Evolution vs Creation in Education-

I find this debate terribly sad. It is sad because most of the players have very good intentions. It is sad because there is no compromise. It is sad because someone must lose something of value in the end.

The parents promoting creation/intelligent design wish to protect their children from a godless science. Not necessarily from science, but from a science that excludes God from the issue of creation. This is a genuine desire to protect, and the drive to protect offspring is powerful.

On the other side are scientists, striving to protect science education from being polluted by bad science. Unfortunately, God does not readily submit to scientific inquiry, and so good science will most likely be Godless. Not that all scientists are godless. Those who believe, however, cannot derive their faith from science.

Sadly, from what I have seen the creation/intelligent design faction does indeed promote bad science. This does not mean that they promote something that is not true. It does mean that creation/intelligent design may well belong in another venue.

I do not know if believers in God can begin with the evidence available through years of scientific inquiry and present a set of arguments that will pass the rigours of established scientific review. I an not so sure that they should.

I am still not convinced that science is the final arbiter with regard to what is true. It has proven valuable in building human knowledge and building a better world. It is worthy of a place of great honor. I am not convinced that it is ultimate.

A large part of the issue in this debate is good stewardship. Strangely, I find both the creation side and the science side are striving for good use of public funds in education. The scientist don't want to see public funds spent on teaching bad science. The creationists don't want what they view to be truth excluded from the education process for which they must pay through taxes.

Nobody wants children confused by different views of what is held to be true. However, lacking a consensus on what is true with regard to how things came into being, the educators are caught between waring factions. The children are destined to seek their own answers on the matter.

Perhaps that is the real focus. A system of education that teaches thinking, not just indoctrination. This is dangerous, of course. It will produce children who will not always think as parents may wish. It may produce children who think outside the box called "science," as well.

A generation of rogue thinkers might prove very interesting.

Dangerous children. Worth the investment.

Thinking about Thinking-

I have recently engaged in a few sparing matches on another blog. Pliny is a scientific thinker and strong proponent of a scientific view of reality. He and his followers seem quite concerned by the conservative Christians who have been striving to incorporate creationist models into the system of education. For the most part Pliny and many of his followers do not have high regard for either the creation model or Christians and their way of thinking.

Pliny is quite fond of the evolutionary model. As a scientist and one who does not hold a Christian world view, that makes a great deal of sense. Most of his concerns and criticisms have been well thought out and well presented. In wrestling with some of those ideas as he presented them I have been compelled to think a bit.

I don't mind. I like thinking. Unfortunately, the last few years I have neglected my thinker, and so I am getting my thinker back into shape. Many of the half-baked mental models I played with many years ago remain half-baked. That is not to say they are not serviceable models, just that I never completed them.

In the past I did not have venues in which to exercise my thoughts. I was no longer in school, and my jobs did not present the right circumstances for mental exercise. So, my thoughts remained incomplete largely due to not having any sounding board. I had nobody to wrestle with. In recent years I exercised my mind less and less, and now it is as flabby as my physical form.

Not a pretty sight.

Having the Internet, I started this blog as a place to exercise my thoughts, and perhaps get some mental models assembled and made presentable. However, I still wrestled with some emotional issues, and was unable to get down to some serious thinking.

Visiting Pliny's place demonstrated to me that I really need to get my mental muscles back into fighting trim. Unlike physical combat, where my flab at least provides a useful mass for restraining combatants, mental wrestling requires some serious conditioning.

I am assessing some areas that will need exploration, and the exploration will provide the conditioning to prepare me for more intellectual adventures.

My problem has always been a curiosity greater than my lifespan. I have trouble narrowing my focus. I see so many avenues that are bright and interesting, and I want to travel them all.

Evolution and creation are only two models that I long to explore. However, associated with that exploration is an examination of contemporary Christian culture as it relates to the conflict between evolutionists and creationists. There is also an interesting avenue in which I long to explore the contemporary culture of science, and learn how that culture selects what is (and is not) knowledge.

That brings me back to the conflict I experienced in my youth regarding the perspective of the scientist as opposed to, say, a mystic. While science as a system reveals things that are true about the universe in which we live, I wondered about those areas that seemed unsuited for scientific analysis. The mystical was only one such area.

I still want to define more ways of thinking. This was the essence of my conflict in one discussion at Pliny's place. I contended that science was a belief system, a way of thinking. It is a system with a set of presuppositions, a perspective on reality, a particular vocabulary, and limits as to what it can encompass.

Pliny and his followers did not agree. My presentation left a lot to be desired, and I recognized that I was at fault for having not even clearly identified my position.

Of course, this points to another area of interest. The psychology of belief. That seems to be a subset of epistemology as well as psychology. Two rather large fields to explore.

It would be so much easier if one area of thought would catch my interest so intently that I could focus on that to the exclusion of all else. I would only delve into other related fields to help in understanding my darling. I would specialize and master something.

My broad interests have resulted in a little knowledge about a lot of things. This has earned the moniker Dr. Lockridge in my present place of employment. One associate likened me to a children's show host. Doctor Lockridge's Wading Pool of Knowledge. Though it is a bit of a dig, it is such a comical image (and true) that I have embraced it.

So, can I use this venue to focus my mind, and perhaps put together something that serves the name of this blog?

I can't wait to find out.

Evolution, Creation and Belief-

Many years ago I was quite interested in the Creation/Evolution debate. As a convert to Christianity it appeared fundamental. Evolution represented the "old" way of thinking, my pre-Christian framework. Creationism obviously was a "new" way of thinking and essential to the change in the way of thought my conversion necessitated.


I am less convinced of the necessity and centrality of these concepts to the divergent frames of thinking at this point in my life. I have examined the issue from time to time over the intervening years, and have found problems with a hard-line position on either side of the argument.


Used as models each of these ways of thinking have merit. The creation model can provide a useful foundation for thoughts regarding God and that which He has created. The evolutionary model provides a good framework for scientific thinking about how things might have come to be as they are. Each model is useful.


When evolution is introduced to thoughts about God and His relationship with His creation some challenging questions come about. The conflict is sufficient to cause advocates of one model or the other to perceive problems with the ideas of God, creation, science, and evolution fitting into a complete world view.


It is hard for me to challenge evolution because I do not fully understand the theory and its application. As a generalized model it seems to describe much about the universe, provided I make certain assumptions about the universe. However, I find the same circularity of reasoning in much of evolution (as I have been able to understand it) that the proponents of science throw out as a challenge to biblical systems of thinking.


The anti-entropic nature of evolution is problematic. Things tend to fall apart unless a conscious effort to hold them together is made. Yet evolution is a tendency for unconscious things and stuff to fall into ever more complex relationships. Matter naturally tends toward simple states, not greater complexity. It is hard to describe evolution creating increasing complexity without some inclination to give it a consciousness.


The absence of transitional species is also a challenge in adopting a singularly evolutionary view of reality. Adaptability within types can be representative of good engineering on the part of a creator, without necessitating transitions between types of creatures. Taxonomic rules seem to have been formulated to support the evolutionary model, but my understanding of taxonomy is just inches from complete ignorance. Evolution seems to depend much on taxonomy, but again that impression may be just a shadow in my mind.


Creationism does not always answer well the challenges of observing nature. Unfortunately, it is a biblical doctrine, not a scientific system of thought. Since it is not intended to address the many questions a scientific examination of creation inevitably will bring about, it appears inadequate. For such an application it is inadequate.

By way of illustration I refer to a study I once did. Jesus once proclaimed the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds. He did this to illustrate a biblical concept regarding faith. Jesus was scientifically inaccurate. My research showed that the orchid has a much smaller seed than the mustard seed. However, nobody in the time and place Jesus was speaking had that knowledge. The common knowledge was that the mustard seed was indeed the smallest of all seeds.

Jesus being who he was (and is) might well be expected to know the scientific truth. However, for his purpose of illustration the popular knowledge was sufficient, and in context his statement was true. Historical, social and physical contexts are important in assessing even the nature of seeds.


By nature the doctrine of creation is deductive. It is drawn from a document proclaimed to have been revealed from God, and discerning the truths and teachings from such a revelation is necessarily deductive in nature.


Evolution is a theory developed inductively. It attempts to explain creation by creating an overall set of rules to explain what is observed. God and His relationship to creation are not relevant to the theory. While the existence of God and His act of creation may be inferred by the evidence, it is not essential from a scientific perspective. As a needless complication it is simplest to leave God out of the evolutionary picture.

I suspect that this is generally done, and the godly perceive the godlessness of evolution as an inherent evil and so cast out the whole theory as ungodly and wrong.

The universe is today perceived as a much larger place than in the times that the creation model was first presented. Indeed, the universe as now perceived is a much larger place than when I was born. In the context of that smaller universe a literal creation story was sufficient for many, many generations. Today it may need just a little explanation to make that context clear.

It is not much different from sermons on the analogous relationship of faith and mustard seeds in a world where orchids are now relatively common.

Neither is the theory of evolution static. It is a piece of inductive reasoning subject to constant reassessment and revision. It is science, and that is the nature of scientific knowledge. Science is useful as a tool, but insufficient as a faith.

For me the human experience is dynamic and existential. The depth of my knowledge is insufficient to be absolute. The evolutionary model is beautiful. The creation model is equally beautiful, but quite different. I can experience each in turn, and recognize that they exist in the universe I inhabit.

Perhaps not a decisive conclusion, but an honest one and one I can live with.