The Fact of Evolution? By David M. Kern http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
About Science February 28, 2011 Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern – All Rights Reserved Important Copyright Notification In order to provide a thorough analysis of the so-called Fact of Evolution, this book includes many short quotations from a large number of experts in a wide variety of technical fields. These quotations are copyright protected by the sources documented in the endnotes (see the "Notes and References” section located at the end of each chapter). I believe that these quotations fall under the Fair Use limitation of US Copyright Law (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). However, Fair Use has a very vague definition and copyright violations are subject to legal penalties. An About Copyright document with additional information on this topic is posted on the Fact of Evolution website. Where I am quoting a larger amount of copyrighted material, I have obtained permission to reproduce this material on my website. My use of this copyrighted material does not imply any endorsement of the views presented in this document. Any permission I have been granted to reproduce this copyrighted material applies only to my specific use. I gratefully acknowledge the various sources who have granted me permission to reproduce their copyrighted material. Each chapter of this book has an Acknowledgment section that lists any specific permission statements that I have received. The Acknowledgment section is located directly before the "Notes and References" section. My major goal in writing this book is to seek the truth about a very complex technical topic. My motivation for quoting expert sources is to pass their words onto my readers with as little distortion as possible. However, copyright laws limit the amount of context that can be included in such quotes. This can also distort the meaning of a passage. I do not wish to distort the opinion of anybody that I am quoting. If you believe that I have distorted the meaning of one of your quotes, please contact me so that we can discuss this issue and negotiate a solution. A form for contacting me is located on this webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/contact. If you believe that I am reproducing your copyrighted material outside the bounds of Fair Use guidelines, please contact me to discuss this issue. I will attempt to resolve any copyright violations that I may have committed in a pleasant and prompt manner. Terms and Conditions This document is covered by a US copyright and it should not be sold in any format. An About Copyright document describes the “Usage Terms” for all documents that are posted on the Fact of Evolution website (http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/).
About Science
Page 2
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
List of Topics The Rules of Science Religiously Neutral Science NOMA: Non-Overlapping Magisterium The Dividing Line between Science and Religion Rampant Speculation in Science – A Prime Example The Rules of Science The subject of this book is a scientific topic – the so-called Fact of Evolution. A major theme discussed in this book is the issue of what constitutes good science. In my opinion, good science has one and only one guiding rule – i.e., it is always an uncompromising quest for the truth, no matter what the truth is. However, many modern scientists work with a vastly different guiding rule. For one example, consider this quote by Richard E. Dickerson, the director of the Molecular Biology Institute at UCLA: Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.1
Other scientists suggest than any supernatural influence can only be included at the point in time when the universe was created. This quote from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences describes the NAS version of science’s guiding rule: Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.2
While the NAS is highly critical of Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates, it clearly brings its own conception of God into the debate over the Fact of Evolution. In the Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe described the limitation that the NAS’s stance on supernatural influence presents to advocates for Intelligent Design: So they permit a designer just one shot, at the beginning – after that, hands off.3
The certainty of the Fact of Evolution is highly dependent on who sets the rules that will be used for evaluating the evidence. If the rules of science are fixed so that Theistic Evolution is the only possible supernatural influence that can be used to explain the origin of life, then this a priori rule determines the outcome of the debate.
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
Page 3
But assuming the validity of an a priori rule is far different from using empirical evidence to prove its necessity. In Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, Phillip Johnson describes how the a priori assumption of Scientific Naturalism rules out any consideration of a potential supernatural creator: Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot 4 lose.
To be fair, there is a good reason why scientists seek naturalistic explanations. As David Hull pointed out in this quote from The God of the Galapagos (in a review of Johnson’s Darwin in Trial published in Nature), all events have a potential supernatural explanation: Johnson finds the commitment of scientists to totally naturalistic explanations dogmatic and close minded, but scientists have no choice. Once they allow reference to God or miraculous forces to explain the origin of life or the evolution of the human species, they have no way of limiting the explanation.5
However, the fact that supernatural influence is a potential cause for every event does nothing to prove that there are no events with supernatural causes. Thus, if science is restricted to the a priori assumption of strictly natural causes, it will ignore the truth for any event that happens to have a supernatural cause. According to Hull’s quote, science has no way of ruling out supernatural explanations for any event. However, in cases where naturalistic explanations are uncertain, ruling out potential explanations by an a priori bias against supernatural events does nothing to prove the certainty of naturalistic explanations. The uncertainty surrounding various theories for the naturalistic origin of life provides good reasons for skepticism. For example, in Darwin’s Black Box, Behe pointed out that two very distinguished scientists (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel) suggested the possibility that intelligent aliens sent life to earth from another planet.6 If current speculation about alien life is correct, Crick and Orgel’s suggestion certainly seems within the realm of potential truth. However, this speculation only highlights the uncertainty surrounding various theories for the naturalistic origin of life. This quote from Crick and Orgel describes that uncertainty: We have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability.7
If an intelligent designer of alien origin can’t be ruled out on the basis of scientific evidence, any decision to rule out a supernatural intelligent designer is arbitrary. Basing theories of origin on an arbitrary a priori rule calls into question the argument for the dogmatic naturalism promoted in Hull’s quote. If it is impossible to assess the probability for life being place on earth by intelligent aliens, then it is impossible to assess the probability for life developing on earth through The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
Page 4
Evolution, or to assess the probability for a supernatural designer (because all three probabilities are related, and the evidence to decide between them is inadequate). This uncertainty suggests that a quest for the truth should not be limited by an a priori rule requiring dogmatic naturalism. If the definition of science prevents any consideration of supernatural influence for the origin of life, then science has drifted away from the goal of evaluating all evidence in an uncompromising quest for truth. Return to List of Topics Religiously Neutral Science The position I take in this book is that science should be religiously neutral. The essence of religiously neutral science is that the rules of science should welcome all arguments based on empirical evidence. If religious neutrality guided science, both theistic and atheistic alternatives would be evaluated according to evidence. Until the 20th century, science and Judeo-Christianity were normally considered to possess a common goal – i.e. the search for truth. For example, the theory that scientists must demonstrate utter loyalty to the dogma of scientific naturalism (see Hull’s quote in the Rules of Science) certainly did not apply to Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton is among the most widely respected scientists of all time. His laws of force and motion are still used by engineers today – hundreds of years after his death. This quote from his Mathematica Principia illustrates that his scientific accomplishments were not stunted by his deeply rooted Christian beliefs: This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.8
This quote from the University of Sydney website describes the important role Newton’s Mathematica Principia played in the history of science: Newton's Principia is without question the most important book on natural philosophy published in the early modern period. Indeed today it is still regarded as one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time.9
Nevertheless, a University of California professor testified at a court hearing that having the great Isaac Newton on its faculty would place a University at risk for losing its accreditation – because of his stance on God.10 This clearly demonstrates that classical science was not as biased against supernatural causes as modern science has become. Newton’s claim was based on simple logic – i.e., an immense natural system whose operation is governed by extremely complex mathematical formulas suggests that an intelligent and powerful being was responsible for its origin. Newton wasn’t shy about proclaiming his view that this intelligent being had to have been the God of the Bible. One undisputed fact of biological life is that it dwarfs the complexity of the solar system that Newton attributed to the Biblical God. It is possible that Newton would argue that the complexity of biological life must also be attributed to the Biblical God. But Newton is long dead, and nobody knows for sure what position he would take. The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
Page 5
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
The reality of modern science is that nobody can cite empirical evidence to prove the original cause for very many things that we observe – whether the universe or biological life. But many scientists are not content to state that, “Science has no explanation.”11 Instead, they assume a future naturalistic explanation will always be found. According to Dickerson (see Rules of Science), the standard assumption is, “Science has no explanation – yet.”12 However, scientific facts are not about what we might know in the future. Scientific facts are about what we know for sure now. And in my opinion, this book demonstrates that the Fact of Evolution falls far short of that standard. Return to List of Topics NOMA: Non-Overlapping Magisteria In a power struggle over authority, a set of prominent scientists have argued that religion occupies a separate domain from science. For example, the late Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould used the acronym NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) to describe this separation.13 The essence of Gould’s NOMA concept was contained in an official 1984 statement from former NAS President Frank Press: Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought.14
The principle for NOMA is that science should focus on naturalistic-only explanations (see Dickerson’s guiding rule in the Rules of Science), and religion should only focus on supernatural events. However, advocates for NOMA fail to consider that traditional Judeo-Christianity is based on significant supernatural interaction with human beings. The Judeo-Christian Bible is full of accounts of interaction between a supernatural God and human occupants of the natural world. For example, what value does the Judeo/Christian religion have if a real supernatural God never spoke directly to real men named Abraham and Moses?15 If a supernatural God has any influence on men, then it is clear the natural world will be changed by it. For example, even if God doesn’t choose to move mountains directly, he might inspire men to move mountains. The result would be the same – the course of events in the natural world would be changed through supernatural influence. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is of prime importance to Christian theology.16 According to the Apostle Paul, Christianity would be useless without this central event.17 Can it be claimed that Christ’s resurrection never happened, because it would violate the NAS’s concept of no supernatural influence in modern times (see Rules of Science)? According to the Enlightenment Philosopher David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Christ’s resurrection would clearly be classified as a miracle (i.e., a supernatural event): But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.18
Hume’s argument is based on the assertion that a resurrection has never been observed. However, Christ’s resurrection has been documented exceedingly well when
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
Page 6
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
judged by the standards of historical reliability.19 For example, here is a quote from Historian Michael Grant on the historical evidence for an empty tomb: True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various Gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty.20
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul alleged that over 500 people observed the resurrected Christ, making Jesus’ resurrection a claim based on observational evidence.21 One might make the argument that Jesus’ resurrection was a false claim. But it is illogical to argue that this religious claim is not in absolute conflict with the dogma of scientific naturalism. Gould’s concept of NOMA attempts to keep the morality of religion, but drop the supernatural aspect of it.22 However, Richard Dawkins disputes that the clear separation between science and religion (i.e. a mutual exclusivity) is anything but an illusion.23 In this case, I agree completely with Dawkins – a relatively rare occurrence. In my opinion, science and religion have a very severe overlap, in that they both wish to seek “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” However, many advocates for the Fact of Evolution insist that dogmatic naturalism is vital to science, and that any suggestion of a possible supernatural influence amounts to non-science. A widespread commitment to dogmatic naturalism has often denied skeptics of the Fact of Evolution a chance to make their case in a fair and honest debate. For example, the Wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins states that Gould advised him to refuse to participate in debates with Creationists.24 However, invoking the NOMA concept to avoid an honest debate solves nothing. It simply denies skeptics the right to question dogmatic naturalism. And perhaps there is a case for skepticism. For example, Jonathan Marks has described how Creationist Duane Gish often trounced various Evolutionists in a set of university debates.25 Return to List of Topics The Dividing Line between Science and Religion Both science and religion share a common goal – i.e., finding the truth about the ultimate cause for our existence. The quest for the truth of human origins is central to both these disciplines. Because of this common goal, it is nonsensical to treat science and religion as independent subjects. There are at least four opinions about God (i.e. theological concepts) that are currently competing to explain the origin of life: Atheism or Secular Humanism – God does not exist and Evolution was unguided.26 Theistic Evolution – God used Evolutionary processes to create life forms.27 Progressive Creationism - God created life forms over a long interval of time.28 Young-Earth Creationism – God created life forms in a period of six days.29 It doesn’t take a theological genius to recognize that these four options are mutually exclusive – in other words, at most one of them can be true. It doesn’t take a scientific The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
Page 7
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
genius to see that the first two options rely on some form of Evolution and the last two options on some form of Creation. In the Rules of Science (see above), I quoted a passage from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. This passage clearly shows that the NAS has no objection to the concept of God: Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.30
According to this quote, the NAS considers it scientifically acceptable to believe that God was intelligent enough and powerful enough to create the universe. However, this quote also implies that the NAS considers it scientifically taboo to believe that God would choose to interact with his creation at any point after the very beginning of time. This is clearly a theological opinion rather than a scientific statement supported by empirical evidence. The NAS attempts to justify this theological opinion by arguing that science and religion are mutually exclusive disciplines. This Bruce Alberts quote from the same NAS treatise on Science and Creationism makes that claim: … science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience.31 However, it is nonsensical for the NAS to argue that that religion and science occupy two separate realms at the same time it argues that some religious views are consistent with scientific explanations for the origin of life (i.e. Theistic Evolution), while others are not (i.e. Creation). Clearly, some overlap between science and religion exists. Alberts’ quote is typical of the view held by many supporters of the Fact of Evolution. They recommend a dividing line between science and religion that shields the Fact of Evolution from all critical analysis. However, creating a protective hedge around the Fact of Evolution is not a scientific necessity. The dividing line that science needs to draw is between speculation and fact and not between Creation and Evolution. If the Fact of Evolution is evaluated with this dividing line in mind, it is easy to see that it involves very much speculation. Good science must separate fact from speculation. Otherwise, its reliability becomes questionable. Return to List of Topics Rampant Speculation in Science – A Prime Example Politicians often act like they have all the answers when it is clear to many observers that they do not. Many scientists exhibit similar behavior. Good scientists, no matter how distinguished their accomplishments are, should not promote their speculation with the certainty of an empirical fact. Nevertheless, this has become a common occurrence. For example, various news articles quote scientists promoting a universe filled with intelligent life forms.32 However a 2006 article published in New Scientist was entitled, “Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life.” This article describes how even the best evidence for alien life is “hotly debated.”33 The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
Page 8
The existence of intelligent alien life is certainly not supported by any direct tie to empirical evidence.34 Nevertheless, 6 out of 7 of Britain’s leading astronomers believe that “Intelligent extra-terrestrials almost certainly exist on distant planets.”35 However, many prominent Evolutionists have clearly disagreed with this assertion. For example, George Gaylord Simpson called it “a gamble of the most adverse odds in history.”36 Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould stated that the “creation of intelligence was a freak occurrence, requiring a number of specific events to occur that could never be replicated again.”37 These quotes imply the exact opposite of certainty. Furthermore, a common claim for the certainty of alien life rests on a speculative assumption – i.e., because life exists on earth, it can’t be too improbable. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins correctly pointed out that this claim assumes what it is trying to prove. In other words, it is based on a logical fallacy.38 The book points out that the Fact of Evolution rests on a similar logical fallacy – i.e., because life exists on earth, it is assumed that Evolution must be the explanation for it. As with intelligent extra terrestrial life, many scientists have quickly progressed from investigating this possibility to declaring it to be an absolute certainty. Return to List of Topics
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
Page 9
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
Acknowledgements Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements: N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’. I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material: N(2, 14, 30, 31): Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. Reprinted with permission from Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. N(4): Phillip E. Johnston, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism”, Copyright © 1990 First Things. Reprinted by permission of First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/. N(5): Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: David L. Hull, “God of the Galapagos,” Nature 352:106-7, 1 January 1981, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v352/n6335/pdf/352485a0.pdf, copyright © 1991. N(15, 16, 17, 21): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. N(25): Jonathan Marks, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. (c) 2002 by the Regents of the University of California. Published by the University of California Press. Used with permission of University of California Press. Notes and References 1. Richard E. Dickerson, “The Game of Science,” Perspectives on Science and Faith 44, June 1992, pp.137-8, as quoted from: The American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Dickerson.html. 2. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), p. 7, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=7. 3. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution (New York: Free Press, 2007), p. 229. 4. Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, pp. 1-17, as quoted from the website: http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm. This article was originally published in First Things, October 1990. 5. David L. Hull, “God of the Galapagos,” Nature 352:106-7, 1 January 1981, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v352/n6335/pdf/352485a0.pdf, as quoted from the website: Laurence A. Moran, “Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground,” 17 November 2006, http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html. 6. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp 248-249. 7. Francis H. C. Crick and Leslie E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus 19:341-6, 1973, p. 341, as quoted from the website: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf. 8. Isaac Newton, “Mathematic Principles of Natural Philosophy,” 1686, translated by Motte from Latin in 1729 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1934), as quoted from the website: Larry Vardiman, “Scientific Naturalism as Science,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=422.
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
Page 10
9. “Natural Philosophy,” University of Sydney, http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/newton3.html. 10. Larry Vardiman, “Scientific Naturalism as Science,” Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=422. 11. Richard E. Dickerson, “The Game of Science,” Perspectives on Science and Faith 44, June 1992, pp.137-8, as quoted from the website: The American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Dickerson.html. 12. Richard E. Dickerson, “The Game of Science,” Perspectives on Science and Faith 44, June 1992, pp.137-8, as quoted from the website: The American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Dickerson.html. 13. Stephen J. Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," Natural History 106, March 1997, pp. 16-22; as cited from the website: The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html. 14. Phillip E. Johnson, “Darwinism Science or Philosophy: Chapter 4 – Darwinism and Theism,” http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter4.html. According to Note 5 of the above chapter, the original quotation is contained in the Introduction to: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1984), which was signed by the Academy's President, Dr. Frank Press. A similar quotation (signed by NAS President Bruce Alberts) is available from the 2nd edition of this book: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), p. IX, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R9. 15. Genesis 12:1 (NIV) – The Lord has said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your household and go to the land I will show you” See Bible Gateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:1&version=NIV; Genesis 12:1 (NIV) – So Abram left, as the LORD had told him. See Bible Gateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2012:4&version=NIV; Exodus 3:4 (NIV) – When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” See Bible Gateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:4&version=NIV. 16. Matthew 28:1-10 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:1-10&version=NIV; Luke 24 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NIV; John 20 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20&version=NIV. 17. 1 Corinthians 15:14 (NIV) – And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:14&version=NIV. 18. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, “Of Miracles”, Part 1 (90), as quoted from: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9662. 19. Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), Chapter 1, “The Resurrection of Jesus as History,” pp. 3-51. 20. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, (New York: Charles Schribner & Sons, New York, 1977, p.176, as quoted from: John Lennox, “The Question of Miracles: the contemporary influence of David Hume,” http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/intermediate/the-questionof-miracles-the-contemporary-influence-of-david-hume.htm.
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
About Science
Page 11
http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/
21. 1 Corinthians 15:6 (NIV) – After that, he [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:6&version=NIV. 22. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria for background information. 23. Richard Dawkins, “When Religion Steps on Science's Turf: The Alleged Separation Between the Two Is Not So Tidy,” http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html. 24. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins. 25. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), p. 256. 26. “Humanism and its Aspiratitions: Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933,” American Humanist Association, http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III. 27. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution for background information. 28. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism for background information. 29. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism for background information. 30. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), p. 7, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=7. 31. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), p. IX, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=R9. 32. For some examples see: A. Pawlowski, “Galaxy may be full of 'Earths,' alien life,” CNN, 25 February 2009, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html; Jonathan Leake, “Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking,” The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece; Hillary Mayell, “Alien Life? Astronomers Predict Contact by 2025”, National Geographic News, 14 November 2003, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1114_031114_setisearch.html; Peter N. Spotts, “Sea boosts hope of finding signs of life on Mars,” Christian Science Monitor, 28 February 2005, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0228/p02s02-usgn.html. 33. John Pickrell, “Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life,” New Scientist, 4 September 2006, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9943-top-10-controversial-pieces-of-evidencefor-extraterrestrial-life.html?full=true. 34. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life for background information. 35. Ian Sample, “Is there life out there? Almost definitely, say UK scientists,” The Guardian, 6 June 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jun/06/spaceexploration.uknews. 36. George G. Simpson, This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World) as quoted from: Bridget C. Coughlin, “Searching for an alien haven in the heavens,” PNAS 98:3, p 796, 30 January 2001, http://www.pnas.org/content/98/3/796.full. 37. Hillary Mayell, “Alien Life? Astronomers Predict Contact by 2025”, National Geographic News, 14 November 2003, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1114_031114_setisearch_2.html. 38. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), pp. 202-3; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), pp. 142-3 from Chapter 6 “Origins and miracles.”
The Fact of Evolution?
Copyright © 2011 by David M. Kern
February 28, 2011
