Irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and science

A relatively fruitful discussion had started on the Facebook event wall before the April 10th event, and has gone from the forefront after the event. I would like to enable all involved to continue the discussion, as well as add some thoughts of my own. So, I invite everyone involved or spectating to join the discussion as it migrates here from Facebook, especially Nacho and Travis, who have carried the majority of the dialogue to this point. Here is my attempt to summarize the ground already covered:

The three main issues brought up were irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and the theory of science and truth. I have outlined the opinions on each of these topics below.

Irreducible Complexity
Trip said,

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors.

Travis mentioned,

...a good book on Irreducible Complexity is Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe is a microbiologist, and he discusses systems he believes are irreducibly complex from his field.

And Nacho countered,

If IC is an issue in evolutionary biology (I actually don't know, it's not my field), scientific research should lead to the discovery of natural processes that could lead to steps in evolution (and that discovery cannot be the postulation of divine intervention, just like in any other branch of science).

Intelligent Design
Nacho has stated his position with the following:

Would Schaefer use a theological argument to prove one of his discoveries in computational chemistry? If not, why does he request evolutionary biologists to do it?

As any other theory, it's [evolution's] falsifiable. But, if evolution fails, it should be replaced by another scientific theory which explains everything that evolution explains, is backed by all the natural evidence of evolution and, [sic] at some point will be superseded by another theory. I think the core of the discussion is if you can call "scientific theory" something that does require the use of supernatural explanations.

Ok, he [Schaefer] showed some physical evidence that shows the universe had a beginning and does not have a end, just like Christian theology explains. But doing so he assumed two things:
- The same physical laws that are valid today have been valid since the beginning of time, and
- there were no unexplainable events in the evolution of the universe that might affect the information we receive from that event.
The kind of god that he finds as as primary cause, then, is a god that walks away from his creation. Otherwise there should be "irreducible complexity" showing up at different stages of cosmological evolution.

Johann had this to add:

the entirety of the scientific community has agreed that ID/Creationism is bullcrap

Travis said,

I have a proposal - let's see where the evidence leads, and then label that scientific. Does the evidence support ID, or the cosmology usually associated with non-ID evolutionary processes? Let's leave the labels about what is scientific or not until after the evidence has been heard.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is.
What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

The Theory of Science and Truth
Nacho has said,

Saying that something is the way it is because "it was designed to be that way" does not allow any further scientific development so, I think, it can not be called science.

I'm not stating evolution is the ultimate answer, it's perfect or it's the absolute truth.

Your argument that ID still leave[s] the room for theological psychology or archeology is like replacing atmospheric physics by a norse mythology based explanation and then ask ourselves why thor makes some thunders hit the ground and others not.

Travis has written,

Some good books about the philosophy of science are The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and Progress and Its Problems by Larry Laudan. They're both pretty readable, and talk a lot about how science can and cannot be used.

I think though that some of the problem is that we've created a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural". There is only what is. What I look for is truth - which I define as knowledge concerning what is. My assumption is that any knowledge of truth will be useful and apply to real life.

Nacho responded,

You say my dichotomy of natural and supernatural explanations is false, but you do not say how and why. Science has explained consistently and efectively lots of things that were previously thought to be of miracolous [sic] nature. Why do you think this trend should be reversed?

Science is not a quest for truth, is a quest for a better explanation. It will never give you the reason or the meaning, those are philosophical or theological inquiries. And, if you are a believer as I think you are, you are not seeking the truth either. You know the truth (or at least, your truth).

Travis replied,

I think it's a mischaracterization (albeit a common one) that saying "it was designed to be that way" will end inquiry. After all, when presented with a design that works - the first thing people do is try and figure out why it works so well. For example, I once read a quote that I thought was profound by an early astronomer (Newton maybe?). He believed that learning about the world was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." If that isn't motivation for inquiry, I don't know what is.

I think that we should explore this dichotomy, as Travis puts it. Are there "natural" and "supernatural" worlds, or is the world we live in comprised of both? Is it a false distinction to exclude what is considered "supernatural" from discussion about the world? Note that I didn't say scientific discussion—that's because science is being used to explore only materialistic explanations for the world. Is that a valid definition of science, even? If not, what is science? What is truth? What is knowledge? Some of these existential questions are irreversibly married to the issues we are debating. I think much can be gained through discussing these questions and the statements above.

Our first event...a success!

The first ever Veritas Forum event at Georgia Tech was a week ago. Tuesday evening, April 10, Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer came and gave his lecture "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" at our first Veritas Conversation. Attendance was well over 300, and the Instructional Center auditorium was packed out—we brought in 60 folding chairs, set up 30 chairs in the lobby and broadcast the lecture out there, and had quite a few people sitting on the steps or standing inside the lecture hall. Check out the photo album on Facebook.

The lecture and Q&A were thought-provoking, sparking conversation that lasted past 11pm. We had attendees from the BCM, Campus Atheists, Campus Crusade for Christ, Westminster Christian Fellowship, and several other campus organizations, in addition to several Tech professors. Debate over the issues also arose on Facebook, and I am in the process of migrating that discussion to this blog.

I consider the huge response to such a small event a great success. I can't wait to see what kind of impact Veritas can have on the Georgia Tech community when we are able to put on full-fledged Forums and advertise more. Looks like the majority of the campus is ready to join in dialogue over these issues. May the free and open exchange of ideas commence!

If you missed the lecture, the audio and video will be online within the next couple of weeks. I'll post links when they're live. If you attended, please comment on this post with your thoughts and impressions from the event. A big thanks to the Veritas Planning Team for pulling this one off!

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part three...

This is the final installment in my series of posts to answer the question, “Is Veritas deceptive?” In my first post, I outlined the Biblical imperative to avoid deception and the impression of deception. In my second, I confessed my tendency to veil the fact that we are a Christian organization and encouraged us all to clearly represent Veritas as a Christian movement. But on a deeper level, we are being honest when we say that we are hosting forums on truth. We don't have to shout out that we are Christians in everything we do to avoid deception. Allow me to explain.

National Veritas says this:

Our job is to raise the level of dialogue on campus by drawing out the deep questions of the campus and seeing if Jesus’ answers ring true. After all, we only want to follow Christ if he is the way, the truth, and the life, and we need each other in order to more fully understand this.

Let me make this clear: the purpose of a Veritas Forum is not evangelism. We are not proselytizing. We exist because, especially when it comes to the interactions among God, truth, and science in the academic community, open dialogue does not. Scholastic arenas often prove tragically hostile to people of faith. Veritas seeks to encourage the free and open exchange of ideas (which is an accepted principle of academics) when it comes to God and science, including the nature of truth, philosophy, origins, and questions of existence.

And so, to answer the criticism: no, we are nothing less than sincere. We don't seek to get you involved in Christianity. We aren't hosting a sermon series. We purpose to bring together the best and brightest minds of the Georgia Tech community to evaluate a multitude of worldviews, including the Christian one, doing so in the pursuit of veritas—truth and true life.

We give the community our word on this: a Veritas Forum is an even playing field. An open forum is just that, and we intend to keep it that way. There is no need for bias, intolerance of ideas or people, or unwillingness to change one's mind. After all, the truth will out. Jesus Christ made a lot of claims about life and His answers to our questions. If He was right, then we have nothing to worry about—Veritas is just a way to evaluate the Christian worldview and let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. We believe that our academic community can rise above the exclusion of "religious" answers to life's tough questions and evaluate everyone's ideas through free dialogue. We don't want to dominate or just talk about what we believe, we want to open up the lines of communication about all the worldviews out there. We want to facilitate informed decisions about who and what to believe. We want to conquer the ignorance and misinformation that so often clouds the interactions between God and intellect. Sure, we think we're right—but don't you think you're right, too? That doesn't mean we can't coexist in the Georgia Tech community. Why can't we sit down over coffee or hear a lecture and learn from each other? Let's introduce a little sincerity into how we discuss these matters.

If that's your heart, you'll want to be on-board with the Veritas Forum @ GT. We're not going to hide the fact that we're a Christian movement, but our desire is to treat every worldview fairly and foster that sort of dialogue on our campus. Because part of what we believe is this:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. (Hebrews 4:12-14)

We're just putting the answers that Jesus Christ provides out there and letting His words do the work. We won't try to enforce anything, add anything, or suppress anyone. We're just sticking to our confession and bringing that to the table. Will anyone join us there?

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part two...

"We're hosting forums on truth," we told them as we conducted surveys on Skiles walkway. "What is truth?" the banner on our table posited. If we had time to speak with people, we shared that we are Christians who believe that the Biblical worldview can compete in the marketplace of ideas, and we are trying to bring open forums on truth and God to campus. One survey-taker had some piercing commentary to make, however.

Ok. Now I'll make a guess. You are involved in some sort of religion and you want to get other people involved in it. If that's the case, it's a bit deceptive to say you're "conducting a survey to bring in a speaker for a forum" or whatever you said. If you want to talk to me about your religion, go ahead & tell me what it is. Introduce a little sincerity.

I've always been in the intellectual camp of Christianity, that group of amateur theologians who love to read Augustine, Calvin, and Piper and throw around little words like supralapsarianism, dispensationalism, hypostatic union, and eschatology. We see beauty in the technicalities of a well-thought-out Biblical worldview. We love apologetics and had to test and prove the claims of Jesus Christ before we would follow Him. Our method of worship and grand goal in life is to learn and live good theology. We envy dead people because they have better theology than we do. (Seriously.)

This scholarly Christianity has a great heritage, for the intellectual community used to be dominated by and thrive under great Christian thinkers. Only recently has the scientific community been taken over by those who deny a Biblical faith. (Required-in-my-opinion reading: Love Your God with All Your Mind by J. P. Moreland.) But now we exist in a hostile environment. One word about God and we are either ridiculed or dismissed from anything "intellectual" or "scientific." This environment often fosters a fear of being frank about the fact that we are Christians and we actually believe all that Bible and God stuff.

I am guilty as charged—I have often failed to "introduce a little sincerity," including when I've represented Veritas to others. But under the teaching of John Piper at Passion 2007, I was encouraged to take that risk—come what may. We must be ready and willing to risk our intellectual reputation, our ego under ridicule, whatever it takes, by being honest and frank about the fact that we are followers of Christ and Veritas is a Christian movement. Anything less and we are not risking our own pride, we are risking God's reputation within our lost community. His fame is at stake, and we can't give Him a bad name by our deception. He can't take risks: it's all certain to Him. So ours is just to be faithful to the God we say we believe and commit to the utmost honesty (see part one).

Is Veritas deceptive? ...part one...

Veritas Forums are university events that engage students and faculty in discussions about life's hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life.

The Veritas website is unequivocal when it comes to the purpose of a Veritas Forum: we exist to proclaim the relevance of Biblical Christianity to all of our lives. But when I represent Veritas to others, I say that we are hosting a "forum on truth," which is also true. (After all, "Veritas Forum" means "Truth-Forum.") But are we being deceptive if we don't immediately say that we are a Christian organization?

Before we look at the accusations, let me say a few words about why this matters. Beyond the obvious need for credibility for the Veritas Forum organization at Georgia Tech, what motivates us to examine ourselves for any hint of deception or duplicity? The answer is easy to say and hard to practice.

Paul, in reference to our conduct concerning disputable matters, exhorts us to "not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil" (Romans 14:16). Since deception is evil, if we in Veritas show others even the appearance of deception, we open the door to allowing the Veritas Forum to be spoken of as evil. The exciting part of this command is that, if we are careful to follow, we have the promise that "Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men" (Romans 14:18)—we will serve our primary purpose as slaves of Christ's will, and we will be justified in the sight of men.

In reference to his ministry, Paul writes to the Corinthians,

But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

We cannot and must not attempt to veil the core of who we are and the reason we exist: the gospel, the firm belief that God exists and He saves sinful humanity. I charge us all to emulate Paul in his hardcore ethical stand on the sufficiency of the gospel and his absolute commitment to honor and honesty. There will be no "bait and switch" with Veritas. My dad once told me about a friend of his, an evangelism-focused believer who would cruise the streets and invite students to a "party." In truth, there was no party—it was a Christian youth meeting. I can hear the rationale now: at least they were exposed to the gospel. Get them in the doors, no matter what the cost. This may be their only chance to hear the gospel. A thousand times no! God forbid that we would become end-justifies-the-means pragmatists, even if we claim to do so for the sake of the gospel! I see no allowance in Scripture for such deception—and it is deception. Paul refused to practice such cunning. After all, if Christ needs us to lie to spread His gospel, we must have a weak message and a small God, indeed!

Not only are we commanded to avoid deceitful methods, in Romans we are encouraged to "give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all." It's important to think about this issue. This blog post is not easy to write, nor is this topic likely to be comfortable or pleasing to many—but writing this is part of my obedience to the command to "give thought." Join me in obedience to this command by giving thought to how we are to represent Veritas to our campus and to the world.

What's the difference?

I was watching The Ice Harvest last night (not recommended, really) and it made me think of our Veritas Forum. (Is that a sign I'm thinking about this too much? Perhaps...) Anyway, here's our working forum topic in nice big letters:

Does it matter how you live?

Of course, we disciples of Christ answer this question with a resounding "Yes!" But do we know why? Could we explain why? Could we answer Charlie Arglist when he says,

Did I ever tell you my father was a twin? Fraternal. Looked a lot alike, though, him and my uncle. Different temperaments completely. My father, he's a cop. By-the-book guy. Believed in the law, wanted his only son to be a lawyer. Drank in moderation, didn't smoke. Kept up his life insurance premiums. Voted in every election, not just for president.
Pete Van Heuten: Lemme guess, uncle didn't vote?
He said he didn't want to encourage the b*******. In and out of jail from the time he was 16... drunk all the time, f***** everything that walked. Won a fortune playing poker, lost it all the same way. Lost an eye in a fight. My father was 54 when he died of a massive embolism, right here in Wichita. My uncle died the very next day in a car wreck in California. So the point is... it is futile to regret. You do one thing, you do another... I mean, so what? What's the difference? Same result.

What do you say to someone like that? We not only need to know our answers, but reasons for them (1 Peter 3:15); and we need to be able to put forth a defense against the philosophies and people this world may throw at our claim that this life matters eternally. We need to be able to bring in a basis for morality, a meaning for this life, and the person of Jesus Christ to our answer.

And that's where this Veritas Forum comes in. Stay tuned, it's going to be amazing.

Brainstorming

The Survey Committee presented their findings on Wednesday, leading us into beginning to discuss what the main topic of the Spring 2007 Forum will be. The issues that floated to the top are as follows:

• meaning in life
• the human condition (pain and suffering, the problem of evil)
• basis of morality
• religious plurality

Michael writes:

Monday we will be brainstorming and developing our topics more. Please come, we want many people so we can have good input. This is one of the most important parts of the planning process. ... At the last meeting we decided that meaning in life would be a good starting point, but we want to integrate the other topics in too. Come to the meeting with ideas.

We may still land on any one of these topics, or a hybrid of two or more.

This is a big deal in more ways than one. Deciding the topic of any Veritas Forum is not insignificant, but this being the first at Georgia Tech, the topic and how we address it will likely shape the reputation and image of the Veritas Forum at Georgia Tech for the years to come. Please pray for wisdom and harmony for the Planning Team as we collaborate on this decision. Also, pray that our charter with national Veritas will go through smoothly now that we have an interim faculty advisor to give us official status.

More on that to come later. And perhaps I will have a chance to write about my thoughts on the forum topic.

Just beginning...

We're bringing the Veritas Forum to Georgia Tech. Campus organizations and ministries all over the school are pulling together to plan and execute this event. I'm getting involved in the planning stages, and it's very exciting. In case you don't know, Veritas Forums bring honest and open dialogue on life's big questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to college campuses, through debates, discussions, and open forums. Their website has more information. For now, I ask that you pray:

• for the entire Planning Team as we are finalizing the members of the directors team and sub-committees.
• for unity among the Christian organizations on campus to pull together to host the Forum.
• for cooperation in supporting and promoting the Forum from non-Christian organizations on campus, in the spirit of truth-seeking and not antagonism.
• for the Planning Team as we look for the right Faculty Advisor to oversee the Forum, and that he/she will have the same passion for the cause of Christ.
• for unity among the Planning Team, directors, and committees in making decisions in future meetings.
• for specific guidance in determining what the "headline question" for the Forum will be, and that it will be relevant and draw students in.
• that, above all, the Forum will make God more famous at Georgia Tech, nearby schools, Atlanta, and the world.

More updates to follow!