mosaic covenant and, through conforming to subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of God’s order, we have been grafted onto it. him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption Of course, the most important of these nucleation and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children sites for God’s emergent order is the life, death, and

156 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Scott Bonham resurrection of Christ. Metaphors such as a kingdom, pattern emphasizes the relational elements of a body, and a building all refl ect an ordered system God’s plan. The God of scripture is a covenant- in which the whole is more than a collection of parts. making God. The Law is fulfi lled by loving God Statements that Jesus’s disciples would be known by and one’s neighbor. Christians are described as their love one for another reinforce that it is out of the members of a body and of a building. collective relationships that new phenomena emerge. 4. The pattern is compatible with several major Jesus’s parables of mustard seed and the yeast, models of the salvifi c effi cacy of Christ’s life, and the growth of the church from a small band of death, and resurrection. Christ, as the model disciples to a worldwide movement, parallel the human whom we should imitate, resonates with nucleation and growth of an ordered phase in mate- the image of atoms rearranging themselves to rials. Exhortations to leave an old way of life, to be conform to a new order. Christ, as the sacrifi cial conformed to the likeness of Christ, refl ect changes lamb who turns away God’s wrath, incorporates in the orientation of the constituent parts as they the concepts of the Mosaic order, yet builds on become part of the new order. The understanding them to make something new. Christ’s triumph of sin and opposition to God overlaps comfortably over sin and death refl ects an emergence of an with the idea that humans introduce disorder when entirely new phenomenon. they seek to build order centered on their own selves rather than on God. Discussions about eternal life 5. The pattern reinforces the central role of Christ and a new creation, as well as the mysterious fea- and our need to be in relationship with him and tures of the resurrected Christ (for example, entering conformed to his pattern. At the same time, it into locked rooms) point toward entirely new phe- also affi rms that much of the present reality—for nomena emerging in the new order, of which we example, physical, social, economic—will not currently have glimpses only. Note that Jesus explic- disappear but will be incorporated into the emer- itly stated that he was not overthrowing the Mosaic gent reality; the glory and honor of the nations 34 order, but rather he was fulfi lling and adding to it. will be brought into the kingdom. Just as helium-3 undergoes multiple transitions from 6. The pattern has obvious applications to evan- a gas to a liquid to a superfl uid, biblical history can gelism and missiology. People generally come be thought of as passing through multiple transitions into relationship with Christ through other peo- from the beginning to God’s fi nal kingdom. ple instead of through direct divine action; and effective mission strategies often focus on estab- This general framework of emergent transitions is lishing a nucleus of believers in the target group useful as a framework to understand the sweep of and enabling the gospel to spread out from it. both cosmic and divine history. It suggests some- As with any framework we use to describe the reality thing about metaphysical reality, something about in which we fi nd ourselves, it makes simplifi cations God’s general approach to his interactions with our which, if taken to the extreme and not balanced with world. This leads to six additional congruences with other information and models, can introduce distor- doctrines about God, the world, and applications to tion s. For one, the focus on emergent order could our lives. tend to minimize sin, evil, human responsibility, and 1. The general pattern of emergent transitions judgment, which are major themes in scripture. Two, across the sweep of history is consistent with an this framework tends to minimize signifi cant differ- unchanging divine nature. ences found in frameworks that draw distinct stages 2. The pattern emphasizes that scriptural history is in scriptural history. Three, it is a broad analogy to a progression from a starting point in a garden to compare atoms arranging themselves in a material an end point in a city, and is not trying to return to establishment of an order in which God himself to an original perfect state. Thus Christ’s life, plays a signifi cant role. death, and resurrection were not simply about counter acting the effects of the fi rst sin, but fully The framework of emergent transitions has some and fi nally ushering in a new order that was not limitations and does not replace other theological originally present. frameworks. However, it is a productive framework that can be used to describe a wide range of phenom- 3. As emergent phenomena come not from indi- ena, from early stages of the universe to emergence vidual parts but their collective interactions, the

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 157 Article Order from Chaos of life to God’s work in Genesis to his establishment University Press, 2008), http://www.oxfordreference.com of covenants with his people. The way that it can /view/10.1093/acref/9780198608585.001.0001/acref -9780198608585-e-288. productively describe multiple levels of God’s inter- 11For example, see Harry Cook, “Emergence: A Biologist’s actions with the world suggests that the framework Look at Complexity in Nature,” Perspectives on Science captures key aspects of the reality of God’s relation- and Christian Faith 65, no. 4 (2013): 233–41, http://www ship with the world and thus is a valuable tool for .asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2013/PSCF12-13Cook.pdf; Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientifi c Age: Being and Becom- understanding it.  ing—Natural, Divine, and Human (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990). 12For example, see Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe Notes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982); 1John 1:1–18. Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape 2Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2000); Alister E. Reformational Worldview, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd- McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Sci- mans, 2005). ence and Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox 3Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New Press, 2009); William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Chris- York: Random House, 1950), 14.10. tian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway 41 Corinthians 14:33, 40. Books, 2008). 5John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient 13Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: Limits of Darwinism (New York: Free Press, 2007). InterVarsity Press, 2009), 50. 14See for example, ibid. 6Ibid., 24. 15Sjoerd L. Bonting, “Chaos Theology: A New Approach to 7For example, see H. Eugene Stanley, Introduction to Phase the Science-Theology Dialogue,” Zygon 34, no. 2 (1999): Transitions and Critical Phenomena (New York: Oxford Uni- 323–32. versity Press, 1971); Nigel Goldenfeld, Lectures on Phase 16Hermann Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era Transitions and the Renormalization Group (Upper Saddle and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and River, NJ: Addison-Wesley, 1992); Phase Transitions: A Revelation 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006). Multinational Journal (Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 17John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 1979–). and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: Inter- 8“Continuous transitions” are also referred to as “second- Varsity Press, 2015), 105. order” transitions. In the case of ice, this is true only of the 18John Walton and Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture: transition at the surface; bulk ice is a fi rst-order or discon- Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (Downers tinuous transition. Second-order transitions are described Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013). by an order parameter Ψ which obeys the relationship 19George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, β Ψ(T) = (1 – T⁄Tc) for temperatures T below the critical tem- 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). 20 perature Tc. The critical exponent β is characteristic of the Walton and Sandy, Lost World of Scripture, 280. system. 21David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The 9ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a New Particle in European Scientifi c Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and the Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson with the Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450, 2nd ed. (Chi- ATLAS Detector at the LHC,” Physics Letters B 716 (2012): cago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2007). 1–12. 22Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, 21–34. 10“Phase Transitions,” in Andrew Liddle and Jon Loveday, 23See also Bonting, “Chaos Theology.” The Oxford Companion to Cosmology (New York: Oxford 24Walton, Lost World of Adam and Eve, 116–18. 25Ibid. 26Ibid., 144. 27Randy Isaac, “Chronology of the Fall,” Perspectives on Sci- Save the date! ence and Christian Faith 48, no. 1 (1996): 34, http://www .asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Isaac.html. ASA 2018 28See also Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton. 29Peacocke, Theology for a Scientifi c Age, 79–80. B B 301 Corinthians 15:26. 31Romans 8:19–23, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: G C Crossway Bibles, 2011). 32Genesis 1:26–28. W, MA 33Genesis 2:15. 34Gregory R. Peterson, “The Created Co-creator: What It Is J 27–30, 2018 and Is Not,” Zygon 39, no. 4 (2004): 827–40. 35Revelation 21:26. “Be fruitful and increase in number; fi ll the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fi sh in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” –Genesis 1:28 ASA Members: Submit comments and questions on this article at www.asa3.org→FORUMS→PSCF DISCUSSION.

158 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution Philip J. Senter Philip J. Senter

Creation science (CS) is a discipline in which practitioners seek evidence to support a literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. A study of CS literature from the past fi fty years reveals the following trends regarding the topics of natural selec- tion (NS) and convergent evolution. Rejection of NS or some form of it has exceeded acceptance in both the twentieth and twenty-fi rst centuries. Through both centuries, CS authors have consistently accepted stabilizing selection, have rejected NS as a fac- tor in prebiotic chemical evolution and the evolution of biological complexity, and have disagreed as to whether to accept convergent evolution, directional selection, sexual selection, and NS as a driver of biological diversity within “created kinds.” Acceptance of convergent evolution and directional selection within “created kinds” has risen in the twenty-fi rst century among CS authors.

reation science (CS) is a disci- cal journals, and this history will not be pline in which practitioners seek repeated here.5 CS technical literature has Cextrabiblical support for the now become suffi ciently vast and long young-Earth creationist (YEC) world- lived to test for the presence of tempo- view. According to the (YEC) view, the ral trends in positions on various topics. literal wording of the book of Genesis Previously, we reported investigations accurately records past events, includ- into such trends in the topics of vesti- ing the independent creation of all kinds gial structures (as mainstream scientists of organisms about 6,000 years ago. The understand them), biological degenera- YEC view remains popular,1 despite its tion (as CS practitioners understand it),6 contradiction by abundant physical evi- and benefi cial mutations.7 Here, I report dence that Earth is billions of years old an investigation into temporal trends in and that all organisms evolved from a positions on natural selection and con- common ancestor,2 and despite biblical vergent evolution. endorsement of a fi gurative rather than literal approach to Genesis and the rest of Natural selection (NS) is a type of biologi- the Pentateuch.3 cal evolution in which heritable variation exists in a population, and some vari- CS is voiced through its technical lit- ants are more successful than others at erature, which consists mainly of survival and reproduction. Through the peer-reviewed journals that accept generations, the traits in a population only manuscripts written from the Philip J. Senter YEC viewpoint. The earliest of these, (PhD, Northern Illinois University) is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences of Fayetteville State University in Creation Research Society Quarterly, was 4 Fayetteville, North Carolina. He has published over seventy peer-reviewed launched in 1964. In a previous article, articles that focus mainly on dinosaur paleobiology, reptile biology, vestigial Jared Mackey and I briefl y delineated organs, and the creation-evolution debate. He was chrismated into the the history of proliferation of CS techni- Greek Orthodox Church in 2013.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 159 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution change as the more-successful variants produce more all organisms identical, or that NS is based on circu- viable offspring than the other variants.8 The success lar reasoning or tautological error (“survival of the of a variant is called its fi tness, which has led to the fi ttest,” with the fi ttest defi ned as those that survive). phrase “survival of the fi ttest” as a short description Some dispute that NS could have been involved of natural selection. Traits that increase fi tness in one in the evolution of prebiotic macromolecules, the situation may reduce fi tness in other situations. For advent of sexual reproduction, the advent of biologi- example, longer beak lengths once conferred greater cal symbioses, or the advent of human mental traits fi tness in Hawaiian honeycreepers (Drepanis coc- such as altruism and the ability to calculate. cinea), which consumed nectar from fl owers that had a tubular shape, because the long beak enabled the birds to reach the nectar at the bottom of the tube. Materials and Methods However, after deforestation in Hawaii drastically I sought to determine whether temporal trends exist reduced the availability of trees with tubular fl ow- in CS technical literature in the topics and subtopics ers, forcing Hawaiian honeycreepers to glean nectar identifi ed in the previous two paragraphs. I used the from nontubular fl owers, longer beaks became a lia- methods described in our previous two articles, lim- bility; subsequently, shorter beaks conferred greater iting the analysis to technical articles in CS literature fi tness for Hawaiian honeycreepers.9 and to conference abstracts in CS journals in which lengthy, referenced abstracts function as stand-alone A few different kinds of NS exist. Directional selec- articles. I searched through available PDF fi les of CS tion is a form of NS in which a trait changes through technical literature and searched visually through the generations (e.g., horns are longer in later gener- paper copies of journal volumes for which PDFs are ations). Stabilizing selection is a form of NS in which not available.16 For PDF searches, I used the search a trait remains constant (e.g., horn length is the same terms “natural selection,” “mutation and selection,” in later generations as it was in earlier generations) “survival of the fi ttest,” “sexual selection,” “con- by means of the elimination of less-fi t variants.10 verge,” and “parallel.” Sexual selection is a form of NS in which, within a given sex, certain variants have greater reproductive As in our previous articles, I divided the duration of success than others.11 NS can lead to biological diver- the CS movement into ten periods: 1964–1970 and sity as different environments favor different traits in nine subsequent periods of fi ve years apiece from populations living in different areas.12 Mainstream 1971–1975 to 2011–2015. I then compared the number scientists have documented13 and accept the exis- of articles and authors accepting or rejecting various tence of NS and the forms of it that are listed above, positions on the chosen topics and subtopics through and they hypothesize that NS played a role in the time. early evolution of macromolecules before the advent of the living cell.14 I calculated the percentage of twentieth-century- articles and authors accepting or rejecting each Convergent evolution is the acquisition of simi- position, recording percentages with a precision of lar traits in different lineages. It can occur when two signifi cant digits; I repeated the procedure for members of those lineages occupy similar environ- twenty-fi rst-century articles and authors. I then ran ments; these conditions lead NS to favor similar two-tailed z-tests on these proportions, to test for sig- traits. Convergent evolution is called parallel evolu- nifi cant differences in the proportions between the tion when closely related species with an identical two centuries. The z-tests were run with alpha set at precursor structure independently evolve similar a stringent 0.01 and then repeated with alpha set at specializations of that structure.15 a less-stringent 0.05 and a lenient 0.1 to account for small sample sizes. Some CS authors accept the existence of convergent evolution, NS, and the forms of NS listed above, and others do not (tables 1, 2). Some CS authors also Results dispute the idea that NS is capable of successfully I found 273 CS articles, by 132 authors, in which the producing biological diversity, complex biological authors took positions on NS (tables 1, 2). Rejection of systems (e.g., chemical pathways), or complex ana- NS in general or some form of it exceeded acceptance tomical structures. Some assert that NS should make through all or most periods (fi gs. 1, 2). The predomi- nant position (acceptance or rejection) fl ip-fl opped

160 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter three times for directional selection and for NS as directional selection (which dropped in the twenty- a driver of biological diversity, and once for sexual fi rst century). With alpha set at 0.05, the tests found selection (fi gs. 1, 2). Stabilizing selection was consis- additional signifi cant differences between the two tently accepted. NS as a factor in prebiotic molecular centuries in proportions of articles accepting direc- evolution, and NS as a factor in the evolution of bio- tional selection (which rose), articles and authors logical complexity, were consistently rejected. NS as rejecting sexual selection (which rose), authors a factor in the evolution of complex structures was accepting its existence (which dropped), and arti- consistently rejected, except for one instance in 2011 cles rejecting convergent/parallel evolution (which (fi g. 2), in which an author accepted that antifreeze dropped) (fi g. 3). With alpha set at 0.1, the tests protein in eelpouts is a product of NS.17 Acceptance found additional signifi cant differences between the that NS had been observed, assertion that NS should two centuries in proportions of authors accepting make all organisms identical, and characterization directional selection (which rose), authors rejecting it of NS as based on circular reasoning or tautological (which dropped), authors accepting NS as a driver error remained at low levels (usually < 5 authors) in of biological diversity (which dropped), articles all periods. accepting sexual selection (which dropped), authors rejecting convergent evolution (which dropped), and I found 55 articles by 34 authors, in which the authors authors accepting it (which rose) (fi g. 3). took positions on convergent evolution (tables 1, 2). Rejection exceeded acceptance except in the period In some cases, the sum of the percentages of CS 2010–2015 (fi g. 2). articles or authors accepting and rejecting a con- cept exceeds 100% (table 1). This is due to occasional With alpha set at 0.01, the two-tailed z-tests found instances in which an author accepts a concept in one a signifi cant difference between the two centuries passage but rejects it in another passage in the same in only one proportion: number of articles rejecting article (see table 2 for specifi c instances).

Table 1. Numbers and percentages of CS articles and authors rejecting or accepting concepts related to natural selection and convergent evolution, through 2015. 1964– 1971– 1976– 1981– 1986– 1991– 1996– 2001– 2006– 2011– 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NS or Some Form of It Articles accepting 9791159716 17 9 Authors accepting 77711511711 15 7 Articles rejecting 19 14 10 16 7 15 19 34 33 19 Authors rejecting 11 12 10 10 6 14 11 26 25 11 % of articles accepting 36% 39% 60% 46% 42% 39% 29% 36% 36% 45% % of authors accepting 54% 50% 54% 69% 45% 52% 44% 38% 48% 48% % of articles rejecting 76% 78% 67% 67% 58% 65% 79% 77% 70% 55% % of authors rejecting 85% 86% 77% 67% 55% 67% 69% 90% 81% 65%

NS in General Articles accepting 0101101011 Authors accepting 0101101011 Articles rejecting 46440412117 Authors rejecting 36440414136 % of articles accepting 0% 12.5% 0% 25% 100% 0% 50% 0% 9.1% 14% % of authors accepting 0% 12.5% 0% 25% 100% 0% 50% 0% 7.1% 17% % of articles rejecting 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% % of authors rejecting 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 100% 50% 100% 93% 100%

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 161 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Table 1 (cont’d) 1964– 1971– 1976– 1981– 1986– 1991– 1996– 2001– 2006– 2011– 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NS Has Been Observed Articles accepting 5311222255 Authors accepting 4411222266 % of articles accepting 20% 17% 6.7% 4.2% 17% 8.7% 8.3% 4.5% 19% 42% % of authors accepting 31% 29% 7.7% 6.7% 18% 9.5% 12.5% 6.9% 19% 55%

NS as a Driver of Biological Diversity Articles accepting 1211141135 Authors accepting 1311151136 Articles rejecting 3000002431 Authors rejecting 3000002432 % of articles accepting 33% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 33% 50% 435 62.5% % of authors accepting 33% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 33% 50% 43% 60% % of articles rejecting 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% 80% 43% 13% % of authors rejecting 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% 80% 43% 20%

Directional Selection Articles accepting 1212050548 Authors accepting 12120504510 Articles rejecting 4134122422 Authors rejecting 2132122323 % of articles accepting 25% 67% 33% 29% 0% 83% 0% 71% 67% 100% % of authors accepting 50% 65% 33% 40% 0% 83% 0% 67% 71% 100% % of articles rejecting 100% 35% 100% 57% 100% 33% 100% 57% 33% 25% % of authors rejecting 100% 33% 100% 40% 100% 33% 100% 50% 29% 33%

Sexual Selection Articles accepting 112100 Authors accepting 112100 Articles rejecting 012421 Authors rejecting 011221 % of articles accepting 100% 50% 67% 25% 0% 0% % of authors accepting 100% 50% 100% 33% 0% 0% % of articles rejecting 0% 50% 67% 100% 100% 100% % of authors rejecting 05% 50% 50% 67% 100% 100%

Convergent Evolution Articles accepting 1000013415 Authors accepting 1000013314 Articles rejecting 5321545682 Authors rejecting 32115653101 % of articles accepting 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 43% 40% 11% 71% % of authors accepting 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 43% 60% 10% 80% % of articles rejecting 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 43% 60% 89% 29% % of authors rejecting 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 43% 60% 100% 20%

162 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

Table 2. CS articles that express acceptance or rejection of mutation, natural selection (NS), or convergent evolution. Author and year Position on natural Position on Author and year Position on natural Position on selection convergent selection convergent evolution evolution Lammerts, 19641 Reject (DS) Garrido, 197340 Accept (SS), Reject (CoS) Tinkle, 19642 Accept (SS: Obs), Reject McCone, 197341 Accept (DS: Obs) (Com) Telfair, 197342 Accept (DS), Reject (G), Zimmerman, 19643 Reject (PCE) CR Barnes, 19654 Reject (PCE) Lammerts & Howe, Accept (SS: Obs) 43 Howe, 19655 Reject, CD 1974 44 Lammerts, 19656 Reject (Sym) Armstrong, 1975 Reject (DS) 45 Shute, 19657 Reject (CoS: numerous Helmick, 1975 Reject (PCE) miscellaneous examples; Howe, 197546 Reject, EA Sym) Lammerts, 197547 Reject (G) 8 Howard, 1966 Accept (SS, DS) Murphy & Howe, Reject (Com, CoS: chemi- Klotz, 19669 Reject (G) Accept 197548 cal pathways in photo- Lammerts, 196610 Reject (BD) synthesis; bat wing) 49 Armstrong, 196711 Accept (SS) Ouweneel, 1975 Accept (SS), Reject (Com: genetic controls in Armstrong, 196712 Reject (G), CR homeotic phenomena) Howe, 196713 Reject Clark, 197650 Reject (HMT) Lammerts, 196714 Accept (SS: Obs), Reject Davidheiser, 197651 Accept (SS: Obs) (DS) Haines, 197652 Accept (SS), Reject Armstrong, 196815 Reject (G), CR (PCE) Howe, 196816 Accept (BD) Siegler, 197653 Reject (BD) Tinkle, 196817 Reject (CoS: fl owers) Smith, 197654 Reject (G) Armstrong, 196918 Reject (Sym) Tinkle, 197655 Accept (SS) Howe, 196919 Accept (SS) Lammerts, 197756 Reject (G) Lammerts, 196920 Reject (DS) Ouweneel, 197757 Accept (SS) Marsh, 196921 Reject, EA Poettcker, 197758 Accept (SS), Reject (G) Shute, 196922 Reject, EA Accept (SS), Reject (DS, 59 Tinkle, 196923 Accept (SS: Obs) Tinkle, 1977 SR) 60 Tinkle, 196924 Reject (CoS: spadix-and- Walton, 1977 Reject (G) spathe structure of the Howe, 197861 Accept (SS) jack-in-the-pulpit; diff er- ences between larval and Smith, 197862 Reject (G) adult dragonfl y) Woodmorappe, Reject, CD Williams, 196925 Reject (G) 197863 Armstrong, 197026 Reject (CoS) Hedtke, 197964 Reject (DS) Cousins, 197027 Accept (Obs), Reject Howe, 197965 Accept (BD) (PCE) Ancil, 198066 Accept (SS, BD) Mosher & Tinkle, Accept (SS: Obs); Reject 67 197028 (CoS), CR Roth, 1980 Reject (CoS) 68 Shute, 197029 Reject, EA Tinkle, 1980 Reject (PCE) Smith, 197030 Reject (BD) Woodmorappe, Reject 198069 Armstrong, 197131 Reject (G) Iden Reject Wrangham, 198070 Accept (DS, SS) Armstrong, 197132 Reject (G) Cheek, 198171 Accept (G: Obs) Howe & Davis, Accept (BD; G: Obs) 72 197133 Hedtke, 1981 Reject (G) 73 Ouweneel, 197134 Accept (BD, SS) Howe, 1981 Accept (DS) 74 Tinkle, 197135 Reject (G) Lammerts, 1981 Reject (DS) 75 Armstrong, 197236 Reject (Com), Iden Tinkle, 1981 Reject (Com), Iden 76 Holroyd, 197237 Reject (G), Iden Brown, 1982 Accept (SS) 77 Morris, 197238 Reject (G) Howe, 1982 Reject (Com: genes that help a plant re-spout after Armstrong, 197339 Reject, EA a fi re) Key: BD = biological diversity as a product of NS. CD = assertion or implica- make all organisms identical. Obs = acceptance that the phenomenon has tion that apparent convergent evolution is evidence of a common designer. been observed to occur. PCE = infl uence of NS on prebiotic chemical evolu- Com = biological complexity as a product of NS. CoS = complex structures tion. SR = sexual reproduction as a product of NS. SS = stabilizing selec- as products of NS. CR = assertion that NS or “survival of the fi ttest” is based tion. Sym = symbioses as products of NS. SxS = sexual selection. Note on circular reasoning or tautological error. DS = directional selection. EA that authors who accept SS but reject G usually specify that they reject NS = assertion that the idea of convergent evolution is a way to explain away as a driver of macroevolution. Names of biological structures and processes similarities in unrelated organisms. G = NS in general. HMT = human men- listed after “Com” and “CoS” are those that the author(s) claimed are too tal traits as products of NS. Iden = assertion or implication that NS should irreducibly complex to have evolved by NS.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 163 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Table 2 (cont’d) Author and year Position on natural Position on Author and year Position on natural Position on selection convergent selection convergent evolution evolution Jones, 198278 Reject (DS) Reject, CD Hoff man, 1993121 Reject (G), CR Lammerts, 198279 Reject (G) Lumsden, 1993122 Reject (CoS: plant Moore, 198280 Accept (SS) alkaloids) 123 Smith, 198281 Accept (SS) Mehlert, 1993 Reject, EA 124 Tinkle, 198282 Accept (SS) Armitage, 1994 Reject (CoS: shapes of diatoms) Bluth, 198383 Accept (SS), Reject (DS) Gibson, 1994125 Accept Lambert, 198384 Accept (DS) Kaufmann, 1994126 Reject (CoS: human Lammerts, 198385 Reject (DS) body) Riss, 198386 Reject (G) Lester, 1994127 Accept (BD, DS, SS) Hedtke, 198487 Accept (SS), Reject (CoS) ReMine, 1994128 Reject (G) Reject Lammerts, 198488 Accept (SS), Reject (DS) Bergman, 1995129 Reject (G) Hamilton, 198589 Reject (CoS: cephalopod Lutz, 1995130 Reject (CoS: feathers) eye; human eye) Mehlert, 1995131 Accept (BD, SS) Lammerts, 198590 Reject (Com) Ulm, 1995132 Reject, CD Smith, 198591 Reject (G) Wise, 1995133 Accept (DS) 92 Hamilton, 1986 Reject (CoS: eye of 134 jumping spider) Bergman, 1996 Accept (SS: Obs), Reject (SR, SxS) Leslie, 198693 Reject (DS) Calais & Mehlert, Accept (SS) Moore, 198694 Accept (SS) 1996135 Sanders & Howe, Reject (CoS: food- Colwell, 1996136 Reject (G) CR 95 1986 catching basket of 137 dragonfl y; click apparatus Gibson, 1996 Reject (BD) of click beetle) Sarfati, 1996138 Reject (PCE) Butt, 198796 Accept (SS, SxS) Wieland, 1996139 Reject (CoS) Hamilton, 198797 Reject (CoS: cephalopod Reject, CD Armitage, 1997140 Reject (Sym) eye; human eye) Bergman, 1997141 Accept (SS) 98 Glover, 1988 Reject, EA Deckard, 1997142 Accept (G) 99 Hamilton, 1988 Reject (CoS: tetrapod eye) Robinson, 1997143 Accept 100 Mehlert, 1988 Reject, EA Sarfati, 1997144 Accept (BD) 101 Williams, 1988 Reject (CoS: spider Wieland, 1997145 Accept (SxS) web production and complexity) Armitage, 1998146 Reject (Com) Gish, 1989102 Accept (SS: Obs) Batten, 1998147 Reject (Com, PCE) von Fange, 1989103 Reject Bergman, 1998148 Reject (Sym) Arndts, 1990104 Reject, EA Bergman, 1998149 Reject (Sym) Bergman, 1990105 Accept (SS) Bergman, 1998150 Reject (CoS) Hedtke, 1990106 Reject (CoS) Howe, 1998151 Reject (Sym) Wise, 1990107 Accept (BD, G: Obs) McGinley, 1998152 Accept (BD: Obs) Bergman, 1991108 Reject (CoS) Oard, 1998153 Accept (SS), Reject (DS) Accept, Reject Culp, 1991109 Accept (SS) Penrose, 1998154 Reject (DS) Davidheiser, 1991110 Accept (DS: Obs) 111 Robinson & Accept Hamilton, 1991 Reject (CoS: fi sh eye; Cavanaugh, 1998155 tetrapod eye), CR Sarfati, 1998156 Reject (PCE) Kouznetsov, 1991112 Accept (SS) (DS: Obs) Wise, 1998157 Reject Williams, Howe & Reject (Com: millipede Reject, CD White, 1991113 defense system) Woodmorappe, Reject, EA 1998158 Bergman, 1992114 Accept (SxS), Reject (CoS, PCE), CR Hedtke, 1999159 Reject (CoS) Brand & Carter, Accept (BD) Kaufmann, 1999160 Reject (PCE) 115 1992 Sarfati, 1999161 Reject (CoS: double-sieve Crofut, 1992116 Reject (DS) enzymes) Kofahl, 1992117 Reject (G) Armitage & Reject Lumsden, 2000162 Bergman, 1993118 Accept (DS: Obs, SS), Reject (DS, SxS) Iden, CR Bergman, 2000163 Reject (PCE) Brand & Gibson, Accept (BD, SS), Reject Bergman, 2000164 Reject (SxS) 119 1993 (CoS) Woodmorappe, Reject Hamilton, 1993120 Reject (CoS) 2000165

164 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

Table 2 (cont’d) Author and year Position on natural Position on Author and year Position on natural Position on selection convergent selection convergent evolution evolution Bergman, 2001166 Reject (CoS: May, Thompson, & Reject (G) transposons) Harrub, 2004204 Bergman, 2001167 Accept (SS) Murdock, 2004205 Reject (DS) Bergman, 2001168 Reject, EA Schragin, 2004206 Reject (Sym) Burgess, 2001169 Reject (SxS) Thompson & Reject (HMT) 207 Gurney, 2001170 Reject (CoS: human eye) Harrub, 2004 Laughlin, 2001171 Accept (SS) Thompson & Reject (SR) Harrub, 2004208 Mastropaolo, Reject (BD, CoS) 209 2001172 Wilson, 2004 Reject (G) Oard, 2001173 Reject Woodmorappe, Accept 2004210 Oard, 2001174 Reject, EA Bergman, 2005211 Accept (DS), Reject (DS) Wood & Accept 212 Cavanaugh, 2001175 Bergman, 2005 Accept (SS), Reject (Com: genetic code; PCE) 176 Batten, 2002 Reject (Com: C4 213 chemistry in plants) Bergman, 2005 Reject Bergman, 2002177 Accept (SS), Reject (BD) Brand & Schwab, Reject (CoS: sensory 2005214 structures) Bergman, 2002178 Reject (CoS: giraff e neck) Catchpoole, 2005215 Reject (Com: the process Bergman, 2002179 Reject, EA of producing fl attening in Gurney, 2002180 Accept (SS) leaves) 216 Kofahl, 2002181 Reject (CoS) DeWitt, 2005 Reject (Com) 217 Leyfi eld, 2002182 Accept (BD) Sarfati, 2005 Reject (Com: chemi- cal pathways in Wood, 2002183 Accept photosynthesis) Woodmorappe, Reject, EA Truman, 2005218 Reject (CoS: ubiquitin 2002184 protein) Batten, 2003185 Accept (DS) Williams, 2005219 Reject (SR) Bergman, 2003186 Accept (DS: Obs; SS), Williams, 2005220 Accept (DS) Reject (DS) Wise, 2005221 Accept (SS), Reject (BD) Accept Manning, 2003187 Reject (CoS: insect fl ight systems) Armitage & Howe, Reject (CoS) 2006222 188 Swindell, 2003 Reject (CoS, Com: pro- 223 teins; chemical pathways Bergman, 2006 Accept (SS) in photosynthesis) Biswas, 2006224 Accept (SS) Taylor, 2003189 Accept (DS: Obs), Reject Brand, 2006225 Reject (DS) (HMT) Demme, 2006226 Accept (G) Truman, 2003190 Reject (PCE) Henry, 2006227 Accept (BD) Woodmorappe, Reject (CoS) 228 2003191 Stoltzmann, 2006 Reject (CoS: human eye) 229 Woodmorappe, Reject (BD) Truman, 2006 Reject (PCE) 2003192 Wise, 2006230 Accept Woodmorappe, Accept (DS) Armitage, 2007231 Accept (DS) 193 2003 Bergman, 2007232 Reject (SxS) 194 Wright, 2003 Reject (SxS) Borger & Truman, Reject (Com: mRNA Armitage & Howe, Reject (Com: vegetative 2007233 regulation) 195 2004 reproduction in lichens; Borger & Truman, Reject (G) Reject lichens’ resistance to low 2007234 temperatures) 196 Jaroncyk & Doyle, Reject, EA Batten, 2004 Reject (Com: protein 2007235 editing; mRNA editing; the killer T-cell system) Sarfati, 2007236 Reject (Com: DNA scrunching; PCE) Batten, 2004197 Reject (Sym) 198 Truman & Borger, Reject (Com: the DNA Bell, 2004 Accept (SS), Reject 2007237 code) (Com) 199 Truman & Borger, Reject (Com) Bergman, 2004 Reject (SxS) 2007238 200 Bergman, 2004 Accept (SS, SxS), Reject Truman & Borger, Reject (SxS) 2007239 201 Bergman, 2004 Accept (SS) Smith, 2007240 Accept (SS), Reject Harrub & Reject (SR) (Sym) 202 Thompson, 2004 Williams, 2007241 Reject (PCE) 203 Khomenko, 2004 Accept (SS) Williams, 2007242 Reject (G)

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 165 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Table 2 (cont’d) Author and year Position on natural Position on Author and year Position on natural Position on selection convergent selection convergent evolution evolution Armitage, 2008243 Reject Pendragon & Accept (BD) 285 Anderson & Reject (Com) Winkler, 2011 Purdom, 2008244 Statham, 2011286 Reject (SxS) Baumgardner, Reject (G) White, 2011287 Accept (DS) Sanford, Brewer, Gaskill & Thomas, Reject (BD, DS) Gibson, and 2012288 ReMine, 2008245 Lightner, 2012289 Accept Bergman, 2008246 Reject (CoS: arthropod compound eye; fi sh eye; Truman, 2012290 Reject (PCE) human eye) Enyart, 2013291 Reject (DS) 247 Bergman, 2008 Accept (SS: Obs) Jeanson, 2013292 Reject (G) 248 Borger, 2008 Accept (SS), Reject Joubert, 2013293 Accept (BD) (Com, PCE) 249 Lee, Horstemeyer, Reject (CoS): Borger, 2008 Accept (SS), Reject (BD) Seely, & Williams, woodpecker beak Lightner, 2008250 Accept (DS: Obs) 2013294 Lightner, 2008251 Reject (BD) Lightner, 2013295 Accept Liu, 2008252 Reject (Com) Line, 2013296 Accept (BD) Purdom, 2008253 Accept (DS: Obs) Rupe & Sanford, Reject (G) 2013297 Purdom & Accept (DS: Obs), Reject Anderson, 2008254 (Com) Arment, 2014298 Accept Sanford, Baum- Reject (G) Carter, 2014299 Accept (G: Obs) gardner, Brewer, Guliuzza, 2014300 Reject (G) Gibson, and ReMine, 2008255 Guliuzza, 2014301 Reject (G) Truman & Borger, Reject (G) Guliuzza, 2014302 Reject (G) 2008256 Joubert, 2014303 Reject (G) Truman & Borger, Reject (Com) Lightner, 2014304 Reject (G) 2008257 Lightner, 2014305 Reject (Com: grass- Williams, 2008258 Reject (G) hopper mouse immunity Williams, 2008259 Accept (BD) to scorpion venom) Criswell, 2009260 Accept (DS: Obs), Reject Lightner, 2014306 Reject (Com) (BD) Bergman & Snow, Reject (CoS: avian respi- Doyle, 2009261 Reject, EA 2015307 ratory system) Howe, 2009262 Reject (BD) Cook, 2015308 Reject (HMT) Hennigan, 2009263 Reject (Sym) Gillen, Conrad, & Accept (DS: Obs) Cargill, 2015309 Larssen, 2009264 Reject (G), CR Lightner, 2015310 Accept (SS: Obs) Lightner, 2009265 Reject (G) Stoltzmann, 2015311 Reject (CoS: human eye) Liu & Soper, 2009266 Reject Liu, 2015312 Accept (DS: Obs) Oard, 2009267 Accept (SS) Liu, 2015313 Accept (DS: Obs) Sarfati, 2009268 Reject (SxS) Tan, 2015314 Reject (CoS): proteins Accept Reject (CoS): animal wing plus relevant cerebral Truman, 2015315 Accept Stevens, 2009269 circuitry Williams, 2015316 Accept (DS) Wise, 2009270 Reject (G) Williams, 2015317 Accept (SS) Woetzel, 2009271 Accept (SS) 1Walter E. Lammerts, “Discoveries Since 1859 Which Invalidate the Bartlett, 2010272 Reject (CoS: fl agellum) Evolution Theory,” CRSA 1 (1964): 47–55. Bergman, 2010273 Reject (G) 2William J. Tinkle, “Natural Selection a Limited Role,” CRSA 1 Bergman, 2010274 Reject (1964): 39–41. 3 275 Paul A. Zimmerman, “The Spontaneous Generation of Life,” Lightner, 2010 Reject (Com) CRSA (1964): 13–17. Oard, 2010276 Reject 4Thomas G. Barnes, “A Scientifi c Alternative to Evolution,” Smith, 2010277 Reject (G) CRSQ 2, no. 4 (1965): 5–8. 5George F. Howe, “Homology, Analogy, and Creative Compo- 278 Catchpoole, 2011 Accept (BD, DS) nents in Plants,” CRSA 2 (1965): 14–21. Doyle, 2011279 Accept (BD) 6Walter E. Lammerts, “Planned Induction of Commercially Desir- Doyle, 2011280 Accept (BD, CoS) able Variation in Roses by Neutron Radiation,” CRSA 2 (1965): 39–48. Lightner, 2011281 Reject (BD, Sym) 7E. V. Shute, “Remarkable Adaptations,” CRSA 2 (1965): 22–26. Oard, 2011282 Accept (BD) Reject 8Warren R. Howard, “Reinterpretation of Facts behind the Theory of Evolution,” CRSQ 3, no. 4 (1966): 18–20. Oard, 2011283 Reject, EA 9John W. Klotz, “The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Concepts Pendragon, 2011284 Accept (DS) of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory,” CRSQ 3, no. 2 (1966): 3–12.

166 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

10Walter E. Lammerts, “The Galapagos Island Finches,” CRSA 3 48Orville C. Murphy and George F. Howe, “Desert Survival and (1966): 73–79. Four-Carbon Photosynthesis,” CRSQ 12 (1975): 113–14. 11Harold Armstrong, “Is DNA Only a Material Cause?,” CRSA 4 49Willem J. Ouweneel, “Homeotic Mutants and Evolution,” CRSQ (1967): 41–45. 12 (1975): 141–54. 12 50 ———, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” CRSQ 4 (1967): John D. Clark, “Some Philosophical Implications of the Theory of 135–37. Evolution,” Origins 3 (1976): 38–45. 13George F. Howe, “The Origin of the Blue-Green Algae,” CRSQ 4 51Bolton Davidheiser, “‘Darwin’s Mistake,’” CRSQ 13 (1976): (1967): 100–5. 115–16. 14Walter E. Lammerts, “Mutations Reveal the Glory of God’s 52Roger W. Haines, Jr., “Macroevolution Questioned,” CRSQ 13 Handiwork,” CRSA 4 (1967): 35–41. (1976): 162–71. 15Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” 53Hilbert R. Siegler, “Fleeming Jenkin’s Critique of Darwin’s Origin CRSQ 5 (1968): 113–19. of Species,” CRSQ 13 (1976): 111–14. 16George F. Howe, “Evolution and the Problem of Man,” CRSA 5 54E. Norbert Smith, “Which Animals Do Predators Really Eat?,” (1968): 23–33. CRSQ 13 (1976): 79–81. 17William J. Tinkle, “Wild Flowers: A Problem for Evolution,” 55William J. Tinkle, “Selection: Artifi cial and Natural,” CRSQ 13 CRSQ (1968): 125–26. (1976): 131–33. 18Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” 56Walter E. Lammerts, “On the History of Domestic Plants and CRSQ 5 (1969): 157–62. Animals,” CRSQ 14 (1977): 125–27. 19George F. Howe, “Creationistic Botany Today: A Progress 57Willem J. Ouweneel, “Genetics and Creation Studies,” CRSQ 14 Report,” CRSQ 6 (1969): 85–95. (1977): 26–34. 20Walter E. Lammerts, “Does the Science of Genetic and Molecu- 58Art F. Poettcker, “Seventeen Problems for Evolutionists,” CRSQ lar Biology Really Give Evidence for Evolution?,” CRSA 6 (1969): 14 (1977): 113–23. 5–12. 59William J. Tinkle, “Did Sex Evolve?,” CRSQ 14 (1977): 53. 21Frank L. Marsh, “The Form and Structure of Living Things,” 60John C. Walton, “Organization and the Origin of Life,” Origins 4 CRSA 6 (1969): 13–25. (1977): 16–35. 22Evan V. Shute, “Square Pegs in Round Holes or Ridiculous ‘Con- 61George F. Howe, “Reproductive Links: The Birds and the Trees,” vergences,’” CRSQ 5 (1969): 135–38. CRSQ 15 (1978): 71–72. 23William J. Tinkle, “Immorality in Natural Selection,” CRSQ 5 62E. Norbert Smith, “Different Levels of Design,” CRSQ 15 (1978): (1969): 148–50. 69–70. 24 63 ———, “Jack-in-the-Pulpit Teaches a Lesson,” CRSA 6 (1969): 65–66. John Woodmorappe, “The Cephalopods in the Creation and the 25Emmett L. Williams Jr., “A Simplifi ed Explanation of the First Universal Deluge,” CRSQ 15 (1978): 94–112. and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: Their Relationship to 64Randall R. Hedtke, “An Analysis of Darwin’s Natural Selection- Scripture and the Theory of Evolution,” CRSQ 5 (1969): 138–47. Artifi cial Selection Analogy,” CRSQ 16 (1979): 89–97, 131. 26Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” 65George F. Howe, “Biogeography from a Creationist Perspective CRSQ 7 (1970): 119–26. I: Taxonomy, Geography, and Plate Tectonics in Relation to Cre- 27Frank W. Cousins, “Is There Life on Other Worlds? A Critical ated Kinds of Angiosperms,” CRSQ 16 (1979): 38–43. Reassessment of the Evidence,” CRSQ 7 (1970): 29–37. 66Ralph E. Ancil, “A Proposal for a New Creationist Discipline,” 28C. H. Mosher and William J. Tinkle, “Natural Selection Inad- CRSQ 17 (1980): 123–27. equate,” CRSQ 6 (1970): 182–84. 67Ariel A. Roth, “Implications of Various Interpretations of the Fos- 29Evan V. Shute, “Puzzling Similarities,” CRSQ 7 (1970): 147–51. sil Record,” Origins 7 (1980): 71–86. 30E. Norbert Smith, “Population Control: Evidence of a Perfect Cre- 68William J. Tinkle, “Belief—and More,” CRSQ 17 (1980): 55–56. ation,” CRSQ 7 (1970): 91–96. 69John Woodmorappe, “An Anthology of Matters Signifi cant to 31Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” Creationism and Diluviology: Report I,” CRSQ 16 (1980): 209–19. CRSQ 7 (1971): 231–38. 70Richard Wrangham, “The Bishop of Oxford: Not So Soapy,” 32 ———, “On the Fitness of the Laws of Nature,” CRSQ 8 (1971): CRSQ 16 (1980): 224–25. 126–28. 71Dennis W. Cheek, “The Creationist and Neo-Darwinian Views 33George F. Howe and P. William Davis, “Natural Selection Reex- Concerning the Origin of the Order Primates Compared and amined,” CRSQ 8 (1971): 30–43. Contrasted: A Preliminary Analysis,” CRSQ 18 (1981): 93–110. 34Willem J. Ouweneel, “The Scientifi c Character of the Evolution 72Randall Hedtke, “The Episteme Is the Theory,” CRSQ 18 (1981): Doctrine,” CRSQ 8 (1971): 109–15. 8–13, 26. 35William J. Tinkle, “Pleiotropy: Extra Cotyledons in the Tomato,” 73George F. Howe, “Which Woody Plants Grow Where at the CRSQ 8 (1971): 183–85. Grand Canyon,” CRSQ 17 (1981): 219–26. 36Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” 74Walter E. Lammerts, “The Rose of Jericho,” CRSQ 18 (1981): CRSQ 9 (1972): 131–39. 73–74. 37Howard B. Holroyd, “Darwinism Is Physical and Mathematical 75William J. Tinkle, “Let Us Reason Together,” CRSQ 18 (1981): Nonsense,” CRSQ 9 (1972): 5–13. 25–26. 38Henry M. Morris, “Theistic Evolution,” CRSQ 8 (1972): 269–72. 76Colin Brown, “Variation and the Fourth Law of Creation,” CRSQ 39Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” 19 (1982): 100–3. CRSQ 10 (1973): 117–22. 77George F. Howe, “Postfi re Strategies of Two Chaparral Shrubs 40Julio Garrido, “Evolution and Molecular Biology,” CRSQ 10 (Chamise and Ceanothus) Cast Light on Origins,” CRSQ 19 (1973): 166–70. (1982): 3–10. 41R. Clyde McCone, “Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to 78A. J. Jones, “A Creationist Critique of Homology,” CRSQ 18 Evolution,” CRSQ 9 (1973): 204–10. (1982): 156–75. 42Raymond C. Telfair II, “Should Evolution Be Taught as Fact?,” 79Walter E. Lammerts, “Does Chromosomal Reorganization Really CRSQ 10 (1973): 53–61. Lead to the Organization of New Species?,” CRSQ 19 (1982): 43Walter E. Lammerts and George F. Howe, “Plant Succession 10–13. Studies in Relation to Micro-evolution,” CRSQ 10 (1974): 208–28. 80John N. Moore, “An Estimate of the Current Status of Evolution- 44H. L. Armstrong, “Analogy Casts Doubt upon Natural Selection,” ary Thinking,” CRSQ 18 (1982): 189–97. CRSQ 12 (1975): 111–12. 81Terrance L. Smith, “Principles of Creationist Biology,” CRSQ 19 45Larry S. Helmick, “Origin and Maintenance of Optical Activity,” (1982): 178–79. CRSQ 12 (1975): 156–64. 82William J. Tinkle, “Darwin, the Unusual One,” CRSQ 19 (1982): 46George F. Howe, “Evolution—A Problem in Parallelism,” CRSQ 112. 11 (1975): 219. 83Christoph Bluth, “Creationism Defended,” CRSQ 20 (1983): 47Walter E. Lammerts, “Acceptance of the Evolution Theory Can 16–22. Result in Costly Errors in Basic Breeding Emphasis,” CRSQ 12 84Grant R. Lambert, “Was the Pre-Flood Animal Kingdom Vegetar- (1975): 68–69. ian?,” CRSQ 20 (1983): 88.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 167 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

85Walter E. Lammerts, “Concerning Mimicry,” CRSQ 20 (1983): 117Robert E. Kofahl, “Is the Genome Suffi cient, Where Is the Design 42–44. Information and What Limits Variation?,” CRSQ 28 (1992): 86Richard Riss, “Natural Selection and the Christian View of 146–48. Redemption,” CRSQ 19 (1983): 212–14. 118Jerry Bergman, “The Problem of Extinction and Natural Selec- 87Randall Hedtke, “The Divine Essence in Evolutionary Theoriz- tion,” CRSQ 30 (1993): 93–106. ing—An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Evolutionary Natural 119Leonard R. Brand and L. James Gibson, “An Interventionist The- Selection, Mutation, and Punctuated Equilibria as Mechanisms of ory of Natural Selection and Biological Change within Limits,” Megaevolution,” CRSQ 21 (1984): 40–46. Origins 20 (1993): 60–82. 88Walter E. Lammerts, “Plant Succession Studies in Relation to 120H. S. Hamilton, “The Evolution of the Eye—Fact or Fiction?,” Micro-Evolution and the Extinction of Species,” CRSQ 21 (1984): CRSQ 29 (1993): 195–96. 104–8. 121E. J. Hoffman, “Evolutionism: An Oxymoron,” CRSQ 30 (1993): 89H. S. Hamilton, “The Retina of the Eye—An Evolutionary Road 12–16. Block,” CRSQ 22 (1985): 59–64. 122Richard D. Lumsden, “Sources and Applications of Botani- 90Walter E. Lammerts, “The Origin of the Life Cycle of Land cal Alkaloids Offer Evidence of Creative Purpose and Design,” Plants,” CRSQ 22 (1985): 126. CRSQ 30 (1993): 132–40. 91E. Norbert Smith, “Experimental Results of Crowding on the Rate 123A. W. Mehlert, “The Origin of Mammals: A Study of Some of Asexual Reproduction of the Planarian Dugesia dorotocephala,” Important Fossils,” CENTJ 7 (1993): 122–39. CRSQ 22 (1985): 16–20. 124Mark Armitage, “Those Who Live in Glass Houses Stow No 92H. S. Hamilton, “Jumping Spider’s Wondrous Eyes,” CRSQ 23 Thrones,” CRSQ 31 (1994): 167–70. (1986): 63–64. 125L. James Gibson, “Pseudogenes and Origins,” Origins 21 (1994): 93John Leslie, “Mutations and Design in Cellular Metabolism,” 91–108. ENTJ 2 (1986): 17–52. 126David A. Kaufmann, “Anatomical Evidence for Creation: Design 94John N. Moore, “Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of in the Human Body,” CRSQ 31 (1994): 35–41. Human Beings,” CRSQ 22 (1986): 183–88. 127Lane P. Lester, “The History of Life,” CRSQ 31 (1994): 95–97. 95Robert R. Sanders and George F. Howe, “Insects Indicate Cre- 128Walter J. ReMine, “The Biotic Message—An Introduction,” in ation,” CRSQ 22 (1986): 166–70. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. 96Stephen M. Butt, “Article Review: The Evolution of Sexual Differ- Robert E. Walsh, (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, ences in Insects by R. Thornhill and D. T. Gwynne. 1986. American 1994),433–44. Scientist 74:382-9,” CRSQ 24 (1987): 86. 129Jerry Bergman, “Mutations and Evolution,” CENTJ 9 (1995): 97H. S. Hamilton, “Convergent Evolution—Do the Octopus and 146–54. Human Eyes Qualify?,” CRSQ 24 (1987): 82–85. 130Ernst Lutz, “A Review of Claims about Archaeopteryx in the Light 98J. Warwick Glover, “The Human Vermiform Appendix—A Sur- of the Evidence,” CRSQ 32 (1995): 18–21. geon General’s Refl ections,” ENTJ 3 (1988): 31–38. 131A. W. Mehlert, “On the Origin of Cats and Carnivores,” CENTJ 9 99H. S. Hamilton, “The Eye of the Air-breathing Vertebrate: Did It (1995): 106–20. Emerge from the Sea?,” CRSQ 25 (1988): 117–20. 132Abigail Ulm, “Cox, Paul. 1993. Water Pollinated Plants. Scientifi c 100A. W. Mehlert, “A Critique of the Alleged Reptile to Mammal American 270(10):68–74,” CRSQ 32 (1995): 143. Transition,” CRSQ 25 (1988): 7–15. 133Kurt P. Wise, “Toward a Creationist Understanding of ‘Transi- 101Emmett L. Williams, “Spider Webs,” CRSQ 25 (1988): 123–24. tional Forms,’” CENTJ 9 (1995): 216–22. 102Duane T. Gish, “More Creationist Research (14 Years)—Part II: 134Jerry Bergman, “The Enigma of Sex and Evolution,” CRSQ 33 Biological Research,” CRSQ 26 (1989): 5–12. (1996): 217–23. 103Erich A. von Fange, “The Litopterna—A Lesson in Taxonomy: 135Ron Calais and A. W. Mehlert, “Slippery Phylogenies: Evolution- The Strange Story of the South America ‘False’ Horses,” CRSQ ary Speculation on the Origin of Frogs,” CRSQ 33 (1996): 44–48. (1989): 184–90. 136Gary Colwell, “Socrates Meets Darwin: A Study in Question 104Russell T. Arndts, “Logic and the Interpretation of Fossils,” in Begging,” CRSQ 33 (1996): 128–34. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 137Jim Gibson, “Fossil Patterns: A Classifi cation and Evaluation,” vol. 1, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Chris L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Origins 23 (1996): 68–99. Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), 7–13. 138Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Life from Mars?,” CENTJ 10 (1996): 293–96. 105Jerry Bergman, “The Fall of the Natural Selection Theory,” in 139C. Wieland, “Lost World of Mutants Discovered,” CENTJ 10 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, (1996): 172–73. vol. 1, ed. Walsh and Brooks, 37–42. 140Mark H. Armitage, “Man, Micro-parasites, and Electron Micros- 106Randall Hedtke, “Should Students Be Taught How to Question copy of Trematodes,” CENTJ 11 (1997): 93–105. the Evolution Evidence?,” in Proceedings of the Second International 141Jerry Bergman, “How Genes Manufacture Plants and Animals,” Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, ed. Walsh and Brooks, 101–12. CENTJ 11 (1997): 202–11. 107Kurt P. Wise, “Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Biosyste- 142Steve W. Deckard, “The Capabilities of Science in the Formation matic Method,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference of a Modern Worldview,” CRSQ 33 (1997): 257–61. on Creationism, vol. 1, ed. Walsh and Brooks, 345–60. 143D. Ashley Robinson, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the 108Jerry Bergman, “Can Natural Selection Produce Complex Testudine Apobaramin,” CRSQ 33 (1997): 262–72. Organs? The Problem of Organ Development,” CENTJ 5, no. 1 144Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Blood Types and Their Origin,” CENTJ 11 (1991): 48–52. (1997): 31–32. 109G. Richard Culp, “The Limitations of Variation,” CRSQ 28 (1991): 145C. Wieland, “New Bat Species Puzzle,” CENTJ 11 (1997): 263. 102–8. 146Mark H. Armitage, “Complex Life Cycles in Heterophyid Trem- 110Bolton Davidheiser, “What Is a Species?,” CRSQ 27 (1991): atodes: Structural and Developmental Design in the Ascocotyle 149–51. Complex of Species,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International 111H. S. Hamilton, “The Eye: by Chance or Intelligence?,” CRSQ 27 Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh (Pittsburgh, PA: (1991): 141–44. Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), 21–33. 112Dmitri A. Kouznetsov, “Modern Concepts of Species: Do We 147Don Batten, “A Brief Response to Anti-creationist Books,” CENTJ Come Back to Fixism?,” CENTJ 5 (1991): 123–29. 12 (1998): 275–78. 113Emmett L. Williams, George F. Howe, and Richard R. White, 148Jerry Bergman, “Diet, Health, and Evolution,” CRSQ 34 (1998): “A Desert Millipede: Evolution or Design?—An Introduction,” 209–17. 149 CRSQ 28 (1991): 7–16. ———, “The Critically Important Plants Called Mosses,” CRSQ 35 114Jerry Bergman, “Some Biological Problems with Natural Selec- (1998): 27–30. 150 tion Theory,” CRSQ 29 (1992): 146–58. ———, “The Transitional Form Problem,” CRSQ 35 (1998): 134–47. 115Leonard R. Brand and Ronald L. Carter, “Sociobiology: The Evo- 151George F. Howe, “Pollen Transfer in Camphor Weed Flowers lution Theory’s Answer to Altruistic Behavior,” Origins 19 (1992): Portrays Design in Origins,” CRSQ 34 (1998): 236–39. 54–71. 152Fergus McGinley, “An Instrumentalist Critique of Evolution,” 116Bill Crofut, “The Family Blattidae: An Example of ‘Evolutionary CENTJ 12 (1998): 121–26. Stasis,’” CRSQ 28 (1992): 149–55.

168 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

153M. J. Oard, “Bird-Dinosaur Link Challenged,” CENTJ 12 (1998): 189Ian T. Taylor, “The Idea of Progress,” in Proceedings of the Fifth 5–7. International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert L. Ivey (Pitts- 154Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un- burgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 573–81. natural Selection,” CRSQ 35 (1998): 76–83. 190Royal Truman, “Protein Mutational Context,” TJ 17, no. 1 (2003): 155D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, “Evidence for a 117–26. Holobaraminic Origin for the Cats,” CRSQ 35 (1998): 2–14. 191John Woodmorappe, “Irreducible Complexity: Some Candid 156J. D. Sarfati, “Design in Living Organisms: Motors,” CENTJ 12, Admissions by Evolutionists,” TJ 17, no. 2 (2003): 56–59. no. 1 (1998): 3–5. 192John Woodmorappe, “Unconventional Gene Behavior and Its 157Kurt P. Wise, “Is Life Singularly Nested or Not?,” in Proceedings Relationship to Pseudogenes,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Interna- of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Walsh, tional Conference on Creationism, ed. Ivey, 491–504. 619–31. 193John Woodmorappe, “Collapsing the Long Bristlecone Pine Tree 158John Woodmorappe, “Fingering Yet Another Discredited ‘Evo- Ring Chronologies,” in Ibid., 505–14. lutionary Transition,’” CENTJ 12 (1998): 255. 194Eric Wright, “Bringing Schizophrenia into the Darwinian Fold,” 159Randall Hedtke, “How Gradual Evolution Is Disproved in the TJ 17, no. 2 (2003): 103–10. Textbooks,” CRSQ 36 (1999): 136–44. 195Mark H. Armitage and George F. Howe, “Lichens at VACRC: 160David Kaufmann, “Creation Research Society Board Member Lichen Surfaces under the Electron Microscope,” CRSQ 41 (2004): Teaches at Russian University,” CRSQ 36 (1999): 95–99. 242–52. 161Jonathan Sarfati, “Decoding and Editing Design: Double-Sieve 196Don Batten, “Yet Another Way of Getting More from Less,” Enzymes,” CENTJ 13, no. 1 (1999): 5–7. TJ 18, no. 2 (2004): 7. 162 197 Mark H. Armitage and Richard D. Lumsden, “Parasitism by ———, “Just-So Stories of Sex and Family Life,” TJ 18, no. 3 (2004): Design? The Surface Micromorphology of Flatworms,” CRSQ 37 17. (2000): 105–8. 198Philip B. Bell, “The Non-evolution of Apoptosis,” TJ 18, no. 1 163Jerry Bergman, “Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible,” CRSQ 36 (2004): 86–96. (2000): 195–207. 199Jerry Bergman, “Why Mammal Body Hair Is an Evolutionary 164 ———, “The History of the Teaching of Human Female Inferiority Enigma,” CRSQ 40 (2004): 240–43. 200 in Darwinism,” CENTJ 14, no. 1 (2000): 117–27. ———, “Problems in Sexual Selection Theory and Neo-Darwin- 165John Woodmorappe, “Are Pseudogenes ‘Shared Mistakes’ ism,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 112–19. 201 between Primate Genomes?,” CENTJ 14, no. 3 (2000): 55–71. ———, “The Unbridgeable Chasm between Microevolution and 166Jerry Bergman, “The Molecular Biology of Genetic Transposi- Macroevolution,” CRSQ 41 (2004): 60–68. tion,” CRSQ 38 (2001): 139–50. 202Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, “The Origin of Gender and 167 ———, “Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea,” TJ 15, no. 2 Sexual Reproduction,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 120–27. (2001): 77–80. 203Victor Khomenko, “Weasel Words, Genetic Algorithms and 168 ———, “Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Natu- Coarse Acknowledgements,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 78–85. ralism?,” TJ 15, no. 1 (2001): 26–33. 204Branyon May, Bart Thompson, and Brad Harrub, “Hox Genes— 169Stuart Burgess, “The Beauty of the Peacock Tail and the Problems Evolution’s Hoax,” CRSQ 41 (2004): 231–41. with the Theory of Sexual Selection,” TJ 15, no. 2 (2001): 94–102. 205Matthew Murdock, “Aegyptopithecus the ‘Egyptian Ape,’” TJ 18, 170Peter Gurney, “Dawkins’ Eye Revisited,” TJ 15, no. 3 (2001): no. 1 (2004): 105–11. 92–99. 206Jeffrey G. Schragin, “Epidemiology and the Creation Health 171David J. Laughlin, “Science Fiction: A Biblical Perspective,” TJ Model,” CRSQ 41 (2004): 185–94. 15, no. 2 (2001): 81–88. 207Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub, “Consciousness: The King of 172Joseph Mastropaolo, “Evolution Is Lethal Antiscience,” CRSQ 38 Evolutionary Problems,” CRSQ 41 (2004): 113–30. 208 (2001): 151–58. ———, “Evolutionary Theories on Gender and Sexual Reproduc- 173Michael J. Oard, “End-Mesozoic Extinction of Dinosaurs Partly tion,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 97–104. Based on Circular Reasoning,” TJ 15, no. 2 (2001): 5–7. 209Gordon Wilson, “The Origins of Natural Evil,” OPBSG 4 (2004): 8. 174 210 ———, “Did Lucy Walk Upright?,” TJ 15, no. 2 (2001): 9–10. John Woodmorappe, “Potentially Decisive Evidence against 175Todd C. Wood and David P. Cavanaugh, “A Baraminological Pseudogene ‘Shared Mistakes,’” TJ 18, no. 3 (2004): 63–69. Analysis of Subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae: Helenieae) and the 211Jerry Bergman, “The Mutation Repair Systems: A Major Problem Origin of Biological Complexity,” Origins 52 (2001): 7–27. for Macroevolution,” CRSQ 41 (2005): 265–73. 176 212 Don Batten, “C4 Photosynthesis—Evolution or Design?,” TJ 16, ———, “Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome,” CRSQ no. 2 (2002): 13–15. 42 (2005): 104–14. 177 213 Jerry Bergman, “Why Mutations Are Lethal to Darwinism,” ———, “The Evolution of Teeth: A Major Problem for NeoDarwin- CRSQ 38 (2002): 181–89. ism,” CRSQ 42 (2005): 20–28. 178 214 ———, “The Giraffe’s Neck: Another Icon of Evolution Falls,” TJ 16, Leonard Brand and Ernest Schwab, “The Rainbow Is All in Your no. 1 (2002): 120–27. Head,” Origins 58 (2005): 45–56. 179 215 ———, “The Evolution of Plants: A Major Problem for Darwinism,” David Catchpoole, “Flat Leaves—A Curly Problem,” TJ 19, no. 1 TJ 16, no. 2 (2002): 118–27. (2005): 8. 180Peter Gurney, “Our Eye Movements and Their Control: Part 1,” 216David A. DeWitt, “Startling Plant Discovery,” TJ 19, no. 2 (2005): TJ 16, no. 3 (2002): 111–15. 3–4. 181Robert E. Kofahl, “The Crucial Importance of Epistemology and 217Jonathan Sarfati, “Green Power: God’s Solar Power Plants Correctly Defi ning Science for the Cause of Creation and Intel- Amaze Chemists,” TJ 19, no. 1 (2005): 14–15. ligent Design,” CRSQ 38 (2002): 193–98. 218Royal Truman, “The Ubiquitin Protein: Chance or Design?,” 182Steven Layfi eld, “The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspec- TJ 19, no. 2 (2005): 116–27. tive,” TJ 16, no. 3 (2002): 32–39. 219Alex Williams, “Inheritance of Biological Information—Part II: 183Todd C. Wood, “The AGE-ing Process: Rapid Post-Flood Redefi ning the ‘Information Challenge,’” TJ 19, no. 2 (2005): Intrabaraminic Diversifi cation Caused by Altruistic Genetic Ele- 36–41. 220 ments,” Origins 54 (2002): 5–34. ———, “Inheritance of Biological Information—Part III: Control of 184John Woodmorappe, “Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Information Transfer and Change,” TJ 19, no. 3 (2005): 21–28. Chimeras: Do They Exist?,” TJ 16, no. 1 (2002): 111–19. 221Kurt P. Wise, “The Flores Skeleton and Human Baraminology,” 185Don Batten, “Teeth Developing in Bird Embryos—Does It Prove OPBSG 6 (2005): 1–13. Evolution?,” TJ, no. 3 (2003): 11–12. 222Mark H. Armitage and George F. Howe, “Lichens in Cross-Sec- 186Jerry Bergman, “Why the ‘Poor Design’ Argument against Intel- tion: Evidence for Design and against Macroevolution,” CRSQ 42 ligent Design Is Unsound,” TJ 17, no. 3 (2003): 113–18. (2006): 252–64. 187Arthur L. Manning, “The Wright Brothers’ Airplane Compared 223Jerry Bergman, “Does Gene Duplication Provide the Engine for to Insect Flight Design, CRSQ 40 (2003): 1–7. Evolution?,” JC 20, no. 1 (2006): 99–104. 188Rick Swindell, “Shining Light on the Evolution of Photosynthe- 224Chinmoy Biswas, “Founder Mutations: Evidence for Evolu- sis,” TJ 17, no. 3 (2003): 74–84. tion?,” JC 20, no. 2 (2006): 16–17.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 169 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

225 257 Leonard R. Brand, “A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of ———, “Genome Truncation vs. Mutational Opportunity: Can Science,” Origins 59 (2006): 6–42. New Genes Arise via Gene Duplication?—Part 2,” JC 22, no. 1 226I. Demme, “Toward a Biblical Theology of Creation and Curse,” (2008): 111–19. OPBSG 8 (2006): 15–16. 258Alex Williams, “Mutations: Evolution’s Engine Becomes Evolu- 227Jonathan Henry, “Did Death Occur before the Fall? A Further tion’s End!” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 60–66. 259 Critique of the Progressive Creationism of Hugh Ross,” CRSQ 42 ———, “How Life Works,” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 85–91. (2006): 160–67. 260Daniel C. Criswell, “A Review of Mitoribosome Structure and 228David E. Stoltzmann, “The Specifi ed Complexity of Retinal Function Does Not Support the Serial Endosymbiotic Theory,” Imagery,” CRSQ (2006): 4–12. ARJ 2 (2009): 107–15. 229Royal Truman, “Searching for Needles in a Haystack,” JC 20, 261Shaun Doyle, “Panderichthys—A Fish with Fingers?,” JC 23, no. 2 (2006): 90–99. no. 1 (2009): 11–13. 230K. P. Wise, “Baraminology and the Flood/Post-Flood Bound- 262George F. Howe, “Five Features Correlate with Seed Weight ary,” OPBSG 8 (2006): 7–8. in Yuccas to Support a Seed-Dispersal Hypothesis,” CRSQ 45 231Mark H. Armitage, “The Pillars of Evolution Are Crushed by (2009): 153–77. Microscopic Things,” CRSQ 43 (2007): 252–60. 263Tom Hennigan, “Towards a Biblical Basis for Ecology, with 232Jerry Bergman, “The Aquatic Ape Theory: Challenge to the Applications in Mycorrhizal Symbioses in Orchids,” JC 22, no. 1 Orthodox Theory of Human Evolution,” JC 21, no. 1 (2007): (2009): 78–85. 111–18. 264Per A. Larssen, “Mutation and Natural Selection: The Central 233Peter Borger and Royal Truman, “Ultraconserved Sequences Pose Dogma of Neo-Darwinian Evolution,” CRSQ 54 (2009): 271–81. Megaproblems for Evolutionary Theory,” JC 21, no. 2 (2007): 8–9. 265Jean K. Lightner, “Gene Duplication and Nonrandom Mutations 234 ———, “The HAR1F Gene: A Darwinian Paradox,” JC 21, no. 3 in the Family Cercopithecidae: Evidence for Designed Mecha- (2007): 55–58. nisms Driving Adaptive Genomic Mutations,” CRSQ 46 (2009): 235Ryan Jaroncyk and Shaun Doyle, “Gogonasus—A Fish with 1–6. ‘Human’ Limbs?,” JC 21, no. 1 (2007): 48–52. 266Yingguang Liu and Charles Soper, “The Natural History of Retro- 236Jonathan Sarfati, “More Marvellous Machinery: ‘DNA Scrunch- viruses: Exogenization vs. Endogenization,” ARJ 2 (2009): 97–106. ing,’” JC 21, no. 1 (2007): 4–5. 267Michael J. Oard, “New Footprints from Ileret, Kenya,” JC 23, 237Royal Truman and Peter Borger, “Genetic Code Optimisation: no. 2 (2009): 3–4. Part 1,” JC 21, no. 2 (2007): 90–100. 268Jonathan Sarfati, “Butterfl y Brilliance,” JC 23, no. 1 (2009): 15–16. 238 269 ———, “Genetic Code Optimisation: Part 2,” JC 21, no. 3 (2007): Richard W. Stevens, “Can Evolution Make New Biological Soft- 84–92. ware?,” CRSQ 46 (2009): 17–24. 239 270 ———, “Why the Shared Mutations in the Hominidae Exon X K. Wise, “Creation Biology Suggestions from Evolutionary GULO Pseudogene Are Not Evidence for Common Descent,” Genetics,” OPBSG 13 (2009): 6–7. JC 21, no. 3 (2007): 118–27. 271Dave Woetzel, “Evolutionists Retreating from the Arena of Sci- 240E. Norbert Smith, “Buzz Pollination,” CRSQ 43 (2007): 261–62. ence,” JC 23, no. 3 (2009): 123–27. 241Alex Williams, “Life’s Irreducible Structure—Part 1: Autopoi- 272Jonathan Bartlett, “Irreducible Complexity and Relative Irre- esis,” JC 21, no. 2 (2007): 109–15. ducible Complexity: Foundations and Applications,” OPBSG 15 242 ———, “Astonishing DNA Complexity Demolishes Neo-Darwin- (2010): 1–10. ism,” JC 21, no. 3 (2007): 111–17. 273Jerry Bergman, “The Pleiotropy Problem for Evolution,” CRSQ 243Mark H. Armitage, “God Saw That the Light Was Good: Light 46 (2010): 284–89. 274 Production in Photinus pyralis,” CRSQ 45 (2008): 66–71. ———, “The Rise and Fall of the Orthogenesis Non-Darwinian 244Kevin L. Anderson and Georgia Purdom, “A Creationist Per- Theory of Evolution,” CRSQ 47 (2010): 139–45. spective on Benefi cial Mutations in Bacteria,” in Proceedings of 275Jean K. Lightner, “Gene Duplication, Protein Evolution, and the the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. A. A. Snelling Origin of Shrew Venom,” JC 24, no. 2 (2010): 3–5. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2008), 73–86. 276Michael J. Oard, “320-Million-Year-Old Amber Has Flowering 245John Baumgardner, John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Paul Gibson, Plant Chemistry,” JC 24, no. 2 (2010): 16. and Walter ReMine, “Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population 277E. Norbert Smith, “Which Prey Do Predators Eat?,” JC 24, no. 2 Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural (2010): 75–77. Selection,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on 278David Catchpoole, “Defi ning Terms—John Endler’s Refreshing Creationism, ed. Snelling, 87–98. Clarity about ‘Natural Selection,’” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 19–21. 246Jerry Bergman, “Did Eyes Evolve by Darwinian Mechanisms?,” 279Shaun Doyle, “Lizards Moving from Eggs to Live Birth: Evolu- JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 67–74. tion in Action?,” JC 25, no. 1 (2011): 16–18. 247 280 ———, “Progressive Evolution or Degeneration?,” in Proceedings ———, “Antifreeze Protein Evolution: Turning Wrenches into of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Snelling, Hammers,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 14–17. 99–110. 281Jean K. Lightner, “Selection for a Behaviour, and the Phenotypic 248Peter Borger, “Evidence for the Design of Life: Part 1—Genetic Traits that Follow,” Journal of Creation 25, no. 3 (2011): 96–101. Redundancy,” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 79–84. 282Michael J. Oard, “Taxonomic Manipulations Likely Common,” 249 ———, “Evidence for the Design of Life: Part 2—Baranomes,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 15–17. 283 JC 22, no. 3 (2008): 68–76. ———, “Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 250Jean K. Lightner, “Patterns of Change over Time,” JC 22, no. 1 22–31. (2008): 81–84. 284Barnabas Pendragon, “A Review of Selected Features of the 251 ———, “Genetics of Coat Color I—The Melanocortin 1 Receptor Family Canidae with Reference to Its Fundamental Taxonomic (MC1R),” ARJ 1 (2008): 109–16. Status,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 79–88. 252Yingguang Liu, “The Immunoglobulin Heavy Chain Gene Fam- 285Barnabas Pendragon and Niko Winkler, “The Family of Cats— ily and Gene Duplication,” JC 22, no. 3 (2008): 18–20. Delineation of the Feline Basic Type,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 118–24. 253Georgia Purdom, “Adaptive Mutation and the E. coli ebg 286Dominic Statham, “How Scientifi c Is Our Science?,” JC 25, no. 2 Operon,” ARJ 1 (2008): 5. (2011): 10–11. 254Georgia Purdom and Kevin L. Anderson, “Analysis of Barry 287David White, “Extinction of the Human Male,” JC, no. 3 (2011): Hall’s Research on the E. coli ebg Operon: Understanding for Bac- 11–13. terial Adaptation to Adverse Environments,” in Proceedings of the 288Phil Gaskill and Brian Thomas, “Recent Challenges to Natural Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Snelling, 149–63. Selection,” JC 26, no. 3 (2012): 76–78. 255John Sanford, John Baumgardner, Wesley Brewer, Paul Gibson, 289Jean K. Lightner, “Mammalian Ark Kinds,” ARJ 5 (2012): 151–204. and Walter ReMine, “Using Numerical Simulation to Test the 290Royal Truman, “The Proportion of Polypeptide Chains which Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory,” in Proceedings of the Sixth Generate Native Folds—Part 6: Extraction from Random International Conference on Creationism, ed. Snelling, 165–75. Sequences,” JC 26, no. 1 (2012): 86–93. 256Royal Truman and Peter Borger, “Genome Truncation vs. 291Bob Enyart, “Dobzhansky: 40 Years Later Nothing Makes Sense,” Mutational Opportunity: Can New Genes Arise via Gene Dupli- CRSQ 49 (2013): 296–307. cation?—Part 1,” JC 22, no. 1 (2008): 99–110.

170 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

292Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin 303Callie Joubert, “Scientifi c Evidence Indicates Natural Selection for Mitochondrial Genes from ~2700 Metazoan Species,” ARJ 6 and Brain-Based Education Confl ict with Human Nature,” ARJ (2013): 467–501. 7 (2014): 387–402. 293Callie Joubert, “Chimeras, Cybrids, and Hybrids: A Christian’s 304Jean K. Lightner, “Adaptations of Endotherms to High Alti- Observations and Critique of Some Aspects of the Controversy tudes,” CRSQ 50 (2014): 132–40. 305 Involving the Mixing of Human and Animal Materials for Scien- ———, “Bark Scorpion Toxin Loses Its Bite,” JC 28, no. 1 (2014): 3–5. 306 tifi c Research,” ARJ 6 (2013): 321–33. ———, “Developmental System Plasticity—A Brief Initial Assess- 294Nayeon Lee, M. F. Horstemeyer, Denver Seely, and Lakiesha ment of Extent, Design, and Purpose within the Creation Model,” N. Williams, “The Woodpecker’s Beak: An Optimally Designed JC 28, no. 3 (2014): 67–72. Structure/Material for Energy Absorption and Shock Mitiga- 307Jerry Bergman and Philip Snow, “Dino-Bird Theory—A Flight of tion,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Fancy,” JC 29, no. 1 (2015): 17–24. Creationism, ed. Mark Horstemeyer (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Sci- 308Benton H. Cook, “Hume’s Guillotine and Evolutionary Ethics: ence Fellowship, 2013), 15 pp. Evaluating Attempts to Overcome the Naturalistic Fallacy,” 295Jean K. Lightner, “An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds,” ARJ 8 (2015): 1–11. ARJ 6 (2013): 409–66. 309Alan L. Gillen, Jason Conrad, and Michael Cargill, “The Genesis 296Peter Line, “Explaining Robust Humans,” JC 27, no. 3 (2013): and Emergence of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant 64–71. Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA): An Example of Evolution in 297Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford, “Using Numerical Sim- Action?,” ARJ 8 (2015): 391–401. ulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of 310Jean K. Lightner, “Natural Selection: Assessing the Role It Plays a New Principle: Haldane’s Ratchet,” in Proceedings of the Seventh in Our World,” ARJ 8 (2015): 111–19. International Conference on Creationism, ed. Horstemeyer, 17 pp. 311David E. Stoltzmann, “Random Retinal Imagery,” CRSQ 52 298Chad Arment, “Fossil Snakes and the Flood Boundary in North (2015): 85–94. America,” JC 28, no. 3 (2014): 13–15. 312Y. Liu, “Mutations in the nef Gene Make HIV-1 More Virulent,” 299Robert W. Carter, “More Evidence for the Reality of Genetic ARJ 8 (2015): 323–26. 313 Entropy,” JC 28, no. 1 (2014): 16–17. ———, “Cyclic Selection in HIV-1 Tropism: Microevolution That Is 300Randy J. Guliuzza, “A Response to ‘Does Natural Selection Going Nowhere,” ARJ 8 (2015): 199–202. Exist?’: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-Based, 314Change L. Tan, “Using Taxonomically Restricted Essential Genes Organism-Driven Approach: Part 1,” ARJ 7 (2014): 403–20. to Determine Whether Two Organisms Can Belong to the Same 301 ———, “A Response to ‘Does Natural Selection Exist?’: Creatures’ Family Tree,” ARJ 8 (2015): 413–35. Adaptation Explained by the Design-Based, Organism-Driven 315Royal Truman, “Nylon-Eating Bacteria: Part 1—Discovery and Approach: Part 2,” ARJ 7 (2014): 421–36. Signifi cance,” JC 29, no. 1 (2015): 95–102. 302 316 ———, “A Response to ‘Does Natural Selection Exist?’: Creatures’ Alex Williams, “Healthy Genomes Require Recent Creation,” Adaptation Explained by the Design-Based, Organism-Driven JC 29, no. 2 (2015): 70–77. 317 Approach: Part 3,” ARJ 7 (2014): 347–450. ———, “What Life Is,” JC 29, no. 3 (2015): 62–70.

Figure 2. Temporal trends in the technical literature of creation Figure 1. Temporal trends in the technical literature of creation science through 2015, regarding topics relating to natural selection science through 2015, regarding topics relating to natural selection. and convergent evolution.

Key for Figures 1 & 2: Solid lines indicate articles, and dashed lines indicate authors; where no dashed line is visible, the number of authors equals the number of articles. Gray indicates acceptance, and black indicates rejection. The absence of data on positions toward stabilizing selection in the period 2010–2015 indicates a lack of authors taking a position on that topic during that period. NS = natural selection.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 171 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Figure 3. Percentages of articles and authors accepting or rejecting natural selection and related phenomena in the technical literature of creation science in the twentieth and twenty-fi rst centuries, through 2015. Key: Solid lines indicate articles, and dashed lines indicate authors. Gray indicates acceptance, and black indicates rejection. Lines with a circled “au” (authors) or “ar” (articles) are cases in which two-tailed z-tests found a signifi cant diff erence in the proportion between the twentieth and twenty-fi rst centuries. For circled “au” and “ar,” a triple circle indicates that two-tailed z-tests found a signifi cant diff erence between centuries when alpha was set at 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01; a double circle indicates that the tests found a signifi cant diff erence when alpha was set at 0.1 and at 0.05; a single circle indicates that the tests found signifi cance only with alpha set at 0.1. Data on acceptance vs. rejection of benefi cial mutations are from a previous study, in which the diff erence between centuries was described but not illustrated. See Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey, “The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 2: Benefi cial Mutations,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 69, no. 2 (2017): 87–97.

Discussion give an advantage to its competitors.22 However, that author failed to recognize that directional selection NS in General and in occurs when a trait increases within a population; Relation to Macroevolution this is exactly what happens when antibiotic resis- Through both centuries, more CS authors have tance is spread via the transmission of R-plasmids. rejected than have accepted NS. Often, rejection was based on nonsensical arguments. One author Two authors used scripture to justify their rejec- rejected NS on the basis that the concept of NS is tion of NS. According to one author, NS contradicts not intuitively grasped by children,18 by which rea- Ecclesiastes 9:11: “The race is not to the swift, nor soning one ought also to reject higher mathematics, the battle to the strong,”23 a passage that is a creative particle physics, and molecular genetics. Another bemoaning of the observation that people often get argued that “selection would be by characteristics, rewards that they do not deserve; the passage is irrel- but inheritance would occur by genes,”19 neglecting evant to NS among nonhuman organisms. Another to recognize that genes produce characteristics, and author correctly pointed out that NS requires death, therefore selection occurs on both simultaneously. and according to the literal sense of scripture, there One author asserted that NS should increase fecun- was no death before the Fall of humans in the Garden dity, and rejected NS because simple organisms often of Eden, and so humans could not have evolved by have great fecundity, incorrectly equating “simple” NS if scripture is to be taken literally.24 with “less fi t.”20 According to another author, some animals have eyes that are better than they need, In some cases, CS authors used misinformation to whereas NS (allegedly) should make only structures support denial of NS. One author claimed that NS that are adequate for current needs.21 One author could not have occurred, because no morphological argued that the spread of antibiotic resistance in intermediates are found in the fossil record,25 a false bacteria cannot be due to NS, because the transfer- claim that is contradicted by enough examples to fi ll ence of R-plasmids between bacteria contradicts the volumes.26 Another author claimed that, whereas NS (alleged) prediction by NS that an organism will not theory predicts that predators will select for superior

172 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter prey by preying on the weak, in reality, predators or the similar lifestyles of various lineages of fl ies select prey randomly.27 That claim is falsifi ed by that “live in similar ways on crabs.”44 One author data from numerous studies that show that preda- even simultaneously took both opposing positions tors do tend to preferentially target more-vulnerable in a single article, citing similarities between ani- prey (the young and the weak,28 eggs in nests that mals (invertebrate and vertebrate eyes) as evidence are easier to fi nd,29 etc.). In fact, numerous stud- against NS, and then citing differences between ani- ies have documented NS-mediated enhancement mals (some animals’ ears are small while others are of antipredator defenses in prey species as a result large) as evidence against NS.45 of selection pressure from predators.30 According to some, most or all mutations are deleterious, and Numerous CS authors listed various symbiotic rela- NS would require too many benefi cial mutations tionships as examples of phenomena that NS could to be plausible.31 However, recent research shows not have produced (table 2). Such assertions are that benefi cial mutations occur suffi ciently often to based on the implicit assumption that if two organ- drive NS.32 isms are mutually interdependent, then they must have been created at the same time, because neither CS authors often rejected NS for contradictory rea- could have survived if it came into being without sons. One author argued that NS would be too slow the other. However, many examples exist of mutual to account for macroevolution,33 whereas another interdependence in species that, demonstrably, were argued that it would be too fast.34 One author previously not mutually interdependent because asserted that NS would require mutations to accu- they did not previously inhabit the same area.46 Such mulate, but instead they get weeded out,35 whereas examples falsify this type of argument against NS. other authors claimed that NS requires mutations to get weeded out, but instead they accumulate.36 Some The concept of irreducible complexity has been a authors claimed that differences between organisms popular argument against NS among CS authors. were evidence against NS,37 whereas others claimed According to this concept, some biological struc- that similarities between organisms were evidence tures or processes are too complex to have evolved against NS.38 by NS, because intermediate stages would not be viable or useful. Examples cited by CS authors are Authors proffering the third pair of opposing posi- listed in table 2. It is noteworthy that for several of tions often gave specifi c examples. One author those examples, the hypothesis that the structure argued that plants that give insects indigestion could or process is irreducibly complex is falsifi ed by the not have evolved that defense by NS, because other known existence of intermediate forms, the existence 39 plants that do not give insects indigestion do exist. of which demonstrates that intermediate forms are Another author denied NS because simple organ- viable (appendix 1). isms still exist, whereas NS (allegedly) should make all organisms complex.40 How, asked one author, CS authors who accept NS understandably accept could NS have produced that it has produced changes only within baramins the long neck of the giraffe and the short neck of (“created kinds” of organisms). Because CS authors the pig; the hard shells of some turtles and the soft do not accept macroevolution, they consistently deny shells of others; the great size of the whale and the that NS could have produced macroevolutionary small size of the shrew … the great speed of the phenomena such as prebiotic molecular evolution, jackrabbit and the slow speed of the woodchuck; sexual reproduction, complex biological processes and so on.41 and structures, and the evolution of human mental traits from precursor states in nonhuman ancestors. Summarizing the position, one author stated that Arguments against NS in prebiotic molecules usu- “according to natural selection, all animals would ally involve incorrect assumptions. Some CS authors eventually evolve a similar, best type which could asserted that NS can act only on living cells,47 an survive in a variety of wild situations.”42 assertion that has been falsifi ed by experimental Authors taking the opposite stance also cited specifi c observations of NS acting on nucleic acids in vitro.48 examples, expressing doubt that NS could have pro- One author asserted that prebiotic molecules could duced the similarity between monarch and viceroy not undergo NS because such molecules do not butterfl ies (Danaus plexippus and Limenitis archippus)43 self-replicate, and NS can only act on self-replicat-

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 173 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution ing entities.49 However, recent research shows that adaptively relevant. A trait is heritable if it is a prod- some such molecules—including examples of pep- uct of an anatomical structure, which in turn is a tides, double-stranded nucleic acids, and RNA—can product of genes. It is adaptively relevant if it confers accomplish self-replication.50 an advantage, especially an increased likelihood of survival and/or reproduction. Human musical abil- CS authors consistently reject NS as compatible ity has functions that are adaptively relevant,62 and with the origin of sexual reproduction. According its association with specifi c brain regions shows that to such authors, NS would weed out any mutation it has an anatomical basis.63 Consciousness64 and the that caused an organism to undergo “the dilution ability to calculate65 are also adaptively relevant and of 50% of its genes.”51 As one pair of authors put it, associated with specifi c brain regions. “the Darwinian ‘survival of the fi ttest’ mantra does not compute with a sexual practice that selectively Moreover, potential evolutionary precursors for only passes one half of one’s genes to successive such “human” traits are known in nonhuman ani- progeny.”52 mals. Numerous animals—including even insects 66 and fi shes 67—have the ability to count, and a rudi- However, dilution by 50% does not affect the entire mentary ability to calculate is known in birds 68 and genome but affects only those genes for which an primates.69 Thus a potential evolutionary precursor organism is heterozygous. An allele for which an to the human ability to calculate exists in nonhuman organism is homozygous is necessarily passed on by animals. Likewise, certain aspects of human con- sexual reproduction. Moreover, recent research indi- sciousness exist in some animals; 70 therefore, human cates that sexual reproduction confers advantages consciousness could have evolved from a nonhuman upon offspring, in accordance with the naysayers’ precursor. In addition, altruism 71 and certain other expectations of a system that is a product of NS. traits associated with human mentality (e.g., tool Genetic recombination during sexual reproduction use,72 cultures,73 planning ahead,74 sense of fairness,75 dramatically reduces the rate of accumulation of theory of mind76) are present in other primates; these deleterious mutations53 and concentrates benefi cial facts suggest that human mentality could have arisen mutations, increasing the rate of adaptation.54 It also from a precursor in nonhuman primates. appears to unlink deleterious mutations from benefi - cial mutations, allowing those deleterious mutations Some CS authors rejected NS as based on circular to be selected out of the genome.55 In addition, sexual reasoning or tautological error (table 2), that is, “sur- selection, which depends on the presence of sexual vival of the fi ttest,” with the fi ttest defi ned as those reproduction, is advantageous for gene propagation. who survive. However, NS is not based on circular It decreases mutation load and increases fi tness,56 reasoning. The phrase “survival of the fi ttest” is a and traits that are favored by sexual selection often simplistic description of the theory of NS, not the basis have survival value.57 of the theory of NS. The basis of the theory of NS is the pair of observations that heritable variation exists According to some CS authors, human mental and that different variants have different chances of traits could not have evolved by NS. One author survival and reproduction. These observations are claimed that if the mind is a product of NS, then facts that have been documented 77 and do not relate its own conclusions—including the conclusion that to each other circularly. NS exists—are unreliable.58 That argument is a non sequitur. Another author asserted that human altru- One CS author who characterized NS as based on ism was not a product of NS.59 However, recent circular reasoning, applied circular reasoning of his research indicates that the specifi cally human forms own. His argument against NS that environmen- of altruism confer selective advantages; 60 this is tal pressure can create variation within “created consistent with their having arisen via NS. Other kinds” but cannot produce new “kinds”78 is circu- authors claimed that musical ability, the ability to lar, because “created kinds” are defi ned as having calculate, and consciousness could not be products arisen by special creation and not by NS or by evo- of NS because they have no survival value.61 lution.79 Using the same circular argument, some CS authors who accepted the existence of directional Recent fi ndings oppose such claims. By defi nition, selection within baramins stated that the resulting NS can act upon a trait if the trait is heritable and changes were not evolution, because no new “kinds”

174 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter were produced.80 Such assertions demonstrate not Mainstream scientists have recorded a plethora of only circular reasoning but also a difference in the other examples of observed and documented direc- use of the word “evolution” between CS authors tional selection that appear to have gone unnoticed and mainstream biologists. To the latter, heritable by CS authors. Some particularly showy cases involve changes even within species fall under the umbrella observed morphological changes in microbes 90 and of “evolution.”81 multicellular organisms 91 in response to selection pressure. The latter include instances in which new ecotypes have appeared in recent decades,92 some- NS within Baramins times with reproductive isolation that defi nes the Through both the twentieth and twenty-fi rst centu- new ecotype as a new species, according to the bio- ries, while most CS authors have denied NS, others logical species concept. Other cases involve observed have insisted that NS occurs and that instances of it physiological changes 93 in response to selection pres- have been observed and recorded within baramins sure, or demonstrations from genetic studies that NS (fi gs. 1, 2; table 2). In particular, there has been wide has recently occurred.94 Instances in which microbes acceptance among NS authors that stabilizing selec- have been observed to acquire endosymbiosis95 or tion occurs (fi g. 1; table 2) and prevents evolution multicellularity96 in the laboratory in response to by keeping organisms the same through the genera- selection pressure, provide support for the feasi- tions. One author even made the astute observation bility of such events in the past macroevolution of that artifi cial selection, which perpetuates lineages eukaryotes. with traits that would be lethal in the wild, is the pre- vention of stabilizing selection, which would have Of seven CS authors who took a position on the exis- occurred in the absence of human interference.82 tence of sexual selection, three accepted its existence (table 2) and proffered it as a potential explanation Numerous CS authors accepted stabilizing selection of specifi c biological phenomena: the preference of while denying directional or sexual selection or the female crickets for males with larger nuptial offer- role of NS in biological diversifi cation (table 2). To ings,97 differences in vocalizations between two support denial of directional selection, one author closely related bat species,98 and a recent increase in argued that it would end all life on Earth, because height among human males 99 (table 2). Four authors eventually a superspecies would outcompete all the rejected sexual selection as an explanation for others and drive them to extinction, following which, other specifi c phenomena (table 2), such as human competition within that species would eliminate all schizophrenia and the peacock’s tail, citing work by but one of its members, which would subsequently mainstream biologists that casts doubt on the role of 83 die. sexual selection in those cases.

Other CS authors accepted a role of NS in diver- The author who tentatively attributed the human sifi cation within baramins. Regarding plant male height increase to sexual selection later rejected diversifi cation, one author said that the existence of sexual selection in general (table 2), after the Flood the Creator may … have allowed arguing that “natural selection would select against such processes as gene mutation, natural selection, sexual selection. Mates who are choosy about their and polyploidy to equip these plants further for mates are less likely to mate, and less likely to pass their new roles of clothing the earth with its diverse on their traits to their offspring.”100 Recent research network of nascent habitats.84 indeed suggests that choosier females are likely to 101 According to another author, directional selection by mate less often, but it also shows that female choos- carnivory was probably necessary in the post-Flood iness is a plastic trait that is reduced when conditions world, to increase fi tness in a harsh environment.85 would prevent mating by overly choosy females, as 102 Other CS authors asserted that directional selec- for example when there is low mate availability, 103 tion had been documented, citing the examples of immanence of oocyte release, or other conditions 104 antibacterial resistance in bacteria,86 pesticide resis- that make it costly to delay mating; this plasticity tance in insects,87 the favoring of the dark morph ensures that choosy genes do not prevent reproduc- of the peppered moth (Biston betularia) during the tion but instead get passed on. The same author also Industrial Revolution,88 and changes in the genome objected that “If sexual selection caused the devel- of HIV.89 opment of the male beard … why do women often

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 175 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution prefer clean-shaven males?”105 Inherent in that ques- One author argued that “shared mistakes” in pseu- tion is the assumption that women generally do dogenes between humans and other primates were prefer clean-shaven males, an assumption that recent due to parallel molecular evolution rather than com- research shows is unlikely.106 Furthermore, rejec- mon ancestry.122 Another argued that Homo erectus tion of the existence of sexual selection contradicts represented ancestral human morphology, that H. evidence from myriad examples in which sexual erectus populations in different areas had conver- selection has been documented.107 gently evolved H. sapiens morphology, and that this was an example of a biological trajectory that had Although some CS authors rejected NS as a con- been programmed into genes at creation and which tributor to biological diversity, others accepted that is evidence of common design.123 Another author NS contributes to diversifi cation within baramins. even tried to have it both ways, explaining that the According to two authors, extinct hominid species similarities between the dinosaur Deinonychus and may represent diversity generated by NS within the early bird Archaeopteryx were due to convergent the human baramin.108 According to others, NS is evolution, so as to cast doubt upon the evolution of responsible for diversity among modern humans 109 birds from dinosaurs, while denying—in the same or within other baramins,110 including the fossil horse article—that convergent evolution exists.124 series 111 and the ceratopsian dinosaur clade.112

Final Thoughts Convergent Evolution CS authors deny macroevolution. It is therefore Numerous CS authors dismissed convergent evo- unsurprising that they consistently deny that NS lution as an invention by evolutionists to explain contributed to macroevolutionary processes such away similarities in unrelated organisms (table 2). as the evolution of prebiotic molecules, the advent Some authors attributed such similarities to common of complex biological structures and systems, design and claimed them as evidence of a common and the advent of sexual reproduction. They also Designer (table 2). Others used arguments with consistently deny that NS has contributed to sym- unsupported assumptions, for example, bioses. However, CS authors cannot be said to have Convergent evolution should be nearly impossible achieved consensus regarding other aspects of NS. within the evolutionary paradigm, because no two Some CS authors deny the existence of NS in general, environments remain the same for long periods directional selection, sexual selection, convergent to “evolve” similar structures in very different evolution, and/or a role for NS in biological diver- animals.113 sifi cation. Others accept that those phenomena and stabilizing selection exist—and in some cases have Nonetheless, some authors recognized that within a been observed—within “created kinds.” It will be given (alleged) baramin were organisms with simi- interesting to see whether CS authors achieve agree- larities that must have arisen in parallel and not by ment on these topics in future decades, or whether inheritance from the (alleged) originally created disputation regarding these topics will continue to ancestor. Examples include parallel mutations of eye prevent consensus. color in different lineages of fruit fl ies,114 parallel gene 115 duplications in fl ies, parallel similarities in cyto- It is also important to note that for much of the twen- 116 chrome b genes in turtles, and various similarities tieth century, the naysaying CS authors had a point. 117 between different species of the cat family. Others The explosion in documentation of directional selec- noted that organisms in different (alleged) baramins tion, sexual selection, and the infl uence of NS on had independently acquired similar characteristics biological diversifi cation is mostly a phenomenon of and that this must be called convergent evolution. the most recent three decades. Therefore, in previous Examples include the independent acquisition of C 4 decades, deniers of these phenomena were correct in 118 physiology in sixteen plant families, saber-tooth that there was minimal or no observational evidence 119 morphology in four mammal families, similarities for such phenomena. However, now that a plethora 120 between elephant shrews and ruminants, and simi- of instances of these phenomena have been observed 121 larities between Old and New World vultures. and documented, there is no longer any excuse to deny them.

176 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

Appendix 1: Falsifi cation of Claims of Irreducible Complexity The claim that a biological structure or system is e. The Flower irreducibly complex is falsifi ed if forms intermedi- Fossil 134 and extant 135 plants are known that exhibit ate between the structure/system and its simpler reproductive structures with morphology interme- counterpart(s) exist (hence, are viable) in extant or diate between gymnosperm strobilae and simple fossil organisms, or if viable counterparts with miss- fl owers. ing components exist in extant or fossil organisms. f. Spathe and Spadix of Jack-in-the-pulpit a. Flagella (Arisaema triphyllum) The proteins that compose and operate bacterial A spectrum of morphology intermediate between fl agella differ across taxa, with different proteins unmodifi ed bracts and bracts that are modifi ed into missing in different taxa, thus showing that bacte- a spathe exists among extant members of the family rial fl agella are not irreducibly complex.125 A simpler Araceae, to which the jack-in-the pulpit belongs.136 counterpart with homologous proteins exists: the Infl orescences with morphology intermediate be- bacterial type III secretion system.126 tween a simple branching pattern and a spadix are common among extant plants.137 Unlike prokaryotic fl agella, eukaryotic fl agella con- tain two-part (basal body and axoneme) skeletons g. Compound Eyes of microtubules. The components of the basal body A spectrum of complexity and morphology of omma- differ across taxa, with different components miss- tidia (the units of compound eyes)—from simple to 127 ing in different taxa, demonstrating that eukaryotic complex, with numerous intermediate forms—is fl agella are not irreducibly complex. A simpler coun- present across the phyla Mollusca, Annelida, and terpart exists: the pole of the mitotic spindle, which Arthropoda.138 Intermediate numbers of ommatidia appears to have given rise to the eukaryotic fl agel- also exist in compound eyes of different species, with 128 lum by elongation. the number varying from one to several thousand.139 b. The Shapes of Diatoms h. Jumping Spider Eyes Diatoms exhibit a continuous spectrum of morphol- The anterior median eyes of jumping spiders possess ogy and therefore do not lack intermediate forms.129 a corneal lens, a multilayered retina, muscles that Aspects of diatom morphology are functionally sig- move the retina, ultraviolet photoreceptors, photore- nifi cant 130 and therefore subject to NS. ceptors for colors that humans can see, a fovea, and an elongated shape.140 However, all but the last two c. Chemical Pathways in Photosynthesis traits are present in other spiders.141 Jumping spider Among prokaryotes is a spectrum of complexity— eyes are therefore derivable from other spider eyes from simple to complex—in the morphology and and are not too complex to have arisen from them chemistry of photosynthetic housing structures, by NS. reaction centers, antennae, pigments, and electron transport chains.131 Also, in extant prokaryotes, sim- i. Spider Web Production and Complexity pler counterparts to photosynthetic pathways exist: Simpler precursor structures to spinnerets are known light-driven, ion-pumping systems that convert light from early fossil arachnids.142 A spectrum with into chemical energy but are not involved in carbon numerous intermediate forms exists between the fi xation.132 simplest and most complex webs of extant spiders.143

d. C4 Chemistry j. Millipede Defense Systems Numerous plant species exhibit photosynthetic A variety of defense systems are present in extant 144 physiology that is intermediate between the C3 and millipedes, and intermediate states abound. 133 C4 types. Defensive rolling-up varies from the production of a

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 177 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Appendix 1: Falsifi cation of Claims of Irreducible Complexity (cont’d) sphere to a spiral, and the intermediate form (a pla- mammalian tetrapods, jawed fi shes, jawless fi shes, nar disk) exists. Chemical defenses vary from none and recently discovered fossils that fi ll in morpho- to multiple secreted compounds, and various inter- logical gaps between fi sh groups152 and between mediate numbers and combinations of compounds protochordates and jawless fi shes.153 exist. Defensive spines vary in thickness, complexity of branching, and number of rows, and intermediate q. Giraff e Neck combinations of these traits exist. Fossil members of the giraffe family exhibit a spec- trum of neck lengths and vertebral morphology k. Click Apparatus of Click Beetles intermediate between those of short-necked ungu- The apparatus that click beetles use to right lates and extant giraffes.154 themselves involves an enlarged muscle and a peg- and-notch arrangement on two exoskeletal plates.145 r. Avian Respiratory System The bodies of most other insects possess the homolo- Recent research shows that various extant reptiles gous muscle and the homologous exoskeletal plates have respiratory systems that, in morphology and and therefore possess counterparts with missing airfl ow, are intermediate between simple lungs with components (muscle enlargement and a peg-and- bidirectional fl ow and the complex, avian system of notch shape). unidirectional fl ow-through lungs-plus-air-sacs.155 l. Large Diff erence between Larval and Adult s. The Feather Dragonfl ies Fossil precursors of avian feathers exhibit a spectrum The morphological difference between larva and of morphologies intermediate between a simple adult in insects varies from almost none to extreme, fi lament and a primary fl ight feather.156 Despite the with numerous intermediate magnitudes present— erroneous claim that the simpler fossil “proto- and therefore viable—in various species.146 feathers” are actually degraded collagen fi bers from within the dermis,157 new research demonstrates that m. Food-Catching Basket of Dragonfl ies they contain melanosomes, the pigment-bearing The dragonfl y’s food-catching basket is simply the organelles in the cells of feathers.158 fi rst four legs. They are generic insect legs that lack the specializations present in other insects.147 Other t. The Human Musculoskeletal System than their close spacing,148 there is nothing particu- A long and detailed fossil series of intermedi- larly remarkable about them, and they are no more ate forms shows the derivation of the location and complex than the legs of other insects. arrangement of human muscle attachment sites from those of early tetrapods, via fossils of early amni- n. Cephalopod Eyes otes, early synapsids, early mammals, and early A nearly continuous spectrum, with numerous primates.159 intermediate forms, exists between the simplest mol- luscan photoreceptors and cephalopod eyes.149 Acknowledgments o. Killer T-cell System Several people deserve thanks for help with this A comparison of protochordates, jawless fi shes, study. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministries jawed fi shes, and tetrapods reveals a spectrum of International Australia generously donated copies complexity within the immune system and within of several back issues of Ex Nihilo Technical Journal its T-cell system. Fishes exhibit states intermediate and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, mailed between those of protochordates and tetrapods.150 them overseas, and wrote a letter of permission to US libraries authorizing the photocopying of other p. Eyes of Humans, Other Tetrapods, and volumes for this project. Library staff at four librar- Fishes ies provided photocopies of back issues of Ex Nihilo A nearly continuous morphological series links the Technical Journal and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical simple photoreceptors of protochordates to human Journal: Laura Sullivan and Tanya Zanish-Belcher eyes via the extant diversity151 within mammals, non- (Iowa State University Library), Linda Schaefer (J. S. Mack Library, Bob Jones University), Jean Weber and

178 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

Nelva Hamelink (G. M. Elliott Library, Cincinnati 12Campbell et al., Biology, 282; Bergstrom and Dugatkin, Christian University), and John Rush (Emmaus Bible Evolution, 127. 13See the plethora of examples listed within endnotes 30, 32, College Library). Diane Anderson of the Creation 53, 54, and 89–95. Research Society provided the number of CRS mem- 14Hall and Hallgrimsson, Strickberger’s Evolution, 129, 133, bers and institutional subscribers to CRSQ.  140; Campbell et al., Biology, 296; Bergstrom and Dugat- kin, Evolution, 417–22. 15 Hall and Hallgrimsson, Strickberger’s Evolution, 240; Campbell et al., Biology, 308; Bergstrom and Dugatkin, Evolution, 127. Notes 16These are listed in Senter and Mackey, “Part 1.” 1 Allan Mazur, “Believers and Disbelievers in Evolution,” 17Shaun Doyle, “Antifreeze Protein Evolution: Turning Politics and the Life Sciences 23, no. 2 (2005): 55–61; Jon D. Wrenches into Hammers,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 14–17. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto, “Public 18Callie Joubert, “Scientifi c Evidence Indicates Natu- Acceptance of Evolution,” Science 313 (2006): 765–66. ral Selection and Brain-Based Education Confl ict with 2 Donald Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why Human Nature,” ARJ 7 (2014): 387–402. It Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); 19Harold Armstrong, “On the Fitness of the Laws of Felix Gradstein, James Ogg, and Alan Smith, A Geologic Nature,” CRSQ 8 (1971): 126–28. Time Scale 2004 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 20Jerry Bergman, “The Fall of the Natural Selection The- Press, 2014). ory,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference 3 See Philip J. Senter, “Christianity’s Earliest Recorded Her- on Creationism, vol. 1, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Chris L. esy, and Its Relevance to Christian Acceptance of Scientifi c Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Findings,” Thinking about Religion 12 (2016), online jour- 1990), 37–42. nal (http://organizations.uncfsu.edu/ncrsa/journal/v12 21H. S. Hamilton, “The Evolution of the Eye—Fact or Fic- /SenterP_Peritomes.htm). See also Philip J. Senter, tion?,” CRSQ 29 (1993): 195–96. “Cognitive Styles Used in Evidence Citation by Ancient 22Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case Christian Authors: the Psychology of a Major Ancient of Un-natural Selection,” CRSQ 35 (1998): 76–83. Controversy over the Historicity of the Pentateuch, and Its 23H. L. Armstrong, “Analogy Casts Doubt upon Natural Implications for Science Education Today,” Open Library of Selection,” CRSQ 12 (1975): 111–12. Humanities 3, no. 1(3) (2017): 1–50. 24Richard Riss, “Natural Selection and the Christian View 4 Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey, “The Evolution of of Redemption,” CRSQ 19 (1983): 212–14. Creation Science, Part 1: Vestigial Structures and Biologi- 25Randall Hedtke, “How Gradual Evolution Is Disproved cal Degeneration,” Perspectives on Science and Christian in the Textbooks,” CRSQ 36 (1999): 136–44. Faith 69, no. 1 (2017): 27–41. 26Kenneth J. McNamara, ed., Evolutionary Trends (Tucson, 5 But it will be useful to list here the abbreviations used in AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1990); Prothero, Evolu- subsequent endnotes for the names of the CS journals: tion. See also appendix 1 of this article. ARJ (Answers Research Journal), CENTJ (Creation Ex Nihilo 27E. Norbert Smith, “Which Animals Do Predators Really Technical Journal), CRSA (Creation Research Society Annual), Eat?,” CRSQ 13 (1976): 79–81; E. Norbert Smith, “Which CRSQ (Creation Research Society Quarterly), ENTJ (Ex Nihilo Prey Do Predators Eat?,” JC 24, no. 2 (2010): 75–77. Technical Journal), JC (Journal of Creation), JCTS (Journal of 28A. Landa, K. Gudvangen, J. E. Swenson, and E. Røskaft, Creation Theology and Science, Series B: Life Sciences), and “Factors Associated with Wolverine Gulo gulo Predation OPBSG (Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group). on Domestic Sheep,” Journal of Applied Ecology 36 (1999): The names of the CS journals Origins, TJ, and CORE Issues 963–73; G. S. A. Rasmussen, “Livestock Predation by the in Creation are not abbreviated in these endnotes, nor are Painted Hunting Dog Lycaon pictus in a Cattle Ranching the titles of the Proceedings volumes of the International Region of Zimbabwe: A Case Study,” Biological Conser- Conference on Creation series. The current journal JC vation 88 (1999): 133–39, fi g. 4; P. Stahl, J. M. Vandel, V. was previously ENTJ, then CENTJ, then TJ, before being Herrenschmidt, and P. Migot, “Predation on Livestock by named Journal of Creation. Likewise, the current journal an Expanding Reintroduced Lynx Population: Long-Term JCTS was previously OPBSG. Trend and Spatial Variability,” Journal of Applied Ecology 6 Senter and Mackey, “Part 1.” 38 (2001): 674–87; Meritxell Genovart et al., “The Young, 7 Philip J. Senter and Jared J. Mackey, “The Evolution of the Weak, and the Sick: Evidence of Natural Selection by Creation Science, Part 2: Benefi cial Mutations,” Perspec- Predation,” PLoS ONE 5, no. 3:e9774 (2010): 1–5. tives on Science and Christian Faith 69, no. 2 (2017): 87–97. 29Mary F. Willson et al., “Patterns of Predation Risk and 8 Neil A. Campbell et al., Biology: Concepts and Connections, Survival of Bird Nests in a Chilean Agricultural Land- 6th ed. (San Francisco, CA: Pearson, 2009), 258–69; Carl T. scape,” Conservation Biology 15 (2001): 447–56. Bergstrom and Lee A. Dugatkin, Evolution, 2nd ed. (New 30Shuichi Shikano, Leo S. Luckinbill, and Yasushi Kurihara, York: W. W. Norton, 2016), 67. “Changes of Traits in a Bacterial Population Associated 9 Thomas B. Smith et al., “Evolutionary Consequences of with Protozoal Predation,” Microbial Ecology 20 (1990): Extinctions in Populations of a Hawaiian Honeycreeper,” 75–84; Martin E. Boraas, Diane B. Seale, and Joseph E. Box- Conservation Biology 9 (1995): 107–113. horn, “Phagotrophy by a Flagellate Selects for Colonial 10 Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson, Strickberger’s Prey: A Possible Origin of Multicellularity,” Evolutionary Evolution, 4th ed. (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2008), Ecology 12 (1998): 153–64; Aaren S. Freeman and James 308; Campbell et al., Biology, 270; Bergstrom and Dugat- E. Byers, “Divergent Induced Responses to an Invasive kin, Evolution, 293. Predator in Marine Mussel Populations,” Science 313 11 Campbell et al., Biology, 271; Bergstrom and Dugatkin, (2006): 831–33; Joseph K. Bailey et al., “Rapid Shifts in the Evolution, 587–90.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 179 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Chemical Composition of Aspen Forests: An Introduced 41Holroyd, “Darwinism Is Physical and Mathematical Herbivore as an Agent of Natural Selection,” Biological Nonsense.” Invasions 9 (2007): 715–22. 42Jerry Bergman, “The Problem of Extinction and Natural 31John W. Klotz, “The Philosophy of Science in Rela- Selection,” CRSQ 30 (1993): 93–106. tion to Concepts of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory,” 43Lammerts, “Concerning Mimicry.” CRSQ 3, no. 2 (1966): 3–12; Walter E. Lammerts, “Muta- 44Enyart, “Dobzhansky.” tions Reveal the Glory of God’s Handiwork,” CRSA 4 45Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views,” (1967): 35–41; John Leslie, “Mutations and Design in Cel- (1971). lular Metabolism,” ENTJ 2 (1986): 17–52; Jean K. Lightner, 46David M. Richardson et al., “Plant Invasions—The Role “Adaptations of Endotherms to High Altitudes,” CRSQ 50 of Mutualisms,” Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 65–93; K. W. (2014): 132–40. Jeon, “Integration of Endosymbionts in Amoebae,” in 32Patricia Long, “A Town with a Golden Gene,” Health 8, The New Panorama of Animal Evolution, ed. A. Legakis et no. 1 (1994): 60–66; Marianne Imhof and Christian Schlöt- al. (Sofi a, Bulgaria: Pensoft, 2003), 541–47; Ann Pringle et terer, “Fitness Effects of Advantageous Mutations in al., “Mycorrhizal Symbioses and Plant Invasions,” Annual Evolving Escherichia coli Populations,” Proceedings of the Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40 (2009): 699– National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 715; Diane Lawrence et al., “Species Interactions Alter 98 (2001): 1113–17; David A. Baltrus, Karen Guillemin, and Evolutionary Responses to a Novel Environment,” PLoS Patrick C. Phillips, “Natural Transformation Increases the Biology 10, no. 5:e1001331 (2012): 1–11; Lee M. Henry et Rate of Adaptation in the Human Pathogen Helicobacter al., “Horizontally Transmitted Symbionts and Host Colo- pylori,” Evolution 62 (2007): 39–49; Lίlia Perfeito et al., nization of Ecological Niches,” Current Biology 23 (2013): “Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small 1713–17; Terézia Horváthová, Jan Kozłowski, and Ulf Effects,” Science 317 (2007): 813–15; Scott H. Williamson et Bauchinger, “Growth Rate and Survival of Terrestrial al., “Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Isopods Is Related to Possibility to Acquire Symbionts,” Genome,” PLoS Genetics 3, no. 6:390 (2007): 901–15; Chris European Journal of Soil Biology 69 (2015): 52–56. R. Feldman et al., “The Evolutionary Origins of Benefi cial 47Jerry Bergman, “Some Biological Problems with Natural Alleles during the Repeated Adaptation of Garter Snakes Selection Theory,” CRSQ 29 (1992): 146–58; Don Batten, to Deadly Prey,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- “A Brief Response to Anti-creationist Books,” CENTJ ences of the United States of America 106 (2009): 13415–20; 12 (1998): 275–78; Jerry Bergman, “Why Abiogenesis Is Angela M. Hancock et al., “Adaptation to Climate Change Impossible,” CRSQ 36 (2000): 195–207. across the Arabidopsis thaliana Genome,” Science 334 (2011): 48Christof K. Biebricher and William C. Gardiner, “Molecu- 83–86; A. Fournier-Level et al., “A Map of Local Adap- lar Evolution of RNA in Vitro,” Biophysical Chemistry 66 tation in Arabidopsis thaliana,” Science 334 (2011): 86–89; (1997): 179–92; Laura F. Landweber, “Experimental RNA Sibao Wang et al., “Local Adaptation of an Introduced Evolution,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (1999): Transgenic Insect Fungal Pathogen Due to New Benefi cial 353–58; Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, “Self-Sus- Mutations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- tained Replication of an RNA Enzyme,” Science 323 (2009): ences of the United States of America 108 (2011): 20449–54; 1229–32. Lindsey W. McGee et al., “Payoffs, Not Tradeoffs, in the 49Roger W. Haines Jr., “Macroevolution Questioned,” Adaptation of a Virus to Ostensibly Confl icting Selective CRSQ 13 (1976): 162–71. Pressures,” PLoS Genetics 10, no. 10:e1004611 (2014): 1–12. 50Eörs Szathmáry, “The Evolution of Replicators,” Philosph- 33Art F. Poettcker, “Seventeen Problems for Evolutionists,” ical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 355 (2000): CRSQ 14 (1977): 113–23. 1669–76; Lincoln and Joyce, “Self-Sustained Replication of 34Jim Gibson, “Fossil Patterns: A Classifi cation and Evalua- an RNA Enzyme.” tion,” Origins 23 (1996): 68–99. 51Alex Williams, “Inheritance of Biological Information— 35Jerry Bergman, “Why Mutations Are Lethal to Darwin- Part II: Redefi ning the ‘Information Challenge,’” TJ 19,

ism,” CRSQ 38 (2002): 181–89; ———, “The Mutation Repair no. 2 (2005): 36–41. Systems: A Major Problem for Macroevolution,” CRSQ 41 52Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, “The Origin of Gender (2005): 265–73. and Sexual Reproduction,” TJ 18, no. 1 (2004): 120–27. 36Alex Williams, “Mutations: Evolution’s Engine Becomes 53Susanne Paland and Michael Lynch, “Transitions to Asex- Evolution’s End!” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 60–66; John Baum- uality Result in Excess Amino Acid Substitutions,” Science gardner et al., “Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population 311 (2006): 990–92; Levi T. Morran, Michelle D. Parmenter, Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and and Patrick C. Phillips, “Mutation Load and Rapid Adap- Natural Selection,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International tation Favour Outcrossing over Self-Fertilization,” Nature Conference on Creationism, ed. A. A. Snelling (Pittsburgh, 562 (2009): 350–52. PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2008), 87–98. 54Matthew R. Goddard, H. Charles J. Godfray, and Aus- 37Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and tin Burt, “Sex Increases the Effi cacy of Natural Selection Views,” CRSQ 7 (1971): 231–38; Howard B. Holroyd, in Experimental Yeast Populations,” Nature 434 (2005): “Darwinism Is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense,” 636–40; Rasmus Nielsen, “Why Sex?,” Science 311 (2006): CRSQ 9 (1972): 5–13; William J. Tinkle, “Let Us Reason 960–61; Tim F. Cooper, “Recombination Speeds Adap- Together,” CRSQ 18 (1981): 25–26. tation by Reducing Competition between Benefi cial 38Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and Views” Mutations in Populations of Escherichia coli,” PLoS Biol- (1971); Walter E. Lammerts, “Concerning Mimicry,” ogy 5, no. 9:e225 (2007): 1899–905; Morran and Parmenter, CRSQ 20 (1983): 42–44; Bob Enyart, “Dobzhansky: 40 Years “Mutation Load and Rapid Adaptation.” Later Nothing Makes Sense,” CRSQ 49 (2013): 296–307. 55Cooper, “Recombination Speeds Adaptation.” 39Harold Armstrong, “Comments on Scientifi c News and 56Katrina McGuigan, Donna Petfi eld, and Mark W. Blows, Views,” CRSQ 9 (1972): 131–39. “Reducing Mutation Load through Sexual Selection on 40Tinkle, “Let Us Reason Together.” Males,” Evolution 65 (2011): 2816–29.

180 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

57Mark Kirkpatrick, “Sexual Selection by Female Choice D. Pruetz and Paco Bertolani, “Savanna Chimpanzees, in Polygynous Animals,” Annual Review of Ecology and Pan troglodytes verus, Hunt with Spears,” Current Biology Systematics 18 (1987): 43–70; Bruce E. Lyon and Rob- 17 (2007): 412–17. ert Montgomerie, “Sexual Selection Is a Form of Social 73A. Whiten et al., “Cultures in Chimpanzees,” Nature Selection,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: (1999): 682–85; Carel P. van Schaik et al., “Orangutan Cul- Biological Sciences 367 (2012): 2266–73. tures and the Evolution of Material Culture,” Science 299 58John D. Clark, “Some Philosophical Implications of the (2003): 102–5. Theory of Evolution,” Origins 3 (1976): 38–45. 74Nicholas J. Mulcahy and Josep Call, “Apes Save Tools for 59Benton H. Cook, “Hume’s Guillotine and Evolutionary Future Use,” Science 312 (2006): 1038–40. Ethics: Evaluating Attempts to Overcome the Naturalistic 75Sara F. Brosnan and Frans B. M. de Waal, “Monkeys Reject Fallacy,” ARJ 8 (2015): 1–11. Unequal Pay,” Nature 425 (2003): 297–99. 60Samuel Bowles, “Group Competition, Reproductive 76Justin N. Wood et al., “The Perception of Rational, Goal- Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism,” Science Directed Action in Nonhuman Primates,” Science 317 314 (2006): 1569–72. (2007): 1402–5; Josep Call and Michael Tomasello, “Does 61Ian T. Taylor, “The Idea of Progress,” in Proceedings of the the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind? 30 Years Later,” Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert L. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (2008): 187–92; Christopher Ivey (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), Krupenye et al., “Great Apes Anticipate That Other Indi- 573–81; Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub, “Conscious- viduals Will Act According to False Beliefs,” Science 354 ness: The King of Evolutionary Problems,” CRSQ 41 (2016): 110–14. (2004): 113–30. 77For a plethora of examples, see endnotes 30, 32, 53, 54, 62W. Tecumseh Fitch, “The Biology and Evolution of Music: and 89–95. A Comparative Perspective,” Cognition 100 (2006): 173– 78Raymond C. Telfair II, “Should Evolution Be Taught as 215; Leonid Perlovsky et al., “Mozart Effect, Cognitive Fact?,” CRSQ 10 (1973): 53–61. Dissonance, and the Pleasure of Music,” Behavioural Brain 79Two other CS authors also made the same circular asser- Research 244 (2013): 9–14. tion about the generation of new “kinds” but did not 63Isabelle Peretz, “The Nature of Music from a Biological characterize NS as based on circular reasoning: George F. Perspective,” Cognition 100 (2006): 1–32. Howe and P. William Davis, “Natural Selection Reexam- 64Michel Cabanac, Arnaud J. Cabanac, and André Parent, ined,” CRSQ 8 (1971): 30–43. “The Emergence of Consciousness in Phylogeny,” Behav- 80R. Clyde McCone, “Three Levels of Anthropological ioural Brain Research 198 (2009): 267–72; D. A. Denton, Objection to Evolution,” CRSQ 9 (1973): 204–10; Bolton M. J. McKinley, and G. F. Egan, “The Role of Primordial Davidheiser, “What Is a Species?,” CRSQ 27 (1991): 149– Emotions in the Evolutionary Origin of Consciousness,” 51; Bergman, “Mutation Repair Systems.” Consciousness and Cognition 18 (2009): 500–514; Todd E. 81See Senter and Mackey, “Part 1” for more examples of Feinberg, “The Nature of Primary Consciousness. A New idiosyncratic usage of the terms “evolution” and “vesti- Synthesis,” Consciousness and Cognition 43 (2016): 113–27. gial” by CS authors. 65Frederick L. Coolidge and Karenleigh A. Overmann, 82G. Richard Culp, “The Limitations of Variation,” CRSQ 28 “Numerosity, Abstraction, and the Emergence of Sym- (1991): 102–8. bolic Thinking,” Current Anthropology 53 (2012): 204–25; 83Jerry Bergman, “Why the ‘Poor Design’ Argument against Andreas Nieder, “The Neuronal Code for Number,” Intelligent Design Is Unsound,” TJ 17, no. 3 (2003): 113–18. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 17 (2016): 366–82. 84George F. Howe, “Which Woody Plants Grow Where at 66Marie Dacke and Mandyam V. Srinivasan, “Evidence for the Grand Canyon,” CRSQ 17 (1981): 219–26. Counting in Insects,” Animal Cognition 11 (2008): 683–89. 85Grant R. Lambert, “Was the Pre-Flood Animal Kingdom 67Christian Agrillo, Laura Piffer, and Angelo Bisazza, Vegetarian?,” CRSQ 20 (1983): 88. “Number versus Continuous Quantity in Numerosity 86McCone, “Three Levels of Anthropological Objection”; Judgments by Fish,” Cognition 119 (2011): 281–87. Taylor, “The Idea of Progress.” 68Elizabeth M. Brannon et al., “Numerical Subtraction in the 87Jean K. Lightner, “Patterns of Change over Time,” JC 22, Pigeon: Evidence for a Linear Subjective Number Scale,” no. 1 (2008): 81–84. Psychological Science 12 (2001): 238–43; Damian Scarf, Har- 88Davidheiser, “What Is a Species?”; Dmitri A. Kouznetsov, lene Hayne, and Michael Colombo, “Pigeons on Par with “Modern Concepts of Species: Do We Come Back to Fix- Primates in Numerical Competence,” Science 334 (2011): ism?,” CENTJ 5 (1991): 123–29; Bergman, “Problem of 1664. Extinction.” 69Jessica F. Cantlon and Elizabeth M. Brannon, “Shared 89Y. Liu, “Mutations in the nef Gene Make HIV-1 More

System for Ordering Small and Large Numbers in Mon- Virulent,” ARJ 8 (2015): 323–26; ———, “Cyclic Selection in keys and Humans,” Psychological Science 17 (2006): 401–6; HIV-1 Tropism: Microevolution That Is Going Nowhere,” Christian Agrillo and Angelo Bisazza, “Spontaneous ver- ARJ 8 (2015): 199–202. sus Trained Numerical Abilities. A Comparison between 90Shikano et al., “Changes of Traits in a Bacterial Popula- the Two Main Tools to Study Numerical Competence in tion”; Santiago F. Elena, Vaughn S. Cooper, and Richard Nonhuman Animals,” Journal of Neuroscience Methods 234 E. Lenski, “Punctuated Equilibrium Caused by Selection (2014): 82–91. of Rare Benefi cial Mutations,” Science 272 (1996): 1802–4. 70Cabanac et al, “The Emergence of Consciousness in Phy- 91Richard F. Johnston and Robert K. Selander, “House logeny”; Denton et al., “The Role of Primordial Emotions.” Sparrows: Rapid Evolution of Races in North America,” 71Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello, “Altruistic Help- Science 141 (1964): 548–60; Richard F. Johnston and Rob- ing in Infants and Young Chimpanzees,” Science 311 ert K. Selander, “Evolution in the House Sparrow. II. (2006): 1301–3. Adaptive Differentiation in North American Popula- 72A. C. de A. Moura and P. C. Lee, “Capuchin Stone Tool tions,” Evolution 25 (1971): 1–8; C. K. Williams and R. J. Use in Caatinga Dry Forest,” Science 306 (2004): 1909; Jill Moore, “Phenotypic Adaptation and Natural Selection

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 181 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

in the Wild Rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, in Australia,” 96Boraas et al., “Phagotrophy by a Flagellate Selects for Journal of Animal Ecology 58 (1989): 495–507; Smith et al., Colonial Prey.” “Evolutionary Consequences of Extinctions”; Freeman 97Stephen M. Butt, “Article Review: The Evolution of Sexual and Byers, “Divergent Induced Responses to an Invasive Differences in Insects by R. Thornhill and D. T. Gwynne. Predator”; Claire N. Spottiswoode and Martin Stevens, 1986. American Scientist 74:382-9,” CRSQ 24 (1987): 86. “Host-Parasite Arms Races and Rapid Changes in Bird 98C. Wieland, “New Bat Species Puzzle,” CENTJ 11 (1997): Egg Appearance,” American Naturalist 179 (2012): 633–48. 263. 92Mark R. Macnair, “A New Species of Mimulus Endemic 99Bergman, “Some Biological Problems.” to Copper Mines,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100Jerry Bergman, “The Enigma of Sex and Evolution,” 100 (1989): 1–14; Katharine Byrne and Richard A. Nichols, CRSQ 33 (1996): 217–23. “Culex pipiens in London Underground Tunnels: Differen- 101Josefa Bleu, Carmen Bessa-Gomes, and David Laloi, tiation between Surface and Subterranean Populations,” “Evolution of Female Choosiness and Mating Frequency: Heredity 82 (1999): 7–15; Curtis C. Daehler et al., “Evolu- Effects of Mating Cost, Density, and Sex Ratio,” Animal tion of a New Ecotype of Spartina alternifl ora (Poaceae) in Behaviour 83 (2012): 131–36. San Francisco Bay, California, USA,” American Journal of 102Seira Ashley Adams and Douglass H. Morse, “Condi- Botany 86 (1999): 543–46. tion-Dependent Mate Choice of a Parasitoid Wasp in the 93T. McNeilly, “Evolution of Closely Adjacent Plant Popula- Field,” Animal Behaviour 88 (2014): 225–32; Ashley Atwell tions III. Agrostis tenuis on a Small Copper Mine,” Heredity and William E. Wagner Jr., “Female Mate Choice Plastic- 23 (1968): 99–108; Ben L. Phillips and Richard Shine, “An ity Is Affected by the Interaction between Male Density Invasive Species Introduces Rapid Adaptive Change in a and Female Age in a Field Cricket,” Animal Behaviour 98 Native Predator: Cane Toads and Black Snakes in Austra- (2014): 177–83; Zair P. Burris and Hans G. Dam, “Resource lia,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273 and Mate Availability, and Previous Social Experience (2006): 1545–50; Ayellet V. Segrè, Andrew W. Murray, and Modulate Mate Choice in the Copepods Acartia tonsa and Jun-Yi Leu, “High-Resolution Mutation Mapping Reveals Acartia hudsonica,” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology Parallel Experimental Evolution in Yeast,” PLoS Biology 4, and Ecology 471 (2015): 180–89. no. 8:e256 (2006): 1372–85; Bailey et al., “Rapid Shifts”; 103Walter Wilczynski and Kathleen S. Lynch, “Female Sex- Marjan De Block, Mark A. McPeek, and Robby Stoks, ual Arousal in Amphibians,” Hormones and Behavior 59 “Life-History Evolution When Lestes Damselfl ies Invaded (2011): 630–36. Vernal Ponds,” Evolution 62 (2007): 485–93; Wang et al., 104Roberrt M. Gibson and Tom A. Langen, “How Do “Local Adaptation of an Introduced Transgenic Insect Animals Choose Their Mates?,” Trends in Ecology and Evo- Fungal Pathogen”; Lawrence et al., “Species Interactions lution 11 (1996): 468–70. Alter Evolutionary Responses”; Matthew D. Herron and 105Jerry Bergman, “The History of the Teaching of Human Michael Doebeli, “Parallel Evolutionary Dynamics of Female Inferiority in Darwinism,” CENTJ 14, no. 1 (2000): Adaptive Diversifi cation in Escherichia coli,” PLoS Biol- 117–27. ogy 11, no. 2:1001490 (2013): 1–11; Dagmar Frisch et al., 106Nick Neave and Kerry Shields, “The Effects of Facial Hair “A Millennial-Scale Chronicle of Evolutionary Responses Manipulation on Female Perceptions of Attractiveness, to Cultural Eutrophication in Daphnia,” Ecology Letters 17 Masculinity, and Dominance in Male Faces,” Personal- (2014): 360–68; Aaron M. New, et al., “Different Levels ity and Individual Differences 45 (2008): 373–77; Barnaby of Catabolite Repression Optimize Growth in Stable and J. Dixson and Robert C. Brooks, “The Role of Facial Hair Variable Environments,” PLoS Biology 12, no. 1:e1001764 in Women’s Perceptions of Men’s Attractiveness, Health, (2014): 1–22. Masculinity and Parenting Abilities,” Evolution and Human 94Kun Tang, Kevin R. Thornton, and Mark Stoneking, “A Behavior 24 (2013): 236–41. New Approach for Using Genome Scans to Detect Recent 107Mark Kirkpatrick, “Sexual Selection by Female Choice Positive Selection in the Human Genome,” PLoS Biol- in Polygynous Animals,” Annual Review of Ecology and ogy 5, no. 7:e171 (2007): 1587–602; Scott H. Williamson et Systematics 18 (1987): 43–70; Mary F. Willson, “Sexual al., “Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Selection in Plants: Perspective and Overview,” Ameri- Genome,” PLoS Genetics 3, no. 6:390 (2007): 901–15; Cyn- can Naturalist 144 (1994): S13–S39; Janet Leonard, “Sexual thia M. Beall, “Two Routes to Functional Adaptation: Selection: Lessons from Hermaphrodite Mating Systems,” Tibetan and Andean High-altitude Natives,” Proceedings of Integrative and Comparative Biology 46 (2006): 349–67; Bart the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer- P. S. Neuwenhuis, Alfons J. M. Debets, and Duur K. ica 104 (2007): 8655–60; Susan A. Foster et al., “Parallel Aanen, “Sexual Selection in Mushroom-Forming Basid- Evolution of Dwarf Ecotypes in the Forest Tree Eucalyptus iomycetes,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological globulus,” New Phytologist 175 (2007): 370–80; Sinéad Col- Sciences 278 (2011): 152–57. lins and Juliette de Meaux, “Adaptation to Different Rates 108George F. Howe, “Evolution and the Problem of Man,” of Environmental Change in Chlamydomonas,” Evolution CRSA 5 (1968): 23–33; Peter Line, “Explaining Robust 63 (2009): 2952–65; Doris Bachtrog, Jeffrey D. Jensen, and Humans,” JC 27, no. 3 (2013): 64–71. Zhi Zhang, “Accelerated Adaptive Evolution on a Newly 109Jonathan D. Sarfati, “Blood Types and Their Origin,” Formed X Chromosome,” PLoS Biology 7, no. 4:e1000082 CENTJ 11 (1997): 31–32; Steven Layfi eld, “The Teaching of (2009): 712–19; Sam Yeaman et al., “Convergent Local Science: A Biblical Perspective,” TJ 16, no. 3 (2002): 32–39. Adaptation to Climate in Distantly Related Conifers,” 110Kurt P. Wise, “Baraminology: A Young-Earth Creation Science 353 (2016): 1431–33; Yair Field et al., “Detection of Biosystematic Method,” in Proceedings of the Second Interna- Human Adaptation during the Past 2000 Years,” Science tional Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, ed. Robert E. Walsh 10.1126/science.aag0776 (2016). and Chris L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fel- 95Jeon, “Integration of Endosymbionts in Amoebae.” lowship, 1990), 345–60; Lane P. Lester, “The History of Life,” CRSQ 31 (1994): 95–97; Alex Williams, “How Life

182 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Philip J. Senter

Works,” JC 22, no. 2 (2008): 85–91, Barnabas Pendragon “Keeled and Canalled Raphid Diatoms,” in Freshwater and Niko Winkler, “The Family of Cats—Delineation of Algae, 669–84. the Feline Basic Type,” JC 25, no. 2 (2011): 118–24; Callie 130Ulrich Sommer, “The Susceptibility of Benthic Microal- Joubert, “Chimeras, Cybrids, and Hybrids: A Christian’s gae to Periwinkle (Littorina littorea, Gastropoda) Grazing Observations and Critique of Some Aspects of the Con- in Laboratory Experiments,” Aquatic Botany 63 (1999): troversy Involving the Mixing of Human and Animal 11–21; Stoermer, “Centric Diatoms”; Lowe, “Keeled and Materials for Scientifi c Research,” ARJ 6 (2013): 321–33. Canalled Raphid Diatoms”; M. De Stefano, L. De Stefano, 111Kurt P. Wise, “Toward a Creationist Understanding of and R. Congestri, “Functional Morphology of Micro- and ‘Transitional Forms,’” CENTJ 9 (1995): 216–22. Nanostructures in Two Distinct Diatom Frustules,” Super- 112Michael J. Oard, “Taxonomic Manipulations Likely Com- lattices and Microstructures 46 (2009): 64–68. mon,” JC 25, no. 3 (2011): 15–17. 131Beatrycze Nowicka and Jerzy Kruk, “Powered by Light: 113 ———, “Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?,” JC 25, no. 2 Phototropy and Photosynthesis in Prokaryotes and Its (2011): 22–31. Evolution,” Microbial Research 186–187 (2016): 99–118. 114Klotz, “The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Concepts 132Ibid. of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory.” 133Ben P. Williams et al., “Phenotypic Landscape Inference 115 L. James Gibson, “Pseudogenes and Origins,” Origins 21 Reveals Multiple Evolutionary Paths to C4 Photosynthe- (1994): 91–108. sis,” eLife 2013, no. 2:e00961 (2013): 1–9; David Heckmann, 116 D. Ashley Robinson, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of “C4 Photosynthesis Evolution: The Conditional Mt. Fuji,” the Testudine Apobaramin,” CRSQ 33 (1997): 262–72. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 31 (2016): 149–54. 117D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, “Evidence 134Ge Sun et al., “Archaefructaceae, a New Basal Angio- for a Holobaraminic Origin for the Cats,” CRSQ 35 (1998): sperm Family,” Science 296 (2002): 899–904. 2–14. 135Paula J. Rudall and Richard M. Bateman, “Defi ning 118Todd C. Wood and David P. Cavanaugh, “A Barami- the Limits of Flowers: The Challenge of Distinguishing nological Analysis of Subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae: between the Evolutionary Products of Simple versus Helenieae) and the Origin of Biological Complexity,” Ori- Compound Strobili,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal gins 52 (2001): 7–27. Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (2010): 397–409. 119Todd C. Wood, “The AGE-ing Process: Rapid Post- 136Michael H. Grayum, “Evolution and Phylogeny of the Flood Intrabaraminic Diversifi cation Caused by Altruistic Araceae,” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 77 (1990): Genetic Elements,” Origins 54 (2002): 5–34; Kurt P. Wise, 628–97. “The Flores Skeleton and Human Baraminology,” OPBSG 137V. H. Heywood et al., Flowering Plant Families of the World 6 (2005): 1–13. (Richmond Hill, ON: Firefl y, 2007). 120Jean K. Lightner, “Mammalian Ark Kinds,” ARJ 5 (2012): 138Dan-Eric Nilsson and Almut Kelber, “A Functional Anal- 151–204. ysis of Compound Eye Evolution,” Arthropod Structure and 121 ———, “An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds,” ARJ 6 Development 36 (2007): 373–85. (2013): 409–66. 139R. F. Chapman, The Insects: Structure and Function, 4th ed. 122John Woodmorappe, “Potentially Decisive Evidence (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 587. against Pseudogene ‘Shared Mistakes,’” TJ 18, no. 3 (2004): 140M. F. Land, “The Morphology and Optics of Spider 63–69. Eyes,” in Neurobiology of Arachnids, ed. Friedrich G. Barth 123Wise, “The Flores Skeleton and Human Baraminology.” (Heidelberg: Springer, 1985), 53–78; Takashi Nagata et al., 124M. J. Oard, “Bird-Dinosaur Link Challenged,” CENTJ 12 “Depth Perception from Image Defocus in a Jumping Spi- (1998): 5–7. der,” Science 335 (2012): 469–71. 125Renyi Liu and Howard Ochman, “Stepwise Formation of 141Land, “The Morphology and Optics of Spider Eyes”; the Bacterial Flagellar System,” Proceedings of the National Jérémy Defrize et al., “Spectral Sensitivity of a Colour Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 Changing Spider,” Journal of Insect Physiology (2011): (2007): 7116–21. 508–13. 126Honour C. McCann and David S. Guttman, “Evolution 142Paul. A. Selden, William A. Shear, and Mark D. Sutton, of the Type III Secretion System and Its Effectors in Plant- “Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Spider Spinnerets, and Microbe Interactions,” New Phytologist 177 (2008): 33–47. a Proposed Arachnid Order,” Proceedings of the National 127Naoji Yubuki and Brian S. Leander, “Evolution of Micro- Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 52 (2008): tubule Organizing Centers across the Tree of Eukaryotes,” 20781–85. Plant Journal 75 (2013): 230–44. 143William A. Shear, “Untangling the Evolution of the 128David R. Mitchell, “The Evolution of Eukaryotic Cilia Web,” American Scientist 82, no. 3 (1994): 256–66; Todd A. and Flagella as Motile and Sensory Organelles,” in Eukary- Blackledge et al., “Reconstructing Web Evolution and Spi- otic Membranes and Cytoskeleton: Origins and Evolution, ed. der Diversifi cation in the Molecular Era,” Proceedings of the Gáspár Jékely (New York: Landes Bioscience and Springer National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Science+Business Media, 2007): 130–40. 106 (2009): 5229–34. 129Eugene F. Stoermer, “Centric Diatoms,” in Fresh water 144William A. Shear, “The Chemical Defenses of Millipedes Algae of North America. Ecology and Classifi cation, ed. (Diplopoda): Biochemistry, Physiology and Ecology,” Bio- John D. Wehr and Robert G. Sheath (Amsterdam: Aca- chemical Systematics and Ecology 61 (2015): 78–17. demic, 2003): 559–94; John C. Kingston, “Araphid and 145M. E. G. Evans, “The Jump of the Click Beetle (Coleop- Monoraphid Diatoms,” in Freshwater Algae, 595–636; J. P. tera, Elateridae)—A Preliminary Study,” Journal of Zoology Kociolek and S. A. Spaulding, “Symmetrical Naviculoid 167 (1972): 319–36. Diatoms,” in Freshwater Algae, 637–53; J. P. Kociolek and 146Bruce S. Heming, Insect Development and Evolution (Ithaca, S. A. Spaulding, “Eunotioid and Asymmetrical Navicu- NY: Comstock, 2003), 26–40. loid Diatoms,” in Freshwater Algae, 655–68; Rex L. Lowe, 147Chapman, The Insects: Structure and Function, 151–81.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 183 Article The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

148Ross H. Arnett Jr., American Insects (Gainesville, FL: Sand- 156Ryan C. McKellar et al., “A Diverse Assemblage of Late hill Crane Press, 1997), 92. Cretaceous Dinosaur and Bird Feathers from Canadian 149Bergstrom and Dugatkin, Evolution, 90–91. Amber,” Science 333 (2011): 1619–22; Xing Xu et al., “An 150Martin M. Flajnik and Masanori Kasahara, “Origin and Integrative Approach to Understanding Bird Origins,” Evolution of the Adaptive Immune System: Genetic Science 346, no. 1253293 (2014): 1–10; Lida Xing et al., “A Events and Selective Pressures,” Nature Reviews: Genetics Feathered Dinosaur Tail with Primitive Plumage Trapped 11 (2010): 47–59. in Mid-Cretaceous Amber,” Current Biology 26 (2016): 1–9. 151Michael F. Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson, Animal Eyes 157Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, Alan Feduccia, and Xiaolin (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002); Trevor D. Wang, “A New Chinese Specimen Indicates That ‘Proto- Lamb, Edward N. Pugh Jr., and Shaun P. Collin, “The feathers’ in the Early Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur Origin of the Vertebrate Eye,” Evolution: Education and Sinosauropteryx Are Degraded Collagen Fibres,” Proceed- Outreach 1 (2008): 415–26; Kenneth V. Kardong, Verte- ings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274 (2007): brates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution, 7th ed. 1823–29; Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, “The Evolution of (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2015). the Feather: Scales on the Tail of Sinosauropteryx and an 152Gavin C. Young, “Early Evolution of the Vertebrate Interpretation of the Dinosaur’s Opisthotonic Posture,” Eye—Fossil Evidence,” Evolution: Education and Outreach 1 Journal of Ornithology 154 (2013): 455–63. (2008): 427–38. 158Fucheng Zhang et al., “Fossilized Melanosomes and the 153Philip C. J. Donoghue, Peter L. Forey, and Richard J. Colour of Cretaceous Dinosaurs and Birds,” Nature 463 Aldridge, “Conodont Affi nity and Chordate Phylogeny,” (2010): 1075–78. Objections to that study’s identifi cation Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 191–251; John Mallat and Jun- of the structures as melanosomes rather than dermal col- Yuan Chen, “Fossil Sister Group of Craniates: Predicted lagen (Lingham-Soliar, “Evolution of the Feather”) are and Found,” Journal of Morphology 258 (2003): 1–31. answered by their presence in undisputed fossil feathers 154Melinda Danowitz et al., “Fossil Evidence and Stages of (Zhang et al., “Fossilized Melanosomes”) and by the fact Elongation of the Giraffa Camelopardalis Neck,” Royal Soci- that they contain melanin (Johan Lindgren et al., “Skin ety Open Science 2, no. 150393 (2015): 1–12. Pigmentation Provides Evidence of Convergent Melanism 155Emma R. Schachner, John R. Hutchinson, and C. G. in Extinct Marine Reptiles,” Nature 506 [2014]: 484–88). Farmer, “Pulmonary Anatomy in the Nile Crocodile and 159Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution the Evolution of Unidirectional Airfl ow in Archosauria,” (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1990). PeerJ 1, no. 360 (2013): 1–30; Emma R. Schachner et al., “Unidirectional Airfl ow Patterns in the Savannah Moni- ASA Members: Submit comments and questions on this article tor Lizard,” Nature 506 (2014): 367–70. at www.asa3.org→FORUMS→PSCF DISCUSSION.

A Paid Advertisement

Mastery. Integration. Kingdom.

184 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Book Reviews

pass humanity; nonetheless, there should be moderate regulation of genetic enhancements. ETHICS Chapter four looks at the challenge of reprogenet- CREATION ETHICS: Reproduction, Genetics, and ics which involves using reproductive and genetic Quality of Life by David DeGrazia. New York: Oxford technologies to modify and select embryos for University Press, 2014. 234 pages. Paperback; $26.95. enhancement (p. 96). There are three primary types ISBN: 9780190232443. of interventions on fetuses, embryos, and gametes: Creation Ethics provides a broad perspective on the prenatal genetic diagnosis (PGD), prenatal genetic challenging topics of reproduction, genetics, and the therapy (PGT), and prenatal genetic enhancement quality of life. The author, David DeGrazia, care- (PGE) (p. 96). One of the main arguments against fully inspects various viewpoints on controversial PGE is that genetic enhancements could change a per- reproduction issues, such as prenatal moral status, son’s genome so signifi cantly that they are no longer along with the implications these conclusions pose. the same numeric person. To counter this, DeGrazia Throughout the text, he remains open to examining a presents a Robustness Thesis that claims that once variety of views on the topics, and provides his own someone comes into existence that person will always perspective on these issues, often incorporating argu- be numerically the same. Nevertheless, he does believe ments from multiple perspectives. genetic enhancements could promote stereotypes, and therefore government funding should not be allotted After an introduction, chapter two presents the for such research. author’s tripartite framework, from which he argues in favor of abortion and embryonic research. The fi rst Chapter fi ve addresses the question of whether it point in his argument is the biological view of human “wrongs someone to bring him into existence and, if identity. DeGrazia claims that human persons come so, how can we coherently explain the nature of the into existence when the organism is born, and their wrong” (p. 139). DeGrazia presents the claim that identity remains throughout their lifetime. He dis- in standard wrongful life cases, such as completely cusses other points at which arguments are made for debilitating disabilities, procreation is wrong. In the beginning of human personhood, such as concep- cases with imposition of harm, procreation is strongly tion, the 16-cell stage, and two weeks post-gestation. wrong. However, in cases with simply exposure to The second part of his framework questions sentience, harm, procreation is weakly wrong (p. 155). Through or the ability to perceive feelings. DeGrazia states that this description, he makes the important distinction the potential for sentience is enough for someone to between imposing harm and exposing a child to harm. have moral status, and argues that this begins in the third trimester. The third part of his framework is the DeGrazia opens chapter six with the diffi cult question TRIA (Time Relative Interest Account), which states of what parents owe their children. He determines that when looking at the harm from death, one should parents owe their children a life worth living, one in evaluate the value of the future life along with the which their basic needs are met. He applies this to psychological connection of the one who dies with the having children who parents know will have disabili- possibility of their future. He therefore maintains his ties. He examines three situations: (1) same-individual support of abortion and embryonic research by argu- choices wherein the parent has a child with disabilities ing that death would not be a great harm to a fetus, or has the same child without disability, (2) different- because it does not have psychological connection number choices in which a child will be born with a with their future. disadvantage, or not born at all, and (3) same-number choices which leads to the nonidentity problem where Chapter three focuses on human identity and human parents could have a child with disability, or they nature in the context of genetic enhancement. After could choose to abort or delay conception and have genetic enhancements, a person’s narrative identity a different child (p. 164). To address the nonidentity (how they characterize themselves) might change, challenge, DeGrazia notes that it is important to disre- but their numeric identity (their quantitative person) gard the notion that every form of wrongdoing harms will not. The chapter concludes by asking what risks someone. In these situations, he states, there are many genetic enhancements could have on humanity. He cases of victimless harm. notes that, at the extreme, genetic enhancement could create a group of people so advanced they would The fi nal chapter of the book asks what obligations either enslave or obliterate the unenhanced human we have to future generations. DeGrazia concludes population. He argues there is nothing inherently that our obligations to future generations are based wrong with advancements that could eventually sur- on justice, and we should not think of the interests of

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 185 Book Reviews future generations as less important than our current Briton (80 pp.). Next, Robert J. Richards documents interests, just because of temporal distance. the extensive infl uences of the Continent on Darwin the explorer and theory builder (67 pp.). Each then DeGrazia does not shy away from addressing diffi cult provides a reply to the other (25 pp. each). Finally, a issues in this book. His arguments are clear and well joint Epilogue outlines the central areas of agreement supported. I appreciated that DeGrazia addresses and contention (30 pp.). The engagement is cordial, arguments from opposing views, noting both their but unyielding. strengths and their weaknesses. This approach makes the book accessible to readers who do not agree Both authors rely on their respective multi-decadal, with all of his conclusions. Many of the arguments focused examination of nineteenth-century evolution- presented throughout Creation Ethics lead to impli- ary science. Extensive notes provide introductions to cations about what Christians believe on the highly their previous work as well as to that of other schol- emotional issues of abortion, embryonic research, and ars. Both back their claims with relevant quotes from genetic modifi cation. DeGrazia argues that abortion Darwin’s correspondence, notebooks, diaries, and should be allowed, but also cedes, saying, “I believe autobiography. that a broadly pro-life approach remains standing as a reasonable option” (p. 43). Therefore, pro-life or One of the benefi cial results of the tight format of the pro-choice Christians can read DeGrazia’s book and initial chapters is the composition of a tidy and emi- fi nd some arguments that will resonate with either nently readable short biography of Darwin. In order to perspective. build their respective cases, Ruse and Richards exam- ine Darwin’s family background, education, reading, DeGrazia’s writing style is heavily laden with philo- scientifi c friends and correspondents, and expressed sophical and scientifi c terminology that readers need opinions. Of particular signifi cance are Darwin’s own to be prepared to encounter. I would recommend this statements regarding what he felt he had accom- book to someone who is interested in learning more plished and what he felt others had missed in his about philosophical questions of reproduction and arguments. The bifocal format yields a stereoscopic who is familiar with or interested in learning more view of Darwin the scientist. I highly recommend this about reproductive technologies and philosophical book if for no other reason than its utility as a concise arguments. Darwin biography. Reviewed by Rebecca Gritters, Department of Biology, Northwestern College, Orange City, IA 51041. But there is more. For one, we are introduced to the broader cast of characters who infl uenced Darwin. Ruse invokes William Paley, William Whewell, John Herschel, Charles Lyell, and (distantly) Adam Smith, HISTORY OF SCIENCE among others. Richards points toward Alexander von Humboldt, as well as the German morphological sys- DEBATING DARWIN by Robert J. Richards and tematization typifi ed by Goethe and Carus and their Michael Ruse. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago English spokesman, Richard Owen. Alfred Russel Press, 2016. xvi + 267 pages, including bibliogra- Wallace is not neglected by either of our debaters. phy, index, and 21 fi gures. Hardcover; $30.00. ISBN: 9780226384429. Several conceptual issues yet besetting biological evo- lutionary theory were initially addressed by Darwin, The “debate” of the title of Debating Darwin is both Wallace, and their immediate successors. What is intriguing and an enticement. What is the mean- (are) the unit(s) under selection? To what extent are ing of this brief title? The debate at hand is over the teleological explanations permitted for a science of character of Darwin’s intentions, argumentation, and organisms? Does the history of life demonstrate some self-understanding as a natural historian. The debate sort of progress? To what degree are human social- is prosecuted by Michael Ruse, who situates Darwin ity and religion infl uenced by our biological substrate within the world of British empiricism, Paleyan and deep-time history? What is the role of chance in Natural Theology, and nineteenth-century social natural systems? In what sense does the discipline progressivism, and by Robert J. Richards, who con- of evolutionary biology carry forward the atomistic- structs a case for Darwin as an intellect profoundly mechanistic program for the physical sciences begun infl uenced by continental European Romanticism and in the seventeenth century? Does this mechanistic Naturphilosophie. program really render God “irrelevant” (cf. Ruse, in The formal schema of the book is indeed that of a his “reply to Richards,” p. 178)? The authors outline debate. After a short introduction, Michael Ruse pres- the outworking of these problematic issues for our ents Darwin as a consummate nineteenth-century present situation, especially in the Epilogue. In the

186 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Book Reviews process, they introduce the makers of the neo-Dar- successors. An enjoyable read and an edifying one, winian synthesis and their accomplishments. New useful to many different audiences. arguments surrounding group selection and socio- Reviewed by Ralph Stearley, Professor of Geology, Calvin College, Grand biology are summarized. Rapids, MI 49546.

The last two sections of the Epilogue address the phe- nomena of (1) human consciousness and (2) religion and God. The penultimate section argues for an (evo- lutionary) emergentist origin of mind; it includes a PHYSICS rebuttal of some of the claims of epiphenomenalists FASHION, FAITH, AND FANTASY IN THE NEW such as Daniel Dennett, as well as a counterbalanc- PHYSICS OF THE UNIVERSE by Roger Penrose. ing critique of Thomas Nagel’s attack on evolution as Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016. insuffi cient to explain the origin of consciousness. 520 pages. Hardcover; $29.95. ISBN: 9780691178530. The fi nal section includes an examination of the argu- Eminent mathematical physicist Roger Penrose con- ments of Jerry Coyne to the effect that evolution tinues to indulge his prolifi c writing habit, offering precludes theism. Prominent Christian evolutionists us yet another popular work with an irresistible title. such as Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the are acknowledged. The authors demonstrate that Universe is his latest attempt to explain the challenges Coyne’s logic is overextended; they identify and rebut and prospects of twenty-fi rst-century theoretical examples of ad hominem attacks on religion as well as physics. The book’s title appeals to a popular-level argumentation by fi at. During this discussion, Stephen readership, and it is sure to end up on the shelves of Jay Gould’s proposed resolution for the science-reli- many aspiring and ambitious readers. However, this gion confl ict, that of “non-overlapping magisteria” is not light reading, and even those with an extensive (NOMA), is introduced but rejected as too simplistic: physics background will fi nd this volume a challeng- “Coyne doesn’t mention it, but from the science side, ing read. Even so, there are valuable perspectives values fl ow across any proposed boundary; that is, given by Penrose that only someone of his stature in science itself is grounded in values” (p. 228). the physics community can offer, and that should be taken seriously. The authors invoke Friedrich Schleiermacher to describe Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and others as con- The book is divided into four lengthy chapters, each temporary “cultured despisers of religion.” They urge about 100 pages of a nearly self-contained treatise on a the adoption of a more intuitive sense of awe in the subject. The fi rst chapter, Fashion, is about the devel- face of the cosmos, a sense which naturally under- opment of string theory, the most fashionable theory girds a scientifi c curiosity. Ruse and Richard ably amongst practicing theoretical physicists with its demonstrate that Darwin, while far from a devout promise of providing a mathematical scheme of uni- theist, could not shake the sense that some agency lay fying all four fundamental forces of nature. Criticisms behind the universe. of string theory have focused on its grand claims of numerous unseen dimensions and a possible glut of This is not Gould’s doctrine of separate magisteria, unseen universes, while offering virtually no fi rm rather this view of religion is not merely compatible testable predictions. However, Penrose is a gracious with science, it is necessary for the advancement of science. And, perhaps, for leading a coherent life, critic, and points out many intriguing ideas that have one in which the appreciation of poetry, art and reli- come out of string theory, including some surprising gion provide the same kind of experience that leads advances in mathematics. Indeed, mathematical ele- creative scientists to advance beyond their more gance has served as the guiding principle, in lieu of pedestrian colleagues. Darwin was one such as these. experimental data. (p. 233) Penrose guides the reader through the theoretical Darwin gets the last word here, and that is as it should challenges that motivated string theory in the fi rst be given the logic and fl ow of the volume. Darwin’s place: a desire to fi nd a unique unifying scheme that theology, thin as it is, will not be attractive to either brings quantum fi eld theory (QFT) into consistency contemporary atheists or robust theists; that discus- with universal gravity, which already has a very sion best resides in a different venue. Debating Darwin successful classical treatment in Einstein’s general rel- is well organized, insightful, and informal. It succeeds ativity. The common wisdom is that gravity must be as a concise introduction to Darwin the scientist and properly quantized to be compatible with QFT. Faced human being, as well as to his contemporaries and with perplexing divergences that arise in normal

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 187 Book Reviews

QFT when particles are treated as objects occupying Podolsky, and Rosen, has now been observed in the singular points in space, string theory fi nds a clever entanglement of particles separated by up to 143 km. way to avoid those, if all particles really are tiny 1-D This cannot be reconciled with any kind of classical strings vibrating in higher dimensional space. Further explanation, and thus represents a further triumph in coupled with supersymmetry, which proposes a cor- the utility of quantum theory. However, the concept respondence between half-integer spin particles called of entanglement leads to some very troubling implica- “fermions” and integer spin particles called “bosons,” tions including not only the eerie aspect of nonlocality, string theory proposes to solve several theoretical but also what is considered “real” or merely a conve- problems. However, supersymmetric particles have nient calculational tool. not yet been observed. In addition, the mathemati- cal consistency is not clear—a troubling issue that The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechan- Penrose believes has been ignored in the excitement ics does not assign any kind of ontological reality to over string theory. He argues that the excessive func- the wave function of a particle, treating it only as a tional freedom from the higher dimensions has not calculational tool for giving us probabilities, which been properly addressed. Singularity theorems from are in spectacular agreement with “real” measure- Penrose and Hawking in general relativity appear to ments. Accordingly, there is no real sudden “jump” imply instability of the highly curved extra dimen- from a calculated quantum state to a measured state. sions posited by string theory. It is merely viewed as a shift in our knowledge of the state. However, Penrose questions this view, point- Disturbingly, rather than fi nding a unique unifying ing out that a reality can and should be argued for scheme, theorists found that there were several differ- the quantum state itself. Penrose argues that the con- ent viable types of string theories. Connections found nection between quantum states and measured states between them led to M-theory, suggesting vibrating lies in a better understanding of the reduction mea- “branes” of more than 1-D. Intriguingly, ideas such surement itself. The resolution Penrose offers is that as AdS/CFT correspondence led to applications in gravity limits the extent of quantum superposition. diverse areas of physics, ranging from condensed A gravitational self-energy arises when consider- matter to black holes to cosmology. Yet the most per- ing two different locations for a massive particle. plexing turn in string theory came when it was found Penrose explains how this forces instability in any that different starting vacuum states lead to com- quantum superposition, collapsing it into one state. pletely different universes, as many as 10500, and thus Thus, rather than forcing general relativity to conform a “landscape” of universes. Are these “real” or merely to an unquestioned quantum theory, it is quantum mathematical? The conclusion reached by some physi- theory that should be treated in a more limited sense. cists is that, out of the multitude of existing universes, Experimental tests on the limits of entanglement may we just happen to occupy an improbable one that is life soon extend to larger mass displacements, allowing friendly—a rather sad version of the anthropic prin- an important test on the limits of our quantum “faith.” ciple. Penrose poignantly points out the irony in this sorry state of string theory. Must string theory really Chapter 3, Fantasy, describes modern cosmology. The throw away the goal of fi nding a unique description standard Big Bang model has achieved remarkable of nature and conclude that there is no such unique success in accurately describing an expanding universe description? This is a strange departure from its initial fi lled with ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark motivation, and Penrose fi nds this unacceptable. energy. Success in predicting the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), discovered in 1965, In chapter 2, “Faith, an Overview of Quantum and its tiny fl uctuations in temperature, discovered Theory,” Penrose begins to point out where he fi rst in 1992 and more recently refi ned in its precision, believes the problem lies. The overwhelming suc- is nothing short of fantastical. Penrose describes the cess of quantum theory in modeling the behavior of theoretical developments of the Friedmann-Lemaître- matter is unquestioned. This is precisely the point Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model of cosmology, that Penrose believes should be reviewed. Quantum founded on Einstein’s general relativity. The successes theory leads to some rather troubling views of reality, of infl ationary theory in explaining special features including the apparent nonlocality of how entangled of our universe are discussed. However, the FLRW states behave. Entangled states imply that a particle cosmological model represents a unique condition is simultaneously in more than one state and con- of homogeneity and isotropy that present theoretical nected in an overall state to another particle, such that physics ideas do not explain. a measurement made on one immediately forces the other into a certain state, no matter how far apart they The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the are separated. The EPR effect, named after Einstein, entropy of the universe is much greater today than

188 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Book Reviews in its infancy, when it exhibited an exquisite order. Penrose’s book takes the reader on an extensive jour- The apparent contradiction of the thermodynami- ney that summarizes much of Penrose’s life work. cally smooth CMBR temperature, a highly entropic Unless the reader has extensive prior knowledge of state achieved long before the moment of decoupling mathematical physics, it will be diffi cult to grasp at 380,000 years after the big bang, is reconciled with many of the technical points made. Penrose provides the Second Law by comparing it to the exceedingly a 70-page mathematical appendix to help nontechni- vaster entropy of today’s universe, fi lled with black cal readers, but it appears to be of very limited utility holes. The problem is not the Second Law, but rather unless one already has familiarity. It might have been the explanation of why the universe exhibited such better for Penrose to attempt a much more lay-reader- extreme order in its infancy, with no degrees of gravi- friendly book, focusing primarily on the key aspects tational freedom perturbed. Appeals to the anthropic in which modern physics has struggled, but thus principle, that this universe was simply selected out far has fallen short of satisfactory answers. Indeed, of a large landscape of universes, strike Penrose as hidden between technical sections are excellent dis- rather unconvincing. Penrose responds: cussions that provide a compelling case that we have not yet arrived at satisfying answers to many of the It is, to my mind, disturbing how frequently theo- deepest questions raised in modern physics. As for retical physicists eventually come to rely on such making a good case for the viability of twistor theory, arguments in order to compensate for a lack of this reader remains unconvinced. I am much more predictive power that their various theories turn persuaded that he loves conformal mathematics. out to have. (p. 322) Penrose is critical of theorists, not for offering fan- Finally, what kind of connection can a Christian fi nd tastical ideas to explain the special features of our between the frontiers of theoretical physics and faith? universe, but because, at present, they are not fantas- Penrose is restricted to faith in the unquestioned tical enough. New ideas are needed. truth of quantum theory, not compared favorably to a religious faith, which Penrose relegates to mostly Penrose concludes his book with a chapter on his unchanged messages dating back thousands of years. own favored theoretical approach, “twistor” theory, Is our Christian faith a stagnant one, unchanged by an approach he fi rst proposed in 1967. Twistor theory time or advances in science? Granted, the central mes- attempts to unite quantum theory with a relativistic sage of Christianity, the substitutionary atonement space-time physics in an abstract twistor space that offered to believers by the life, death, and resurrec- renders space-time itself a secondary notion. The tion of Christ, will not be altered by advances in power of complex analysis is utilized in the twistor science. However, modern science continues to raise space computations. The theory is defi nitely the important questions not readily answered in scientifi c domain of mathematical physics. However, in contrast terms. As argued by Penrose, appeals to an anthropic to string theory, it does not propose any space-time principle as an explanatory tool simply reveal the dimensions beyond our observed four dimensions. lack of a fully satisfactory explanation. What modern physics has revealed includes the elegance, the order, The mysterious quantum features that Penrose claims the symmetries, and the precision we observe in this can be explained with twistor theory include non- universe, all of which are highly compatible with the locality and quantum state reduction. Nonlocality Christian faith in a Creator of unfathomable wisdom. arises naturally in the formalism of twistor theory. Reviewed by Steven Ball, Professor of Physics, LeTourneau University, It explains all quantum state reductions as gravita- Longview, TX 75607. tional effects, forcing superpositions of states to decay into measurably “real” states. Penrose calls the latter “objective reduction” (OR). The premise of Penrose is that quantum theory must be limited in its domain. Recently Published Works However, problems in using twistor theory include aspects of cohomology and the “googly” problem, Along with all their other contribu ons, many members areas in which Penrose believes progress is being of ASA and CSCA publish important works. As space made. As for problems in cosmology, Penrose pro- permits, PSCF plans to list recently published books poses a conformally cyclic version with pre-big-bang and peer-reviewed ar cles related to the intersec on world-lines connecting to post-big-bang world-lines, of science and Chris an faith that are wri en by our so that a Weyl curvature hypothesis can be employed. members and brought to our a en on. For us to The latter is an attempt to explain the special FLRW consider such works, please write to patrick.franklin condition of standard big bang cosmology, even with- @prov.ca. out a period of infl ation.

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 189 Book Reviews

symmetry; hypotheses; and iteration. Applying these principles in practice takes various forms and relies SCIENCE AND RELIGION on a variety of factors that help us gain confi dence in an explanation. Scientifi c aesthetics is one of those THINKING FAIR: Rules for Reason in Science and criteria, including simplicity, utility, fruitfulness, and Religion by Lucas John Mix. North Charleston, SC: coherence and consistency. Finally, he discusses the CreateSpace Publishing, 2016. 302 pages. Paperback; basic concepts of reductionism, emergence, ontologi- $19.99. ISBN: 9781515153283. cal physicalism, and methodological physicalism. In this thoughtful probing of the way we think and reason, Lucas Mix challenges us to be aware of how Through all these principles of thinking, science offers and why we hold the beliefs that we have. He shows us a way to develop a model of reality. As we compare how the path to knowledge in science differs from this model with reality, we encounter phenomena that that in religion and that both are necessary in our either reinforce that model or else compel us to reas- worldview that guides our behavior. sess our model. Learning centers on the way in which we respond to that comparison and how we compare Lucas Mix is well qualifi ed to speak about both science our understanding with that of others. Above all, Mix and religion. He holds a PhD in organismic and evolu- points out that the scientifi c method fails to provide tionary biology from Harvard University and carried us with all the knowledge we need to make decisions out a postdoctoral project at Harvard in theoretical and take action. That leads us to the section on reli- biology considering the history of the defi nitions of gion, to which he devotes six chapters. life. He also holds an MDiv from the Church Divinity School of the Pacifi c and is an ordained priest. He is Whereas science provides what Mix calls a transpar- a member of the Society of Ordained Scientists and is ent, effective epistemology that informs us about our part of the Anglican community. world, it does not provide guidance for ideas, choices, and values. For Mix, “religion has to do with proposi- After an introductory chapter, the remaining twenty tions about order and value, how we generate them, chapters are organized in four sections: Reason; and how we react and respond to them. Ontology and Science; Religion; and Change. Mix is interested in epistemology fall out of religion, almost by necessity” what we think, what we do, and with whom we do (p. 120). Mix emphasizes his view of knowledge and it. We need to understand why people think what belief. Knowledge is a statement for which we have they do and how this affects their actions. He has some evidence that it is true. Belief is conviction with no intention of persuading us what to think or even consequences, knowledge that changes our behavior. how to think. Rather, in his own words, he intends to With this perspective, science is not the sole domain “present this as an exercise in thinking broadly, sym- for knowledge nor is religion the sole purveyor of pathetically, and systematically about how you view belief. Our worldview needs a broader view than the world. I want you to experience different ways what either science or religion alone can provide. of thinking and refl ect on what it would mean to do After devoting a few chapters on common issues such them well” (p. 7). as miracles, determinism vs. free will, revelation, and The three chapters in the section on Reason lay out the existence of the soul, Mix turns to what he sees the basic tools and terminology for considering how as the three basic aspects of religion: philosophy, we think. The way in which we perceive reality and practice, and politics. Philosophy deals with “right correlate it with our experience comprises the logic thought,” referring to orthodoxy and the creeds com- and reason that we use. We utilize a set of axioms and monly associated with religion. Practice deals with logic in our reasoning. Deduction, induction, observa- “right behavior,” the norms of activity and rituals that tion, and authority are the primary ways of reasoning characterize religions. Politics refers to “right relation- for fi nding new knowledge. For Mix, “Rationality ships,” our participation in the community and our comes from thinking clearly, transparently, systemati- social interactions. Religion is therefore a necessary cally, and carefully” (p. 42). His goal is to encourage complement to science in helping us with our values, us to recognize our own style of reasoning and to choices, and actions. learn to understand and appreciate the way other The fi nal section of four chapters is titled Change. people think. Here we arrive at the challenge that Mix has for us. We all have a model of the cosmos and that model Chapters 5–10 delve into science and the way in might not match the reality that we encounter. When which we acquire knowledge through what we call we understand why we think the way we do and why the scientifi c method. Four key principles of the sci- others think otherwise, we are better able to respond entifi c method are discussed: Mutual observables; to that dissonance.

190 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Book Reviews

Scientifi c knowledge leads to models that enable prompted the development of the canon (from a power when they accurately refl ect the way nature human viewpoint) and consequently shaped the eccle- works. Religious knowledge and beliefs lead to values siastical authority structure and distinction between that help us decide how to use that power. The critical orthodoxy and heresy. Centuries later the printing feedback loop of belief shaping behavior and behavior press made possible the rapid promulgation of ideas shaping belief depends on our awareness of our ways that emerged during the Reformation but also, it has of thinking. “Above all,” Mix concludes, “I want you been argued, led to more standardization of liturgy to have greater control over your own ability to grow and hymns and prayers. conviction. I want the change to be in your hands” (p. 271). The contemporary church is enjoined to give a thoughtful response to modern media and the tech- It is refreshing to read a book that does not seek to nology that supports it. Today’s digitized, transcoded, persuade or to argue for a particular idea. The ratio of and mashable media content changes the way we question marks to periods is remarkably high, almost think about text and other information. Social media refl ective of a study guide. The questions are designed and other online social interaction change the way to be internalized and to become an autonomic way of we think about friendships and communities. Virtual thinking for us. worlds and augmented reality change the way we think about presence. All of these have implications I found the book easy to read and comprehend. It for how the church sees itself and practices its mission. made me realize how little attention I had paid to considering the way I think and the reasons for my Christians are far from having a united response. One reasoning. The thrust of the book might be called chapel speaker at Wheaton College (where I teach) “Philosophy Made Practical” with a focus on science began by asking students to open the Bible apps on and religion, though it is much more broadly appli- their cell phones. The chaplain at Covenant College, cable. Mix does not introduce new philosophical ideas on the other hand, has banned electronic devices from and has selected only those aspects that he feels are chapel; students should bring God’s word in a good most relevant to us. He is clear about his Anglican old codex. What does one value more, reaching tech- faith and why he fi nds it to be a valued part of his saturated millennials at their level, or eliminating the way of reasoning. Yet he respects other religions with distractions from communal worship in a physical, their perspectives. He challenged me to recognize that real-time setting? philosophy is not a specialty reserved for experts, but a necessary part of our lives. I need to learn to incor- In Networked Theology, Heidi Campbell and Stephen porate this self-awareness of my thinking into my Garner seek to “map out a framework for identify- way of life. ing an authentic theology” that accounts for new media and digital culture and equips the church to If all authors and speakers on science and religion refl ect and respond appropriately. Campbell is a com- would not only read this book but adopt the refl ec- munications professor and Garner is a theologian. tive style he suggests, the confl icts would be greatly Together, though drawing especially from Campbell’s diminished. I highly recommend it to all who are prior work, they bring a well-informed perspective interested in philosophy, epistemology, and their role on the intersection of media studies and theology. in science and religion. The book provides context (historical, technical, and Reviewed by Randy Isaac, ASA Executive Director Emeritus, Topsfi eld, theological) to questions new media raise for religious MA 01983. communities and provides discussion points that some communities may fi nd helpful.

The authors spend the fi rst few chapters surveying TECHNOLOGY the background. They highlight the church’s response to media and technology throughout its history but NETWORKED THEOLOGY: Negotiating Faith in especially summarize the contributions of Jacques Digital Culture by Heidi A. Campbell and Stephen Ellul and Ian Barbour in the recent century. Some Garner. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016. Christians have responded to various new waves of 192 pages, including endnotes and index. Paperback; tech with optimism about how they improve lives $22.99. ISBN: 9780801049149. and empower ministry. Others are more skepti- Christian communities have always shaped and been cal, mindful of the cultural cost and the people who shaped by changes in media technology. Second- are marginalized. Still other faith communities have century Christians were early adopters of the codex, developed a more nuanced view of the social context bound books as opposed to scrolls. This in turn of technologies. The authors also give an introduction

Volume 69, Number 3, September 2017 191 Book Reviews to the vocabulary and concepts of new media theory, how one talks about technology is itself an expression describing some of the key attributes that distinguish of religious identity. “new” media from old and the differences between Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and its successors (think of the pro- The authors do well to encourage the church both gression from static web pages to wikis and social to make good use of new media and to be vigilant networks and then to cloud applications). New media against unintended consequences. They write, theory provides an articulation of how a networked You may help set up a social media group for your society affects life: the authors identify terms such as church’s youth program … A good question to ask “remix culture” (media products are never fi nal cuts) when doing that is not only who will this include and “publicized privacy” (both voluntarily through but also what potential does this have for marginal- Pinterest and involuntarily through surveillance tech- izing some of those you are trying to support? While nology). Not being a media person or even that much a social media group may be a good way to connect of a tech person (I’m a computer scientist, but with with the young people in this group, some may be more affi nity to the M of STEM than the T), I found left out because they are too young to legally have an this summary helpful. account on the social media platform chosen or their parents or caregivers will not allow it. (pp. 130-31) The authors’ core contribution is in their identifi cation On a wider scale, the authors warn the church against of the dimensions of church life that are affected by neglecting the “information poor.” (Concerns about media and technology, and in encouraging churches the “digital divide,” though real, should be kept in to contemplate appropriate questions. In ages past, perspective. In 2013 the UN estimated that while one membership in a community like a church was rooted billion people lack mobile phones, two and a half in shared rituals, whereas life online fosters commu- billion lack toilets.) nities built on shared interest. At one time religious identities tended to be fi xed, but now network tech- On the other hand, not all believers will fi nd all of nology enables a more malleable identity whose Campbell and Garner’s methods useful. They describe religious practices can be as varied (and unrelated) as the church’s refl ection on media as part of “public the- one’s YouTube posts. Media technology has implica- ology,” which they defi ne (quoting Duncan Forrester) tions for the nature of leadership: as with authority as theology that “seeks the welfare of the city before structures in other settings, new technology can be protecting the interests of the Church, or its proper either threat or tool. liberty to preach the Gospel and celebrate the sac- raments.” In their own words, “the world sets the Despite the technological novelties, the authors point agenda for a public theology.” Some Christians will out that the key questions endure: “‘What must I do question whether it is ever the church’s business to to inherit eternal life?’ has not changed, but the socio- pursue social justice in this world independently of its cultural context that shapes how those questions are mission to preach the good news of salvation. asked and answered has” (p. 81). In light of their lives lived online, the authors guide believers in asking a I found the authors a bit fond of trendy terms—there’s series of questions: Who is my neighbor? Where is my much about frameworks and things that are situ- neighbor? How should I treat my neighbor? ated or need to be negotiated. But the overall style is competent and readable, and the authors fi t a surpris- Campbell and Garner recommend a four-part strategy ingly large number of ideas into 147 pages. Although for a religious community to refl ect on networked liv- the examples were drawn mainly from the English- ing. They should be aware of their own history and speaking world, the book is refreshingly not centered the precedent of their earlier relationship with mass on North America (Garner is a Kiwi and Campbell is media. Many Amish communities, for example, do UK-educated). not ban cellphones outright but consider them com- munal property, just as they have treated landlines. The authors may have overstated their claim that their Second, communities should let their core beliefs “networked theology” offers a distinct approach to inform their media values. The authors speculate that these questions. When confronted with a novelty, it churches with a highly liturgical heritage will not fi nd is often best to identify continuity with the familiar. virtual-world sacraments acceptable. The third angle This book is at its best when it encourages believers is what they call “media negotiation,” in which com- to see life online as just another context in which we munities apply core beliefs to evaluating whether are called to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly specifi c media applications complement or contra- with our God. dict those beliefs, balancing a technology’s usefulness Reviewed by Thomas VanDrunen, Associate Professor of Computer against problematic features it may have. Finally the Science, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187-5501.  authors advocate community discourse, noting that

192 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith American Scientifi c Affi liation How Do I Join the ASA? The American Scientifi c Affi liation (ASA) is a fellowship of Christians in science Anyone interested in the objectives of the Affi liation and related disciplines, who share a common fi delity to the Word of God and may have a part in the ASA. Membership and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. Founded in 1941, the subscription applications are available at www.asa3 purpose of the ASA is to explore any and every area relating Christian faith .org  HOME/ABOUT  WHO CAN JOIN? and science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is one of the means by which the results of such exploration are made known for the benefi t and Full membership is open to all persons with at least criticism of the Christian community and of the scientifi c community. The ASA a bachelor’s degree in science who can give assent Statement of Faith is at www.asa3.org  HOME/ABOUT  ASA BELIEFS. to our statement of faith. Science is interpreted broadly to include anthropology, archeology, economics, engineering, history, mathematics, Executive Director, ASA: medicine, political science, psychology, and L A. W, 218 Boston Street, Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983 sociology as well as the generally recognized science disciplines. Philosophers and theologians who are Executive Council, ASA: interested in science are very welcome. Full members S O. M, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187 have voting privileges and can hold offi ce. –President J R. W, The King’s University, Edmonton, AB T6B 2H3 Associate membership is available to interested –Vice President nonscientists who can give assent to our statement L L. B, 12800 W Ellsworth Pl, Lakewood, CO 80228-1611 of faith. Associates receive all member benefi ts –Secretary-Treasurer and publications and take part in all the aff airs of D B, Gordon College, Wenham, MA 01984 the ASA except voting and holding offi ce. T M. G, 3019 Alamo Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Full-time students may join as Student Members F Tucker, Mountain View, CA 94041 (science majors) with voting privileges or as –Students and Early Career Scientists Representative Student Associates (nonscience majors) with no Editor, God and Nature: voting privileges. E H, 218 Boston Street, Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983 Spouses and retirees may qualify for a reduced rate. Full-time overseas missionaries are entitled to a complimentary membership. American Scientifi c Affi liation Forums An individual wishing to participate in the ASA We encourage members to submit comments and questions on the articles without joining as a member or giving assent to published in this journal on the ASA PSCF Discussion Forum at www.asa3 our statement of faith may become a Friend of .org  FORUMS  PSCF DISCUSSION. the ASA. Friends receive all member benefi ts and publications and take part in all the aff airs of the The ASA home page/forums also contains links to four other members-only ASA except voting and holding offi ce. discussion groups. The General Discussion is for thoughtful discussion of various issues in science and faith. Books hosts a series of discussions on Subscriptions to Perspectives on Science & seminal books on science and faith. There are also forums for discussion Christian Faith (PSCF), are available at $50/year about the Annual Meeting and Education. (individuals), $85/year (institutions) and $20/year (student premiers). An Open Forum is open to the public for dialogue on topics of science and faith at www.asa3.org  FORUMS  OPEN FORUM. How Do I Find Published PSCF Articles? Canadian Scientifi c & Christian Affi liation Articles appearing in Perspectives on Science and A closely affi liated organization, the Canadian Scientifi c and Christian Christian Faith are abstracted and indexed in the Affi liation, was formed in 1973 with a distinctively Canadian orientation. The ATLA Religion Database; Christian Periodical Index; CSCA and the ASA share publications (Perspectives on Science and Christian EBSCO; ESCI; Gale: Cengage Learning; Religion Faith and the God and Nature magazine). The CSCA subscribes to the same Index One: Periodicals; Religious & Theological statement of faith as the ASA, and has the same general structure; however, Abstracts, and Guide to Social Science and Religion it has its own governing body with a separate annual meeting in Canada. in Periodical Literature. Book Reviews are indexed in Index to Book Reviews in Religion. Present and past Canadian Scientifi c and Christian Affi liation, PO Box 63082, University Plaza, issues of PSCF are available in microfi lm form at a Dundas, ON L9H 4H0. Website: www.csca.ca. nominal cost. For information, write to NA Publishing, Inc. PO Box 998, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-0998 or go to Executive Director, CSCA: www.napubco.com. D McN, NetAccess Systems, Hamilton, ON Contents of past issues of PSCF are available at www.asa3.org  PUBLICATIONS  PSCF. Executive Council, CSCA: E. J W, Medicine/Theology, Hamilton, ON –President Patrick Franklin, Providence Theological Seminary, Otterburne, MB American Scientifi c Affi liation –Vice President 218 Boston Street, Suite 208 B G, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, Hamilton, ON Topsfi eld, MA 01983 –Secretary-Treasurer Phone: (978) 887-8833 D Rüdisill, Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, ON –Student and Early FAX: (978) 887-8755 Career Representative E-mail: [email protected] A S, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC –Past President Website: www.asa3.org “Upholding the Universe by His Word of Power” Hebrews 1:3

Editorial A View from a High City 129 James C. Peterson

Articles Science and Christianity Confl icts: 131 Pablo de Felipe and Real and Contrived Malcolm A. Jeeves

Order from Chaos 149 Scott Bonham

The Evolution of Creation Science, Part 3: 159 Philip J. Senter Natural Selection and Convergent Evolution

Book Reviews Creation Ethics: Reproduction, 185 David DeGrazia Genetics, and Quality of Life

Debating Darwin 186 Robert J. Richards and Michael Ruse

Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the 187 Roger Penrose New Physics of the Universe

Thinking Fair: Rules for Reason in 190 Lucas John Mix Science and Religion

Networked Theology: Negotiating Faith 191 Heidi A. Campbell and in Digital Culture Stephen Garner

Volume 69, Number 3 September 2017