God & Darwin

Well, after almost a month of inactivity on the blog, I’m back! I firstly want to apologise for not making even small posts during my absence, but I honestly had so much to do I either forgot or couldn’t get the time to write anything. I have been reading and following my favourite blogs though, so I haven’t missed any of the things that have happened recently. The reason for my absence was a large number of exams that I always try to prepare for, but tend to ignore right up until they are actually upon me. Thus for the last 3 weeks I was studying like crazy, only stopping to send the occasional message on Twitter. I think that during that period, Twitter replaced my blog almost completely, and I know that large number of my readers follow me on Twitter as well (and if you don’t yet, please follow!).

So, now that exams were over, I went to stay with my mother for the weekend, and was cut off from the internet (apart from my mobile phone’s internet) for 3 days. To top it off, when I arrived back from a 3 hour train journey yesterday, I was whisked away by my friends to a Godfather film marathon. It was the first time I’d seen any of the movies (please forgive me), and I thoroughly enjoyed them all. With the help of two bloggers and Skype friends of mine, Splendid Elles (@elles) and Andrew Milne (@footbullet), we successfully created a new religion using Twitter, based on a truly awesome British snack: JaffaCakeology. If you want to join, simply hashtag all your tweets with #JAFFACAKES, and pledge devotion to our prophet, @cmkempe.

Back to business then, and I have 4 months off doing practically nothing other than some programming and various projects. This leaves plenty of time for writing blog posts, both short and long. Today I’m going to write about a presentation I saw over the weekend. It was the start of Salisbury Festival, which is an event spanning several months in which numerous activities are run in the city where I grew up. One of the events this weekend was a talk given by Charles Foster, a lawyer who has written a book called “The Selfless Gene”. His talk was entitled “Living with God and Darwin” and promised to

[demonstrate] that orthodox Christianity is not incompatible with what evolutionary biology says about our world.

The real problem, he said,

centres around the ethical implications of natural selection, and what such a system – based on selfishness, waste and death – might say about the loving creator God of the Christian faith.

I thought such claims were interesting, so I went along to hear his argument. However the talk was not what was promised. Instead of showing how Christianity wasn’t incompatible, he simply spent his time laughing at creationist claims (along with the rest of the non-creationist audience). He talked at length about how Young Earth Creationists were foolish, how the evidence contradicts their claims, how nobody can possibly claim such things without being ignorant. This was all very well, but he didn’t cover how this was wrong in a Biblical sense, which would have actually supported his argument. I highly doubt there were any Young Earth Creationists in the audience; this is England we’re talking about! I highly doubt there were any Old Earth Creationists there either! He spent a good 20 minutes talking about creationism in it’s various forms, spending a few extra on Intelligent Design, and ending his case against creationism with a passionate argument against a “god of the gaps”.

The rest of the talk was a haphazard presentation on the evidence for evolution, and I wasn’t impressed. He didn’t go into any detail, and his slides were all extremely bad quality, as if they had been photographed from some other talk. He never mentioned the mechanisms that make evolution tick, and he kept on blaming the “neo-darwinists” and “disciples of Dawkins” on most of the confusion over evolution. Overall though, there was nothing there that could convince anyone of either position. At the beginning he told people he would make creationists in the audience “very angry”, and atheists (well, “disciples of Dawkins”) very angry too. Neither of his prophecies held true.

At the end of the talk, an atheist at the back stood up and asked him to give the evidence for God, since his talk was about showing how God was compatible with Darwin. Mr Foster explained that the way he saw it, the lack of explanation for civilisation and morality is an indicator that a God exists. In other words, because science cannot explain everything about us, God must still have some hold. What a strange conclusion for the man to make, given his argument against a “god of the gaps” that he made clear earlier on. I started to raise my hand, but another atheist across the room from me got there first, pointing out his contradiction.

So poor Mr Foster lost out to the regular thorn in the side of theists: self contradiction. Such a pity. His book was on sale in the lobby afterwards, but there was no way I was paying £11.99 for it. I suspect it will include all the same repeated arguments against creationism, which in this country aren’t really needed. Nobody apart from the fringe churches accept creationism as a legitimate claim anymore. I further suspect that the arguments for evolution will be equally bad, thus misleading the people who read it into thinking that science knows very little about the subject.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Twitter

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. xoggoth
    May 26th, 2009 at 19:06 | #1

    About time! I add you to my blog roll and you absent yourself to do exams! How selfish is that, thinking about your future career instead of providing the atheist interest on bloggoth?

    The best illustration of the illogic of creationism based on Genesis is the fact that it gets dark at night, seeing as how god made light three days before he created the sun. moon and stars. Personally I find it all an irrelevance, my atheism being based not on objection to the existence of a creator so much as one that has any personal interest in our fate.

    I already have my own prophet in the Blessed Perry thanks.

    http://www.xoggoth.org/pages/perry.html

  2. May 26th, 2009 at 19:54 | #2

    I always thought it was a little strange that Christians got all up in arms about evolution, all things considered. To me, there was no reason God couldn't have created the basics and allowed things to move on from there. Of course, my explanation for my ideas about evolution and Christianity might only serve to illustrate my ignorance of both.

  3. May 26th, 2009 at 22:20 | #3

    Great… completely ignore the contributions of the Chruch's first gay priestess. Classy. :-P

  4. May 27th, 2009 at 21:40 | #4

    Welcome back. Past experience on listening to religious with "good" arguments has only ever left me dissappointed:D

  5. May 30th, 2009 at 19:05 | #5

    Thank you for your comments on my talk. You're entirely right about the quality of the slides: many apologies for that. I'm afraid you'e wrong, though, about the need to educate the British about the dangers of creationism. An August 2006 survey of British University students showed that about a third subscribed either to creationism or intelligent design. And Young Earth Creationism is rapidly becoming the orthodoxy in many fairly mainstream churches that a couple of decades would have laughed it away. But I'm glad that that's not your experience of Christians.
    I'm afraid that you mistake, too, the nature of my argument. I'm sure that's my fault. Essentially I think there is a problem with the straightorward theistic evolutionist position ('God used natural selection as a tool to shape the biological world.') It is the terrifying ethical problem of the worm in the child's eye that so worried Darwin, David Attenborough and every other decent person who wants to rejoice in the natural world but doesn't feel that they can do so unconditionally because pain, waste, predation and death are the fuel that powers the engine of natural selection. The book is an attempt to wrestle with that difficulty. The conclusion is that community and co-operation can themselves be generators of biological complexity. That's not to dismiss natural selection, of course. It is undoubtedly responsible for lots of what we see.
    You misunderstood my argument at the end: I was careful to say that one cannot demonstrate God from the natural world. Indeed the form of the natural world tends to suggest his non-existence. I quoted extensively from a number of writers who agreed with that contention. My very modest suggestion in answer to the question was that there are some phenomena (altruism, religion and so on) which are not happily explained by the existing neo-Darwinian paradigm – as all serious evolutionary biologists exist. Those phenomena live more happily with the notion of a complexity-generator fuelled by co-operation than they do with one stoked up with selfishness. I said that it wouldn't be surprising if Christians labelled that alternative complexity-generator 'God'. That's far from falling into the 'God of the gaps' trap.
    I had a long chat afterwards with the chap who asked the question. We reached a happy and respectful accord.
    It would have been good to speak to you too.
    All best wishes.
    Charles Foster

  6. May 30th, 2009 at 19:21 | #6

    My very modest suggestion in answer to the question was that there are some phenomena (altruism, religion and so on) which are not happily explained by the existing neo-Darwinian paradigm – as all serious evolutionary biologists exist.

    How you can not see this is a "God of the gaps" argument is quite beyond me. Either it was a mistake on my part listening to you answer the question, or there is some other confusion going on here. My party and I discussed this on the way home, and we all found your answer to the "Why do you believe in God?" question to be a god of the gaps answer. You cited the lack of explanation as a kind of explanation, which is in itself a contradiction.

    I would be happy to talk to you more on the subject. How do you feel about coming down to Royal Holloway to speak? I could arrange it quite easily, and your talk would certainly be of interest to our resident fundamentalist Christian group (none of whom accept Evolution I suspect). You wouldn't have to be in a rush either, and you could present arguments for the Christian god instead of just talking about evolution.

    -Adrian

  7. July 8th, 2009 at 13:36 | #7

    Adrian,
    As noted in private emails, would love to come to speak. Thank you. Back to you very soon re dates.
    Was this a 'God of the gaps' argument? Absolutely not. A God of the gaps argument goes: 'There is no known explanation for X: therefore God must be the explanation. Therefore God exists.' I pointed out at length that I had no argument at all along these lines for the existence of God, and indeed that most views of the natural world would nudge one towards the conclusion that a God of the sort referred to by the Judaeo-Christian tradition did not exist. I then pointed out that altruism, community etc were not well explained by neo-Darwinism, as any neo-Darwinist would agree. Can one infer God from that? Of course not. All one can say is that those characteristics are easier to square with a creator God of the Judaeo-Christian stamp than with the neo-Darwinian paradigm. It's not a 'God of the gaps' argument because of the modesty of my observation. I make no PROBATIVE claim for the observation at all.
    All best wishes.
    Charles

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Please copy the string jX6IdY to the field below:

The Atheist Blogger