Andrew Snelling at Origins 2013

The Creation Biology and Creation Geology Societies are pleased to announce Andrew Snelling as our featured speaker for our joint annual conference, Origins 2013.  We're going to meet on Sunday afternoon, August 4, just before the start of the International Conference on Creationism.  The conference will feature a catered lunch, research presentations from our members, and a plenary talk by Dr. Snelling: "Radiohalos: Fingerprints of Creation or of the Flood?"

Since this is an abbreviated conference we're charging just $45 for members and $80 for nonmembers.  Membership is open to anyone interested in the work of the CBS, and it costs only $20.  Click here for more information on CBS membership.

To register for the conference, please visit our registration page at http://origins2013.eventbrite.com.

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

Malaria and fossil ear bones

A few interesting articles came out recently, and I thought you might like hearing about them.

First, in the May 10 Science comes a report of a new "breed" of mosquito that is resistant to infection by the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum.  Malaria is normally transmitted by the bites of malaria-infected mosquitoes, and one obvious means of combating malaria is to target the mosquitoes.  Typically, this is done with insecticides that kill the mosquitoes, but this new report indicates an intriguing new method of control: infecting mosquitoes with Wolbachia.  Wolbachia is a bacterial symbiont of some insects, and Bian et al. report that they've developed a bacterial strain that will form a stable - and heritable - relationship with one of the mosquitoes that transmits malaria.  Mosquitoes carrying the Wolbachia symbionts are resistant to malaria.  Think about that: A bad relationship (malaria-mosquito) is prevented by establishing a beneficial one (Wolbachia-mosquito).  This reminds me of the kind of things Joe Francis has been telling me: All of creation was built to be in relationship, and pathology is merely the fault of bad relationships instigated by the Fall.  If he's right, it should be possible to repair these pathologies by creating or restoring good relationships.  And so mosquitoes living with good bacteria help prevent malaria transmission.  Great stuff!

Bian et al. 2013. Wolbachia invades Anopheles stephensi populations and induces refractoriness to Plasmodium infection.  Science 340:748-751.

Second, the latest online publication from PNAS describes complete ear ossicles from Paranthropus and Australopithecus.  According to many creationists, these two genera are non-human hominids, erect apes that are not part of human evolution, even though paleoanthropologists say otherwise.  This paper caught my eye because creationists have characterized both of these genera as "mosaics," with some characteristics resembling humans and others resembling apes.  So too, it seems, with the ear ossicles.  Do you remember the hammer, anvil, and stirrup (AKA malleus, incus, and stapes) from your high school biology lessons?  They're the smallest bones in the human body, and they help transmit sound from your eardrum to your brain.  It seems in both Paranthropus and Australopithecus, the hammer (malleus) is similar to the human malleus, but the other two bones (incus and stapes) are more similar to those of living great apes.  Once again, mosaics.

Quam et al. 2013. Early hominin auditory ossicles from South Africa. PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.1303375110.

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

Majority of Protestant pastors aren't sure, says BioLogos survey

Today, BioLogos posted an article about a survey on pastors' views of origins that BioLogos commissioned from Barna.  The results confirm my own experience: most pastors are creationists (69%), and most of them are young-age creationists.  Theistic evolution accounts for only 18% of respondents, and only 3% of respondents are described as "absolutely certain" of theistic evolution.  It's that certainty statistic that really caught my eye.

BioLogos classifies the respondents primarily according to their position on origins (young-earthers, old-earthers, theistic evolutionists), but they also include that secondary classification based on "certainty" for every position.  If we disregard the origins positions and instead make certainty vs. uncertainty our primary classification, we find a really striking result:

I don't know about you, but when I hear the various parties debating origins, I get the sense (sometimes explicitly stated) that everyone's sure they're right.  Some folks even portray "doubt" or "uncertainty" as a sin against God.

Yet, when I talk to people who don't have a dog in the fight, most of what I find is uncertainty.  They're not quite sure what to make of the whole debate, and there is sometimes an underlying anxiety about it all.  People ask me what I "recommend" (as in my summer reading list), and beneath that question I sense the worry that they'll read the "wrong" stuff, regardless of what "side" they might be reading.  There isn't an unshakable allegiance to anyone or any organization.  People just aren't sure.

I find it a bit ironic since most creation/evolution organizations present their position with fearless (some would say arrogant) certainty. Oftentimes, the flaws of other positions are openly berated and mocked.  But if these issues are really so cut and dry, why don't we find more Christians being "absolutely certain" of their position?  And why isn't there an overwhelming majority position, with only a few "fringers" going against the flow?  Could this uncertainty be a recognition of the complexity of the issues?  Do pastors see that there aren't easy answers to every question about origins?

My big question for everyone in this debate is how do we deal with uncertainty?  What should we do about this?  Repudiate the doubt?  Embrace postmodernism?  Probably not.  I think the least we can do is acknowledge the existence of honest uncertainty.  These complex issues aren't always easy to understand even for the experts, and simple answers to deep questions very often don't satisfy.  Humbly acknowledging that we don't know everything is not an affront to God or His Word.  It's just human.  It's what we are.

For myself, embracing my own uncertainties, my own fallible human-ness, has led me to a much more open attitude.  I'm still committed to young-age creationism, but I'm well aware that I don't know everything and that I could be wrong.  So I find myself much more ready to listen to disagreeable positions and the Christians who hold them, even though I may find them unconvincing.  That has earned me an odd credibility with people of all positions (who might still think I'm wrong), mostly because I think people can identify with my uncertainty.  Being able to talk with others about these issues goes a lot farther towards genuine resolution than demanding their allegiance and condemning their doubt.

Perhaps I'm asking too much of the weary creation/evolution combatants.  Some folks are surely a lost cause, but since a 2:1 majority seems to agree with me ("I'm just not sure"), there's reason for hope.  I just wish more uncertain folks would make their voices heard.

(Before you email: Yes, I do recognize the irony of my own conviction (certainty) that certainty is hindering resolution of the creation/evolution debate.  So I must confess that I'm not sure that more uncertainty will help break the cultural deadlock, but it's worth a shot.  Nothing else has worked.)

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

Summer Reading 2013

I've been asked again about what books I recommend, so I thought I'd revise and republish my previous summer reading post.  Please remember that a recommendation is not an endorsement.  Sometimes you ought to read books you just don't agree with, for a variety of reasons.  For some of those books on this list, I recommend them because it would be irresponsible not to read them (like Origin).  Don't consider it an "exercise in critical thinking" either.  Read these books to understand what their authors want you to know.  You don't have to believe it of course, but you need to be aware of it.  Anyway, on with the list, in no particular order.


1. The Creationists, by Ron Numbers - This will give you an inside look at the emergence of the modern creationist movement but from a biased perspective. Numbers wants to reduce creationism to an aberration of SDA theology. You might remedy that bias by reading my own paper "Species variability and creationism," which you can find here: http://www.grisda.org/origins/62006.pdf


2. Darwinism and the Divine in America, by Jon Roberts - excellent introduction to the varied responses to evolution among Protestants in America. I'm really enthusiastic about this book. It really helps you to understand why the USA became the hotbed of modern creationism. (Sorry, you'll have to read the book to find out.)


3. Evolution, Creation and Science, by Frank Lewis Marsh - In my opinion, this is a classic in creationist biology. Marsh got a lot of things wrong and his logic was muddled in places, but his work is one of the first really thoughtful responses to evolution by a thorough creationist. I'm a big fan.


4. Earth's Catastrophic Past, by Andrew Snelling - This is a worthwhile, modern take on creationist geology, and it sets the stage for our understanding of what happened during the history of biology. It's also a massive, two-volume set.


5. The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris - The text that revived a widespread interest in creationism in the last half of the twentieth century. Another book that is primarily of historical interest, but it should be read by anyone interested in the creation/evolution debate.


6. Faith, Form and Time, by Kurt Wise - Modern take on the creationist model as a whole. First real attempt to articulate a complete model, and not just a refutation of evolution or an apologetic for creationism. The approach Wise takes is really, really important, and more creationists need to adopt it.


7. Understanding the Pattern of Life, by Wood and Murray - So this is my book, and I'm tooting my own horn. I will also tell you that it's terribly dated, but I think the ideas presented are still worth thinking through (even if I don't agree with everything I wrote here ten years ago).


8. Darwin on Trial, by Johnson - We can't ignore the antievolutionists, even if I'm not a fan. This is the antievolution book that is better than most.


9. On the Origin of Species, by Darwin (get The Annotated Origin by James Costa - it's very good) - Find out what Darwin's argument actually was. It's a long, detailed book, but Costa's version has lots of great notes which will help you understand what you're reading.


10. Natural Theology, by Paley - Lots of folks are still enamored with this book. I think they would be less enamored if they actually read it. This is the zenith of functionalist design, and you should be aware of it for historical purposes.


11. Faith, Reason and Earth History, by Leonard Brand - another great modern creationist book that takes a bigger picture look, like Wise's Faith, Form, and Time.


12. The New Creationism, by Paul Garner - a readable summary of the modern creation model, like Wise's and Brand's books.


13. Summer for the Gods, by Ed Larson - Forget the odious Inherit the Wind. This book will give you the real history of the Scopes trial


14. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by Jack Collins - Another book that I don't completely agree with, but I sure do like it a lot more than I don't like it. He's got important things to say about the theology of Adam and Eve, and you should read it. You might also be interested in my own review of the book: http://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/18

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.

Genie Scott retiring

According to this announcement, Eugenie Scott, the current director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) will retire this year.  For those who don't keep up with all this stuff, NCSE was exclusively an anticreationist advocacy organization for nearly its entire existence, until it recently launched a climate change initiative.  (I've always found the name of the organization a bit of a misnomer, since it doesn't really do much for science education as a whole.)

My own experiences with NCSE and Genie Scott were decidedly mixed.  I've generally found the NCSE to be a typical advocacy group with the accompanying blinders on their own weaknesses and biases.  In other words, their publications tend to be about as oversimplified and error-prone as anything else in the creation/evolution debate.  On the other hand, the one time I heard Genie Scott in person, I found myself agreeing with a lot of her points.

I'm surprised that she's retiring mostly because I had no idea she was retirement age.  She doesn't look it.  I'm also a little nervous about who will replace her.  Better the devil you know.  I'm also wondering if NCSE will continue their conciliatory relationship with liberal Christians under the new administration.  This has been a contentious point of late, with some "new atheists" advocating a more hardline attitude.  But having religious folk claim they're OK with evolution is good for propaganda, so I can't imagine NCSE will change that.

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.