Academia, Bizarre, Politics, Religion, Society

Unnatural Selection: Leading Evangelical Theologian Canned After Acknowledging The Scientific Basis for Evolution

Bruce K. Waltke is considered one of the country’s best known evangelical theologians. His work on the faculty of the Reformed Theological Seminary, however, came to an end when he dared to acknowledge the scientific basis for evolution.

Here is the heresy that ended his career:

“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

The video that exposed Waltke as impermissibly rational was shot during a BioLogos workshop — an organization that tries to reconcile faith and science.

Michael Milton, president of the seminary’s Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, insisted that the seminary allows “views to vary” about creation, including whether the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. However, Darwinism is not allowed as a permitted view: “We are a confessional seminary. I’m a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view.”

My guess is that Bill Nye may want to avoid this particular audience as well, here.

It appears that academic freedom like evolution is not to be heard in the halls of the Reformed Theological Seminary.

So much for survival of the fittest.

For the story, click here.

69 thoughts on “Unnatural Selection: Leading Evangelical Theologian Canned After Acknowledging The Scientific Basis for Evolution”

  2. Bdaman:

    Like Buddha, I live to be of service — even inadvertent service.

  3. Mespo I wish I could let you in on a inside joke, just know you never seem to disappoint and somehow you are always on time.

  4. Bdman:

    I shall meekly retreat from this salon save only to utter my parting words that I stole from American poet, Louise Bogan:

    But at the end, be insolent;
    Be absurd–strike the thing short off;
    Be mad–only do not let talk
    Wear the bloom from silence.

    And go away without fire or lantern
    Let there be some uncertainty about your departure.

    (Words for Departure, 1923)

  6. goneville:

    “The fact is when the hard questions come out, science breaks down. The really hard questions. As there is no theory capable of explaining certain aspects of our existence.”

    ************

    I think science does an admirable job of answering the “hard questions” all the time. For example, we know why we become ill by virtue of germ theory; we know from whence we evolved through the Theory of Evolution; we even know why we react to certain stimuli through Freudian analysis. I think some questions have no answers and perhaps that is why you consider them the “hard ones.” “Why are we here?” comes to my mind. If the answer is,” There is no answer that science can discern,” why is that “wrong.” A true answer that we don’t like is no less an answer, is it not?

    Perhaps assuming an answer to every question, or that every question is a “good” question is the error. Science provides no qualitative judgment on human inquiry, merely a quantitative judgment on certain aspects of human experience.

  7. The fact is when the hard questions come out, science breaks down. The really hard questions. As there is no theory capable of explaining certain aspects of our existence.

    And without a theory, there is no science. Saying that its just “something not yet discovered” is a childish argument that evades real questions.

    It should bother anyone I would think of a scientific mind to have a glaring question staring us all in the face to which our minds cannot at least speculate as to an answer.

  8. Bdaman,

    Don’t sweat it, I’m on the case…

    goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    The floor is all yours Dr. Slarti

  9. Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    goneville,

    Science doesn’t break down. Science is a tool for answering questions about the universe. Questions about anything that happened ‘before the universe began’ or anything ‘outside the universe’ are by their very nature unscientific.
    **************************************************

    Well if you want to predefine science as something that only answers questions about “this” universe, then that’s your choice.

    But its not correct.

    Are you familiar with Quantum Physics? Brame and string theories? Dimensional theories?

    Another dimension by definition is not part of “this universe”.

    Are you saying string theory, M theory and other multidimensional theories are not science?

    The scientists working on such theories I think might beg to differ.

  10. Byron,

    Can you deduce the physical properties of which you speak from a knowledge of sub-atomic particles and how they interact via the fundamental forces? (My arguments on the 9/11 thread notwithstanding, I think that reductionism is probably the tack you want to take here…

  11. goneville,

    Science doesn’t break down. Science is a tool for answering questions about the universe. Questions about anything that happened ‘before the universe began’ or anything ‘outside the universe’ are by their very nature unscientific.

  12. gYGES:

    I would say I don’t think so. If I am thinking about this correctly the properties that differentiate one element from another are physical properties. Such as gold and lead, one is yellowish (gold) and the other is a grey. One is heavier than the other, one conducts electricity better than the other. They both are ductile.

    The similarities and differences are a result of actual material, if you didn’t have the material you would not be able to determine it’s properties. But a materials conductance or how it’s atoms behave are subject to natural laws and not predicated on any individual material.

    So I would say that natural laws/principles would have to exist prior to the existence of anything. They just are.

  13. When you get back to the beginning, you’ll find you have to move further. The Plank Epoch is as far back as we really know anything about at the moment (though new discoveries are opening new ideas) but the fact is you have to get ultimately to the chicken and the egg. And that’s where science breaks down, and the supernatural must begin. At least supernatural by mortal comprehension.

    Think about it. No matter how far back in time, or pre time you go, you always end up needing to go a step further. Its sort of like Zeno’s paradox, or even more like Plato’s “if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum”.

    You’re left ultimately with the supernatural, something beyond mortal comprehension. Which points to sciences beyond our realm. It doesn’t matter if you find the first, subatomic particle or quark that started it all, you still must find the source of that quark, what created it, what energy was involve, then where that energy came from and what caused the reaction to create it, and what created that which caused the reaction to create it and so on.

    You’ll never, ever come to the beginning. Ever.

    Science ultimately breaks down when you start asking the right questions.

  15. Bdaman,

    Don’t sweat it, I’m on the case…

    Byron said:

    “concerning the origins of the universe, wouldn’t the natural laws such as gravity, speed of light, etc have to exist for whatever origin theory to which you adhere to work?”

    If your hypothesis* purports to explain the origin of the universe, then, yes, it must either obey natural laws or (better yet) explain how they came to be. For something like Sir Fred Hoyle’s steady state hypothesis which doesn’t address origins, this is unnecessary (it comports with existing natural law and assumes that it has always held).

    *Since this is a discussion about the theory of evolution, we should be careful about the distinction between theory (something which has withstood substantial testing) and hypothesis.

    Byron said:

    “2+2 = 4 existed prior to humans figuring it out, in fact prior to human existence.”

    This is a different (but similar) philosophical question. The Pythagorean Theorem was true before human beings had ever considered mathematics. Did the Pythagoreans create the theorem or did they discover the theorem? (for what it’s worth, I would say that they created the proof of the theorem that they had discovered.) I would just caution you not to get going on this path too quickly – some asshat by the name of Godel put up a massive roadblock a ways down…

    Byron said:

    “Wouldn’t gravity exist even if bodies didn’t?”

    Um… is there a particle which mediates gravity? (incidentally, if there is it moves a hell of a lot faster than light…). Science can’t give you a definitive answer right now, check back when the LHC goes full power and we might have some more info.

    Byron said:

    “If the laws of nature were not present prior to whatever event created/caused/gave rise to our universe it wouldn’t have come into existence because nothing would have worked right.”

    The following was cribbed from Wikipedia 😉 (I’m not spending too much time on a hypothesis that I think is bunk.):

    During the Planck epoch (0 to 10^(-43) s after the BB) the four fudamental forces (gravity, E&M, strong and weak nuclear) were equal (and maybe unified). From about 10^(-36) to 10^(-32) s after the BB inflation happened (I hate it when that happens…). At some point symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces in their present form and after about 10^(-11) s the universe had cooled enough for average particle energies to be in the range which we can achieve in particle physics experiments. I don’t know if this answers your question, but I’m not trying to sell an origin hypothesis, certainly not this one.

    Byron said:

    “Am I thinking about that correctly?”

    You’re asking intelligent (and deep) questions – I’d call that thinking correctly.

  18. Slarti:

    concerning the origins of the universe, wouldn’t the natural laws such as gravity, speed of light, etc have to exist for whatever origin theory to which you adhere to work?

    2+2 = 4 existed prior to humans figuring it out, in fact prior to human existence. Wouldn’t gravity exist even if bodies didn’t? If the laws of nature were not present prior to whatever event created/caused/gave rise to our universe it wouldn’t have come into existence because nothing would have worked right.

    Am I thinking about that correctly?

  19. Tootie,

    As Gyges has pointed out, the link you posted is a mash-up of cosmology (the study of the nature of the universe), abiogenesis (the study of how life arose from non-life), evolution (the study of how life changes in order to adapt to its environment), and biblical literalism (a relatively recent crackpot theory that holds that the bible is literally true). Needless to say, this is all swilled together into a simmering cesspool of crap. Nonetheless, I am going to gird my loins with the protective armor of science, hold my nose and wade in…

    Duane Gish, PhD wrote: [Dr. Gish is listed as a ‘Senior Vice President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research’ which means he’s probably been selling his snake oil for a long time…]

    One of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific journals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. [There is no scientific evidence for creation because it isn’t a scientific theory – scientific theories must be falsifyable. If creationism is scientific then please give an example of an experiment that can disprove the existence of God the creator.] They claim that evolutionary theory is based on natural laws and thus qualifies as a scientific theory. [Evolution is a scientific theory – it can be falsified by evidence of a chimera (a species which inherits traits from to distinct species) – the link I posted to my story of chromosome #2 was another prediction made by evolution which would have brought the whole theory down if it didn’t pan out.] Hence, the theory of creation must be excluded, but the theory of evolution is admissible (of course, it must be absolutely atheistic). [Many people of faith believe in evolution. Kenneth Miller (a witness for the plaintiff in Kitzmiller v. Dover) sees no problem with being an evolutionary biologist and a devout Catholic.] However, evolutionary theory is not based on natural laws but is actually contrary to natural laws. Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. [Evolution is a theory about the origin of the diversity of life we see on the planet, not the origin of the universe.] The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. [As I indicated in my linked post, I consider inflation to be bad science – in any case it is merely a hypothesis – it is not supported by a mountain of experimental evidence like the theory of evolution is.] Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. [Evolutionists only need to acknowledge the natural laws that have been in existence since the origin of life on the planet and continue to this day – evolution says nothing about the origin of physical law or the universe.] Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.[Anyone can make a hypothesis. If it is falsifyable it is a scientific hypothesis. If it withstands every test it becomes a theory (like evolution). Creationism is a myth. Inflation is a scientific hypothesis that I believe will be falsified by experiments done with the Large Hadron Collider.]

    Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. [This is a straw man argument – life AS WE KNOW IT could not exist. In a different universe with different physical constants a different sort of life would have evolved.] They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman’s constant, Planck’s constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well. [The laws of probability say the the chance of the physical constants having the observed values is 100%.]

    According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. [Evolutionary theory says nothing about the Big Bang or anything else predating the origin of life on this planet.] This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. [We can add the second law of thermodynamics to the things that Dr. Gish doesn’t understand. The Earth is not an isolated system – for more information on how complexity increases naturally, consult the works of Nobel-laureate Ilya Prigogine.] An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [Check out the ‘steady state’ theory of Sir Frederick Hoyle.] If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation. [By definition, anything external to the universe is not in the domain of science.]

    What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. [This is a subtle and nuanced question being treated in a trivial an naive way – small wonder that only garbage results.] Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. [‘Evolutionary astronomers’ WTF?] Creation scientists [Your classic oxymoron.], on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin. [What an unscientific load of horseshit. Anyone have some crops that need fertilizing?]

    The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. [And we all know that the MEN who wrote the old testament had an amazing understanding of the universe. Just look at all the technological wonders they produced…] In Psalm 102:25–26 we read, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . .” The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes. At the time the Bible was written, most people believed that the universe had been here forever and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so, the universe had a beginning and is now wearing out and running down, just as modern science has determined. [On the contrary, I would say that a consequence of Prigogine’s theories is that the universe is evolving…] Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. [No, it doesn’t. That is one hypothesis which has no real evidence supporting it.] If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn’t run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, “In the beginning,” has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe. Re ‘scientifically verified’: I do not think that means what you think that means.

    Let us now consider theories on the origin of life. Here also the so-called evolutionary origin of life chemist is forced to utilize processes contr[a]ry to natural laws. In their experiments designed to produce even very simple molecules, they run into insuperable difficulties. For example, they must postulate some form of energy that would be available to convert simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. [Gee, that sounds like a lot of free energy to me…] Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed. [A series of non-sequitors and unsupported, unscientific statements does not an argument make.]

    In all experiments employing these sources of raw energy, the rates of destruction vastly exceed the rates of formation. How then was Miller in his experiment1 able to obtain a small quantity of several amino acids and a few other products? He employed a trap. As tiny quantities of these substances were constantly being created and were immediately isolated in the trap, the gases he employed were circulating continuously through his raw energy, electrical discharges (simulating lightning). Without the trap, the products would have been destroyed by the electrical discharges at rates that vastly exceed the rates of formation, and no detectable quantities of the products would have formed. There could have been no traps available on the hypothetical primitive Earth. If these products were formed in the atmosphere they would be destroyed before they could reach the ocean. Furthermore, the ocean could not have acted as a trap since even there destructive processes would eliminate any surviving products. [Another unsupported line of specious reasoning.]

    In any case, a trap is fatal to the theory. The purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy source, but this brings the process to a complete halt. For amino acids to join together to make a protein, a large quantity of energy is required, but the very purpose of the trap is to isolate the products from the energy. No energy, no further progress. Even as long ago as 1960 the physical chemist, D. E. Hull, taking into account the rates of destruction versus the rates of formation in these origin of life schemes, concluded that, “The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist [origin of life chemist], who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates” (Nature 186:693). Coacervates are mere blobs of disorganized material. Please note that Hull states that these so-called origin of life schemes are contrary to proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, which are essentially the same as natural laws. [Hmmm… I wonder if there’s been any progress on abiogenesis research since 1960? And once more, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution which tells us how life evolved AFTER it arose (by whatever process).]

    To the evolutionist, history began with “In the beginning, hydrogen . . .” To the creationist, history began with “In the beginning, God . . .” Science and natural laws come down solidly in support for the fact of creation. “Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Revelation 4:11). [This just goes to show that, in the words of Buffy, science, creationism, and Dr. Gish are like oil, water, and a third unmixy thing…]

    Tootie,

    To paraphrase Sean Connery: Isnt’ that just like an ignorant creationist? Brings a knife to a gun fight.

  20. Byron,

    Congratulations. Maybe Ken Miller will give you a gold star! 😉 Sorry I can’t write more right now, but I’m knee deep in the bullshit article by Dr. Gish that Tootie posted earlier…

Comments are closed.