What should a good Christian "origins" science program cover?

Considering the discussion over the last few days, I thought I would attempt a first-draft summary statement of what I think a really quality Christian science program would cover when it comes to origins.

My view: A top-quality science curriculum should discuss the various views and talk not only about the arguments in favor of each view, but about their problems . . . i.e., why advocates of each view are in favor of the view, and why opponents find fault with them. –It can be exceptionally difficult to present all of these positions fairly, but, I believe, fairness is necessary.

Okay. So what views should one cover?

Some typical viewpoints I have seen discussed include these:

• non-theistic evolution
   
• theistic evolution
   
• young-earth creationism
   
• old-earth creationism.

Some may also throw in a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I think such a list is good . . . as far as it goes.

The problem I find--and I am thankful to Ken Ham and friends at Answers in Genesis for opening my eyes to this matter 14 years ago . . . --The problem I find is how such a list tends to cut out any discussion of the biblical evidence. And it is the Bible that leads in AiG's/Ken Ham's young-earth creationist argument. And, in my mind--again in agreement with Ham and AiG--any curriculum that claims to be Christian needs a discussion of biblical evidence to play a central role . . . at least to the extent that the Bible has evidence to bring to the table.

As a result, I believe a discussion of origins requires quite a bit more nuance than the four (or, possibly, five) options mentioned above.

And so I would like to propose the following divisions for discussion/presentation in a thorough Christian "origins" program:

• Theism or naturalism? --Clearly, Christians will opt for theism. But the topic of biblical theism v. naturalism and, perhaps, pantheism, needs to be discussed. I imagine this is the place you might want to address the Intelligent Design school of argumentation, though I don't see its success as essential to a theistic worldview, nor its failure as a death knell for such a worldview.

Assuming a biblical theistic viewpoint, then, I believe we need to discuss the following matters:

• Biblical concordism or non-concordism? Some questions to address: How should we read Genesis 1-3 (let alone 4-11)?
  
  • Should we look for concord [agreement/peace] between what we read in Genesis 1 and 2 (at least) and how a scientist might describe the beginnings of the cosmos, the biosphere and humankind? [I.e.: Even though the language of the Bible, obviously, isn't going to be scientifically precise in any modern sense of the term, do the biblical descriptions of the beginning of the world and humankind generally match what modern scientists would say? Or, put another way: If we look at the “testimony” of science, should we expect to find that it corroborates what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? (If our answer is YES, then we are concordists. Examples of concordist positions: young-earth creationism; progressive creationism (Hugh Ross); gap theory; day-age theory; etc.)]
  —OR—
  
  • Should we abandon any attempt to find concord between science and Genesis 1 and 2 and, instead, look solely to science for clues with respect to how and when God created? [I.e.: Even though, based on numerous Scriptural references, we should recognize that God created the cosmos and everything in it, should we read the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal history and, therefore, not expect or even attempt to show some kind of correlation to what scientists would have to say and what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? –If our answer to this question is YES, then we are non-concordists. Examples of non-concordist positions: John Walton’s “cosmic temple” interpretation; Johnny Miller and John Soden’s “apologetic against Egyptian mythology” interpretation; etc.)]
   
• Old-earth (i.e., billions of years) or young-earth (i.e., 6,000 to possibly 10,000 or maybe even 12,000 years old)? Questions to ask: What are we to believe about how old the earth is? What evidence do we find for how old the earth is?
  
  NOTE: For presuppositionalist young-earthers like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the Bible itself provides much or virtually all of the evidence . . . all of the evidence that really matters. As Tas Walker of AiG expressed it to me back in 1999: “Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, we start with the Bible. . . . The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. . . . So, now that we have established that the world is young (~6000 years), we are ready to come to the [scientific] evidence.”
  
  I mention this because, once more, if someone is going to argue against a presuppositionalist young-earth viewpoint, he or she must present strong evidence for why he or she believes the Bible does not teach a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) earth history . . . and/or, even more difficult, convince these evangelicals why the standard formulas of evangelical beliefs about the Bible should be abandoned or reformulated.
  

  (When I say what I just said, I am referring to such documents as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which, in Part 2 of Article XIII, declares, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That certainly sounds good, but how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? --The Statement doesn't address the problem. Though The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does state,
  

  ARTICLE XXII
  We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

  And the grounds for affirming the full factuality of Genesis 1-11? . . . --I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into the details of what a solid Christian course in "origins" will cover. But I am trying to tease out at least a few of the ugly/niggly details that such a course--and/or the advocates of certain positions--will need to address.
  
  My point here was "simply" to show that those who want to argue against a young-earth presuppositionalist view are going to have to address issues related to well-accepted evangelical statements of faith and not only the scientific evidence.)

• What mechanism did God use to create the earth and all that is within it: Unmediated (“word spoken --[yields]-- thing created”) or Mediated (“word spoken --[creates/establishes]-- PROCESS (some type of evolution?) --[which yields]-- thing created”)? To what kind of evidence can we point for our views?

Once we tease out these four primary questions, we find the following options:

Atheistic	Theistic
Evolution	Mediated Creation (i.e., in the current scientific environment, Evolutionary Creation)
	Unmediated Creation

And then, as best as I can understand, these are the theistic options:

		Relationship of Scripture and Science
		Concordist	Non-Concordist
Age of Earth	Old-Earth	Progressive Creation (à la Hugh Ross) -OR- Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation (includes Day-Age, Gap, and other such theories)	Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation -OR- (at least hypothetically) Unmediated Creation [I am unaware of any unmediated non-concordist creationists]
	Young-Earth	Unmediated Creation (à la Ken Ham)	[Scientific data w/o concordist interpretation generally leads away from Young-Earth view]

If you have any additional suggestions, recommendations, criticisms, or other contributions to make, I would be most grateful for your input!

"Weird" Science #4: Symbiosis, Part 1

I'm writing this as if it is its own separate subject, even though, in my mind, it's not. (It's closely related to what I began to touch on in my preceding post about Soil.)

My friend Perry Marshall encouraged me to read some books by Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan. He mentioned her books in his article The New Atheism, Genesis 2 & Symbiogenesis. What he said there intrigued me. But then I wrote to him and he made some stronger recommendations. So I picked up a number of Margulis' books and was promptly impressed.

EXCURSUS

If you have any training in modern biology, you will, I'm sure, find me hopelessly behind the times. But I might as well reveal my inadequate training--or, perhaps, my failure as a student in high school.

Until I had begun looking at Margulis' Kingdoms & Domains, I was still working largely under a two-kingdom model of biology: there are plants and there are animals. Of course I knew there were bacteria and other microbes. But I don't think I ever placed them into a hierarchy of biological kingdoms. I think I considered them as a kind of cross between or not fully within either the plant or animal kingdom.

So it came as quite a shock when I discovered there are at least five biological kingdoms now recognized in the profession: prokaryotic (non-nucleated) Bacteria, eukaryotic (nucleated--i.e., having a nucleus) Protoctista (unicellular microorganisms), and the three eukaryotic multicellular kingdoms of Plants, Animals, and Fungi.

And then, upon a little further study, I found that even Margulis' taxonomy is . . . well . . . a little parochial. I found that many biologists actually prefer to speak of six kingdoms: the prokaryotic Bacteria (now identified as Eubacteria), and the eukaryotic Protoctista (or Protists), Plantae, Animalia and Fungi--as Margulis acknowledges, plus another kingdom of prokaryotes (non-nucleated organisms), the Archae or Archaebacteria, which are distinguished from the Eubacteria primarily by genetic differences.

As Wikipedia says,

Based on such RNA studies, Carl Woese divided the prokaryotes (Kingdom Monera) into two groups, called Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, stressing that there was as much genetic difference between these two groups as between either of them and all eukaryotes. Eukaryote groups, such as plants, fungi and animals may look different, but are more similar to each other in their genetic makeup at the molecular level than they are to either the Eubacteria or Archaebacteria.

Well, it turns out there are other ways of dividing the kingdoms. The Wikipedia article actually concludes with a kind of throw-up-your-hands-in-despair gesture when it says, "[R]esearch in the 21st century does not support the classification of the eukaryotes into any of these systems."

But back to my notes about Margulis.

Margulis' prime thesis in Microcosmos, Symbiotic Planet, and Acquiring Genomes, is that random mutation is a minor contributor at best to genomic drift (and, therefore, evolutionary change-through-time). Far more significant, she urges, is the acquisition and integration of genomic information through symbiotic merger of organisms, . . . most especially at the level of bacteria.

Indeed, she suggests that the nuclear contents of all eukaryotes come from bacteria: the chloroplasts from cyanobacteria and the mitochondria from oxygen-respiring proteobacteria. The basic cell itself, she suggests, comes from a merger of motile eubacteria and protein-synthesizing archaebacteria.

Perry Marshall provides a simple, graphically-engaging presentation of the basic ideas on his Cosmic Fingerprints website.

But he does more than that. A lot more. He proposes that

over the last 3.5 billion years . . . [DNA] has efficiently adapted and evolved from a single cell to occupy every ecological niche imaginable.

From the frozen ice sheets of the Antarctic to the punishing heat of the Sahara. From the ants under your kitchen sink to glorious singing birds in the Amazon rain forest.

Moreover,

This did not happen through accidental random mutation, . . . [but] through an ingenious algorithm that engineers its own beneficial mutations.

In essence, he says, God engineered into DNA (and all the carriers of genetic information--i.e., viruses, bacteria, and all the eukaryotic organelles that bear genetic information) . . . --God engineered these things to work together (through symbiosis) and intermingle (symbiogenesis) and self-adapt and "upgrade" to survive and thrive in virtually all future circumstances.

I encourage you to read Perry's paper. It's quite easy to read and rather inspiring, actually! Even if you're a committed anti-evolutionist. I hope you'll engage in the thought-experiment Perry suggests.

But what I have just written about: That, too, was not really where I wanted to go with this post.

But I think it's as far as I'm going to get.

So next time I'll try to bring Weird Science #3 (Soil, Part 1) together with Weird Science #4 (Symbiosis, Part 1) to generate . . . well . . . you'll see.

Maybe I'll call it Soil Symbiosis. Or something like that.

Self-healing DNA . . .

My friend Perry Marshall just sent me a link to his latest article titled The Mathematics of DNA.

I have to confess, I can't follow all the math. (Or, perhaps more accurately: I have been unwilling to invest the time to figure out exactly what he is saying when he speaks about the implications of certain ratios.)

But ignore the more technical aspects and--as long as he isn't blowing smoke--the article is filled with some very intriguing ideas, indeed!

I'll quote the introduction just to whet your appetite:

Imagine that someone gives you a mystery novel with an entire page ripped out.

And let’s suppose someone else comes up with a computer program that reconstructs the missing page, by assembling sentences and paragraphs lifted from other places in the book.

Imagine that this computer program does such a beautiful job that most people can’t tell the page was ever missing.

DNA does that.

In the 1940’s, the eminent scientist Barbara McClintock damaged parts of the DNA in corn maize. To her amazement, the plants could reconstruct the damaged section. They did so by copying other parts of the DNA strand, then pasting them into the damaged area. . . .

How does a tiny cell possibly know how to do that???

A French HIV researcher and computer scientist has now found part of the answer.

Check out The Mathematics of DNA.

And if you can find anything wrong with what Perry has written, you may be sure he (and I!) would appreciate hearing about it.

New theoretical base for intelligent design . . . also incorporating evolution?

Last week I mentioned my friend Perry Marshall's Cosmic Fingerprint website.

I have pursued his content quite a bit further. Interesting stuff.

As I wrote to a group of old-earth, intelligent design proponents--many of them well-known leaders in the field: Perhaps I should direct your attention directly to James A Shapiro's A 21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering, but I first learned about and heard of this idea from my friend Perry Marshall's Atheists' Riddle email series.

Perry presents Shapiro's ideas in a popular format through two lecture series--one composed of a single, 60-minute video presentation), the other of two MP3 presentations to a bunch of communication engineers at Alcatel-Lucent in Warrenville, IL, back in 2007. This latter series includes two presentations. One is 51 minutes long and is available in a single MP3 and a PDF of his PowerPoints or four videos (the four videos toward the top of the page).

The second presentation in this second series lasts 54 minutes and is almost identical to the 60-minute presentation of the first "series," but with a stronger bent toward the engineers in the audience and including about 10 minutes of Q&A. Again, you can acquire this in MP3 audio plus PDF or in five videos (toward the bottom of the page).

A very much simplified version of what he has to say is available in brief written form--either by a five-email email series or collected in a single page online.

Perry argues FOR evolution . . . but of a unique type. He says that random variation/mutation plus natural selection cannot generate what we see today:

Darwin was definitely right about natural selection. [Though, t]o be fair, being right about that is no Nobel Prize winning accomplishment. The weaklings die and the strong survive. I think our cave man ancestors were familiar with that one.

However, when evolutionists argue that random variation is "accidental copying errors in DNA"--i.e., essentially, "it's corrupted data that occasionally turns out to be beneficial instead of harmful,"

Darwin and the biology books are wrong.

As a communication engineer I know - with 100.000000000% certainty - that this is impossible.

Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such thing as "the percentage of the time that corrupted data is helpful instead of harmful."

It's ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt it.

I am cutting out much of what Perry says, but, with reference to the work of Nobel Prize-winner Barbara McClintock and University of Chicago biochemist and microbiologist James A Shapiro, he concludes with this proposal: It is not random, unintelligent mutations that yield evolutionary change-over-time; rather,

There is a mutation algorithm in DNA that makes *intelligent* substitutions when species need to adapt to their environment.

I'd be curious--and, I'm sure, Perry would be thankful--to receive any thoughtful input or feedback from anyone who might like to engage with his ideas.

Cosmic Fingerprint

Is DNA a pattern or a code? On the answer to this question hangs the answer to whether the biosphere is the result, solely, of random, undirected, unintelligent, physical processes . . . or of an intelligent designer.

So argues my friend Perry Marshall in his (hour-long) video, Origin of Life, on his fascinating website, Cosmic Fingerprints.

Perry is a master web marketer (and Sonlight dad) who is using his web marketing skills for Kingdom purposes.

(By the way, the second link I gave you to Cosmic Fingerprints offers you the opportunity to sign up for a punchy email series. Good stuff! [Indeed, it was the fourth or fifth email in the series that got me to think: "I've got to tell you about this series!"] --Enjoy!)

Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation

Okay. It's time for me to begin talking about Denis Lamoureux's book Evolutionary Creation.

I finally concluded reading this tome on our flight home from Europe last Sunday. It was a painful--but, I thought, necessary--task.

I want to do for you what I don't normally do and what Lamoureux himself failed to do in his book: I want to summarize the guts of his "message" before I present the "arguments" he offers and my detailed critique of what he says and how he says it.

Basic Thesis

Lamoureux's basic thesis: the narratives contained in Genesis 1-11 convey uniquely God-inspired messages about spiritual realities and spiritual truths that human beings throughout history--all people--have needed and still need to take seriously. At the same time, he says, these narratives contain virtually no information that anyone should attend to in order to inform or shape their views of history or science.

Put another way: We need to apply the same kind of discernment to our interpretation of Scripture that we naturally afford our interpretation of Jesus' incarnation. We understand that, in order to speak to the people of His day, Jesus had to utilize the language and cultural forms appropriate to that time and place. Even if He had wanted to, He would not--because He could not, properly--speak of galaxies, bacteria, thermonuclear energy, or calculus. The concepts themselves didn't exist at that time in human culture, and there was no need for Jesus to "enlighten" them concerning their ignorance. Jesus spoke real (spiritual) truth, but He accommodated Himself to the limitations of His audience.

So it is, says Lamoureux, with Scripture. God speaks real (spiritual) truth in the Bible, but He accommodated Himself to the limitations of His audience when it came to the literary forms and the assumptive history and science communicated throughout. Rather than confusing and upsetting His audience with long-winded and, ultimately, almost assuredly non-understandable discourses about "the way things really are" in the physical realm, God utilized the history and science of their day-- the things they understood (whether literally true or not [and Lamoureux says they are not!])-- . . . God utilized what the people of that day understood concerning history and the physical realm in order to convey true Truth about spiritual realities.

Lamoureux's perspective: He calls it the "Message-Incident Principle." Anything in Genesis 1-11 that we might perceive as impinging on history or science . . . --Any such thing is merely an incidental vessel, the "packaging," if you will, designed to carry the spiritual message of Scripture--the central purpose for which the Bible was written.

In essence, then: We can toss the wrapper, even while we savor what the wrapper contains.

What Does Such a Perspective Mean . . . and How Far Should We Apply It?

Lamoureux is unable to hold his application of the Message-Incident Principle to Genesis 1-11 only. Indeed, part of his "argument" for the Principle rests on the historical debate over how one can adopt a Galilean-Copernican perspective concerning the universe in light of passages like 1 Chronicles 16:30b, Psalm 93:1b, or Psalm 96:10b--all of which unmistakably declare: "the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

"No Christian today believes the earth is stationary," Lamoureux asserts, "and no one interprets [these passages] literally. For that matter, the Galileo affair teaches us that science contributes to biblical interpretation" (p. 112). And what it ought to contribute to our interpretation of Genesis 1-11, Lamoureux says, is the realization that Genesis 1 to 11 has nothing to contribute to us in the realm of science or history.

Moreover, while

[t]he Old Testament clearly presents the immovability of the earth, . . . the purpose of [1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 96:10] is not to reveal any fact about nature. Rather, [the phrase about the world's immovability is] found in passages that praise God's Lordship over the creation. In other words, this ancient geological understanding is an incidental vessel used to reveal the message that the Lord is the Ordainer and Sustainer of the world.

--Ibid.

In the same way, then, we need to (re)interpret Genesis 1-11. Thus, Genesis 1 is "not a record of the history of the creation of the heavens, and . . . [it] is not a history of the origin of life, including humanity" (p. 192); rather, "Christians throughout the ages [have recognized and need, today, to recognize] that the primary purpose of Gen 1 is to reveal the Message of Faith that God is the Creator" and, moreover, that men and women enjoy a "unique position" in the world as creatures made in God's image (p. 198).

Thus, too, Genesis 2 "is not historical" (p. 198) and "is not a historical account of human origins" (p. 201). "[I]ts purpose is not to disclose how God made the universe and life, including humanity" (p. 201), but it

complements the Divine Theology in Gen 1 and asserts that humanity is a special and unique creation. We are the only creatures in a personal relationship with the Creator. This chapter also reveals that men and women were made to enjoy the mystery of marriage. . . . And most importantly, Gen 2 reveals little God sets limits on human freedom, and failure to respect these boundaries has serious consequences.

--p. 202

As for Genesis 3:

[T]he ancient motifs in Gen 3, the ancient understanding of causality, and the fossil record all point away from the historicity of this chapter and the causal connection between sin and death. . . .[T]he Message of Faith in Gen 3 is not dependent upon the historical reality of a lost idyllic age, a talking snake, mystical fruit, or cherubim. Instead, these ancient motifs are incidental to a Divine Theology that was radically different from the pagan beliefs surrounding the Hebrews.

Genesis 3 reveals the reality of human sin. . . . [It] reveals that humans are responsible for their actions and are accountable before God. The consequences of disobedience are significant because the Creator judges men and women for their sins. . . .

Despite the traditional literal reading of Gen 3 as actual history, the revelatory power of this divinely inspired account has been affirmed over and over again throughout the ages. It has consistently convicted men and women of their sins, and has left him knowing that God judges them accordingly. . . . Who has not experienced the spiritual-intellectual dynamic of the Garden of Eden? Is anyone not tempted to disobey their Maker? And who has not tried to rationalize their sin before the Holy Spirit? Clearly, the inerrant and infallible Messages of Faith in Gen 3 transcend the incidental ancient motifs and ancient categories of causality through which they are revealed.

--pp. 202, 203, 206

And so it goes.

Lamoureux(re)interprets each chapter of Genesis 1-11 along these lines.

And beyond Genesis 1-11?

. . . I'll have to address that in my next post on this subject.

A "new" area for theological reflection

Last night I was reading the latest (June 2009) Acts & Facts of the Institute for Creation Research. The cover story is titled Dangerous Turn Ahead: Traveling down the road to compromise--a reprint of a March 1988 article by founder Dr. Henry M. Morris.

In the middle of the article, Morris quotes with approval Michael Denton's 1985 version of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical concepts.

--The idea being, I assume, if we were to restructure this statement a little, that "no biblically derived religion can really be [brought into concurrence or concordance] with" the concept of chance or randomness.

Am I correct?

"Chance and design are antithetical concepts." Since the Bible clearly teaches that God not only designed the cosmos but upholds its structure on an ongoing basis (Colossians 1:16-17), therefore, biblical Christians can't legitimately believe in randomness or chance.

And yet. And yet.

Is Denton--and is Morris, who quotes him--correct?

A few thoughts crossed my mind as I read that:

• As I've discussed in the past, the Bible speaks of God controlling things that appear random to us:
  
  
  • "The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD." --Proverbs 16:33
     
  • "He gives snow like wool; He scatters the frost like ashes." --Psalm 147:16
     
  • "Praise the LORD . . . Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word." --Psalm 148:7-8
  
  The Bible says God controls these things, but, from our perspective, they are "completely random." --They follow patterns. We can predict probabilities. But there appears to be no strong rhyme or reasons by which we could predict what is going to happen at a particular moment.
   
• Pushing forward with the idea of randomness-within-limits (or randomness-under-pattern, or randomness-under-total-control-of-an-outside [sovereign]-power): What about random-number-generators? I mean, even human beings have created such devices or programmed such programs. They are under control; their randomness is within limits. --So what's the big deal about the God of the Bible being sovereign and creating a universe in which he upholds matter to act regularly and consistently as a cosmic "random number generator" on a cosmic/physicalist level . . . in the same way that human-made random number generators act regularly and consistently to produce mere digits? . . . What is the problem with God--either directly or indirectly (through the matter that He created and upholds--being able to control events in such a way that they appear to follow regular, and broadly predictable patterns, yet "only" in a probabilistic sense--i.e., so that they appear to be truly random?
  
  Couldn't such an insight be part of what God is referring to in Scriptures like Jeremiah 33:3 ["Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know."] or Deuteronomy 29:29 ["The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."] . . . not to mention Job 42:3, Psalm 139:6, or Proverbs 30:18 which all speak of knowledge that is "too wonderful" for human beings?

I think the young-earth creationists cannot legitimately use the issue of "chance" or "randomness" as an argument "from the Bible" against evolution!

Meanwhile, however, I think it would be helpful for the Christian evolutionary community to do more work on the theology of chaos, randomness, and chance--and the implications of such a theology. It would be helpful if they would pursue such work first at the graduate philosophical/academic level and then communicate the results of their work on a popular level . . . for adults and children.

Grill the ID Scientist

Thought I should make this known to as many as possible. I actually received this back on 5/12, but, obviously, I didn't pass it along.

Upcoming event:

"Grill the ID Scientist"
Tuesday, June 9
7 PM, University of Pittsburgh Campus (room TBA)

A network of scientists known as the Intelligent Design (ID) community continues to question basic tenets of Darwinism and origin-of-life scenarios. Not only are their views controversial in scientific circles; many in the evangelical world, who might be expected to embrace ID, are also not sold on the value of the ID program.

This event brings together a panel of scientists associated with the ID movement. After a short presentation, the bulk of the evening will be given to questions from the audience. This event is aimed primarily at researchers, graduate students and advanced undergrad students in the sciences. It is open to anyone, but participants must register in advance by sending email to David Snoke. In the event of limited seating, preference will be given to grad students and researchers in the life sciences.

Panel:
Doug Axe, Biologic Institute (formerly of Cambridge University)
Michael Behe, Lehigh University
Ann Gauger, Biologic Institute
David Keller, University of New Mexico
John Sanford, Cornell University
+ others TBA

moderated by David Snoke, University of Pittsburgh

I'm bummed I'll have to miss it. I hope they will make recordings or transcripts available.

A little more about evolution . . . and creation . . . and Intelligent Design

I haven't posted lately on this topic. Partially because I have been preoccupied with so many other subjects.

But I continue to read a bit on the subject. I've picked up a few additional books. . . . And I have continued to follow an email discussion list I'm on in which some highly educated Old-Earth Creationists (primarily ID advocates, as far as I can tell) discuss their views.

A few issues have bubbled high enough above the surface that I feel compelled to comment.

1. I just discovered that Denyse O'Leary wrote a blog post at the end of last year in which she notes,
   

   Freelance reporter Suzan Mazur (Scoop, March 4[, 2008]) pulls back the veil on one of evolution's little known secrets--Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution:
   

   It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature—let's call them ‘the Altenberg 16’—who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate ‘other’ new phenomena.

   Mazur explores the views of the Altenberg 16 "self-organization proponents" and their attack on Darwinism as they desperately search for another materialistic explanation for life in a six-part E-Book.

   Frankly, I am grateful for this post because it encourages me in--what I have been thinking I need to do--maintaining my generally agnostic view with respect to origins . . . at least with respect to physical mechanisms.
    
2. I thought I should encourage you, potentially, to follow the reference to Mazur's e-book. Mazur writes, in her introduction:
   

   No one knows how life began, but so-called theories of evolution are continually being announced. This book, The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up? exposes the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover that elusive mechanism of evolution.

   Nice start. Helpful summary of her subject matter.
   
   But look where she goes!
   

   Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: "ham-fisted", "looney Marxist hangover", "secular creationist", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "quack", "crackpot". . .
   
   In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.
   
   Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is next year’s [i.e., at the time of writing, 2009's --JAH] celebration of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species – the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection, i.e., survival of the fittest, that was foisted on us almost 150 years ago.
   
   Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. It also knows that self-assembly is real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe – like the snowflake (non-living). It does this without external guidance.
   
   And that the Hydra (living), for example, can self-organize its scattered cells even after being forced through a sieve. Yet, science elites continue to term self-assembly and self-organization "woo woo".
   
   Coinciding with the 2009 Darwinian celebration, MIT will publish a book by 16 biologists and philosophers meeting in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in July [2008 --JAH] to discuss a reformulation of the theory of evolution. That’s the mansion made famous by Konrad Lorenz’s imprinting experiments, where Lorenz got his geese to follow him because they sensed he was their mother.
   
   The symposium’s title is "Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?", although the event is expected to be the actual kickoff of an evolution remix.
   
   Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born. . . .
   
   But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.
   
   Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants? . . .

   --Bold emphases mine. --JAH

   I haven't read the entire e-book. I'm just sayin': It looks like it's got some fascinating content!
   
   ******
   Oh. Before I stop on this subject: I should probably note what actually happened at the A-16 conference since that was 10 months ago.
   
   I have to confess, I'm not impressed. Though perhaps I "simply" don't know enough. But here's what Massimo Pigliucci, the conference sponsor, wrote about it:
   

   By incorporating [a series of exciting empirical and conceptual advances that have marked the field [of evolutionary theory] in recent time] into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
   

   Really. Truly. That's the "final statement emerging from the Altenberg workshop, agreed upon by all 16 participants"!
   
   Are you impressed?
   
   Yeah. I didn't think so. Nor am I.
   
   Oh. you wonder what the "exciting empirical and conceptual advances" might be?
   
   Here they are:
   

   The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.
   
   The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

   Sorry, that still doesn't do it for me.
    
3. Then there is this post about Philip S. Skell's Forbes magazine article, The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution.
   
   Skell writes:
   

   It is widely accepted that the growth of science and technology in the West, which accounts for the remarkable advances we enjoy today in medicine, agriculture, travel, communications, etc., coincided with the separation, several centuries ago, of the experimental sciences from the dominance of the other important fields of philosophy, metaphysics, theology and history.
   
   Yet many popularizers of Darwin's theory now claim that without the study of ancient biological history, our students will not be prepared to engage in the great variety of modern experimental activities expected of them. The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.
   
   It is more crucial to consider history in the fields of astrophysics and geology than in biology.

   . . . And he goes on from there.
   
   I would recommend either Mats' blog post about Skell's article or Skell's article itself.
   
   *******
   As with my last comment: I should probably note that Mats seems like a very interesting person. He seems to be Italian Portuguese (see his Blogger profile and notice he lives in Lisbon; check out the "background" language on his site as well); yet he is very tuned-in to American society. It appears he identifies himself as an evolutionist (scan down to the very end of the post and look at item #4), yet he writes some of the most thoughtful and "deep" anti-evolutionary/pro-young-earth-creationist stuff I think I have ever seen. (Check out his recent Are Secular Geologists Ready to Consider a Global Flood? post.)
    
4. From the email discussions: One member wrote,
   

   Here's my take on ID and Natural Selection:
   
   "Intelligent Design" is a tautology.
   
   "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron.
   
   The word "selection" is an anthropomorphism which implies intelligence - a series of items are evaluated against some standard and either approved or discarded. The term "natural selection" thus implicitly attributes such divine action to nature, causing the word "nature" to suddenly have two parallel and opposite meanings. It can mean "random, undirected process" or "intelligent, directed process", depending on the whims of the user. As such, the word "nature" loses its meaning. Linguistically, the correct terminology is "random patterning". While I believe that patterns still inherently reflect design, I am willing to concede this word to the evolutionists in order to have fruitful debate. At least "patterning" does not imply directionality, as "selection" does. And "random" in its popular usage cannot hold any implication of intelligence, no matter what noun it describes.
   
   TE's [i.e., theistic evolutionists] survive on this sleight of logic - they can truly and rationally talk of "natural selection", although issues of pan(en)theism inevitably crop up time and again, even if often hotly denied, then certain often indirectly implied.
   
   Darwinians should not be allowed to use the phrase "natural selection" at all and should be restricted to "random patterning". It would be interesting to see if any could manage to do so for longer than a few minutes at a time.

   I love that: "random patterning"! :-)
    
5. Okay. Finally: I just got a copy of Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation. Whether he convinces me about the need to believe in a truly evolutionary creationism or not (something I am disinclined to expect at this time!), I am finding his discussion--even as I found Glover's and the Haarsmas' discussions--fascinating and useful.
   
   Just in Chapter 1, as he lays out the subject matter he wants to address, I think his distinctions are helpful:
   

   Today the origin of the universe and life is often seen in Black-and-white categories. For many people, the cosmos and its living organisms came about through one of two ways--either evolution or creation. In other words, the subject of origins is cast as a dichotomy. . . . It is an issue that is divided into only two simple positions. Regrettably, this either/or type of thinking fuels the popular perception that modern science and Christian faith are entrenched in an endless war. . . ..
   
   A critical factor that fuels the origins dichotomy is the popular use of the terms evolution and creation. These words are often merged inadvertently with concepts that narrow the range of meaning. This problem is known as the conflation of ideas. Defined specifically, conflation is the carelessly collapsing of distinct categories into one single poorly conceived notion. For many people today, evolution is blended with a godless worldview, and creation is dissolved into a strict six-day literal interpretation of Gen 1. Consequently, the common use of these terms limits thinking and traps the discussion and a never-ending evolution vs. creation debate. . . .
   
   For most people, the term evolution refers to a biological theory of molecules-to-people that is driven only by blind chance. this word is conflated with an atheistic worldview--the belief that God does not exist and that our existence has no ultimate meaning or purpose. Understandably, this popular use of evolution produces strong negative reactions within the Church. But for some Christians, evolution is simply the method through which the Lord created life, including humans who bear His Image. . . .

   What fascinates me is how Lamoureux goes on to distinguish two "types" of evolution, what he calls teleological and dysteleological evolution, the one having a plan and purpose (teleological more or less means, literally, "having an end" (i.e., goal or purpose)) and the other one having no plan or purpose, the one reflecting intelligent design and the other no intelligent design.
   
   Somehow, I find that simply having a precise vocabulary to describe a concept helps me to understand the concept.
   
   *******
   Finally
    
6. A few nights ago, I was thinking again about the issue of God's sovereignty and chance . . . as the Haarsmas discuss it here and here.
   
   I got thinking about this because Sarita has been following the Denver Nuggets as they pursue the NBA championship. She wondered aloud whether they had thrown Game 4 in their series with Dallas simply so they could come back to Denver and win in front of the home crowd. I mean, really: they are up by 14 points at the half and then they lose by two?
   
   Anyway. That's Sarita. She's a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of things.
   
   But I got thinking: Can anyone be sure whether the team threw the game or not?
   
   And what about the teams where, historically, we know they threw games--like the Chicago "Black Sox" scandal of 1919? Or the widespread game fixing that went on in college basketball in the late '40s and '50s. --Can the fans tell that this is going on?
   
   Often not!
   
   So--to borrow and modify a phrase from Ken Ham--if fallible human beings are able to fix games and throw games and make certain events appear totally "random" or "unpredictable" even while they are very intentional . . . why can't we believe that God could make physical events (mutations or "self-assemblies") appear "totally random" even though they are not?
   
   Just a thought.

Okay. I'm done.

Thanks for listening!

Interesting article

Saw this in our local paper:

Creationist museum makes odd selection

By Dylan T. Lovan The Associated Press

A Kentucky museum that rejects evolution is making room for an odd guest: Charles Darwin. . . .

Museum founder Ken Ham says he wants to show that creationists accept natural selection--but that doesn't mean they accept evolution theory. . . .

I want to honor "fair use." The article is rather short . . . and cryptic. And probably somewhat misleading due to a failure on the author and/or editor's part to clarify exactly what Ham means.

But it is rather interesting!

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 3 - Theological Issues Related to Evolution

#5 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2c - Evolution and Creation - Excursus 2: Science. First post in the series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

In his introductory chapter, "An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?," Keith Miller notes three primary theological issues that Christian evolutionists have to address if they are to be taken seriously by evangelical Christians.

1. The idea of the "God of the gaps."
    
2. The concepts of chance, randomness, or "accident."
    
3. The role of what we might call "natural evil"--the problem raised by young-earth creationists in such passages as this from Answers in Genesis:
   

   [Interpreting the Bible in terms of an old earth] means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Called/restoration framework within which the Gospel is presented in the Bible.

With respect to the "God of the Gaps," Miller writes (p. 8):

[The perspective] that God's action or involvement in creation is confined to those events the lack of scientific explanation [or that m]eaningful divine action is equated with breaks in chains of cause-and-effect processes . . . has been called a "God-of-the-gaps" theology. God's creative action is seen only, or primarily, in the gaps of human knowledge where scientific description fails.

With this perspective, each advance in scientific understanding results in a corresponding diminution of divine action, and conflict between science and faith is assured. However, this is a totally unnecessary state of affairs. God's creative activity is clearly identified in Scripture as including natural processes. According to Scripture, God is providentially active in all natural processes, and all of creation declares the glory of God.

The evidence for God's presence in creation, for the existence of a creator God, is declared to be precisely those everyday "natural events" experienced by us all. Thus Christians should not fear causal natural explanations. Complete scientific descriptions of events or processes should pose no threat to Christian theism. Rather, each new advance in our scientific understanding can be matched with excitement and praise at the revelation of God's creative hand.

With respect to Chance, etc. (pp. 8-9):

Chance or random processes are often seen as antithetical to God's action. Many people understand "chance" as implying a purposeless, meaningless, and accidental event. However, scientifically, chance events are simply those whose occurrence cannot be predicted based on initial conditions and known natural laws. Such events are describable by probabilistic equations. . . .

The Bible . . . describes a God who is sovereign over all natural events, even those we attribute to chance such as the casting of lots [see Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD." --JAH] or tomorrow's weather [the broad mechanisms of which are understood and explained by modern science as related to heat from the Sun interacting with Earth's atmosphere and land formations, its oceans, and so forth . . . causing air and sea currents, certain patterns of evaporation and condensation, etc. . . . But yet see Psalm 147:16--"He gives snow like wool; He scatters the frost like ashes." Psalm 148:7-8--"Praise the LORD . . . Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word." And so forth. Obviously, God is in control of the events and conditions that modern science describes--rightly--in terms of "chance" and "probability." --JAH] . . .

Regardless of how one understands the manner in which God exercises sovereignty over natural process[es], [once one understands God's intimate involvement in these processes,] chance events certainly [ought to] pose no theological barrier to God's action in and through [an] evolutionary process.

And then, finally, with respect to what may be called "natural evil," but is, actually, primarily a question of animal death before the Fall, I would like to to quote from Edward B. Davis' essay (the third in the book) titled, "The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals."

Davis writes (pp. 43-45) about the work of several leading late 18th and early 19th century American scientists who sought to bring their understanding of science into line with their conservative interpretations of Scripture. Among them:

Both [Benjamin] Silliman¹ and [Edward] Hitchcock², like Galileo before them, believed that theologians simply could not interpret the Bible correctly without input from scientists, and many theologians shared their view. As Charles Hodge (1797-1878) saw it three decades later, "we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science." [I should note: Charles Hodge was one of the leading conservative American theologians of the 19th century.--JAH] For concordists the principal point of contact between geology in the biblical story of creation was the fact that the Earth was much older than 6,000 years; thus they had to confront the crucial theological problem of explaining the existence of animal death before the fall of Adam. This very issue is still at the heart of young-Earth creationism in our own day, motivating its adherents perhaps more than any other issue to reject old-Earth interpretations of Genesis.

Hitchcock dealt with this forthrightly. . . . "Not only geology," he noted, "but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the fall of man, but from the original Constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food." Even herbivores "must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant," not to mention the destruction of "millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe."

"In short," he added . . ., "death could not excluded from the world, without an entire change the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic account, to place one man fell." Furthermore, on biblical grounds alone one might have to allow animal death before the fall. Not only does Romans 5:12 explicitly limit the scope of death to humanity; unless Adam himself had seen death, how could the threat of death for disobedience have real force? [Edward Hitchcock, Elementary Geology,8th ed. (New York: Newman, 1847), pp. 299-300.] Therefore Hitchcock believed . . . the fall introduced humans to spiritual death, not animals to physical death.

For what it's worth, this is the theological view with which I was raised. And I see no Scriptures--Old or New Testament--that require a different view. I can see how or why a young earth view can be brought into line with the idea that every form of death of man and animal was brought about as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, but, frankly, I sense there may be stronger reasons--both biblical and scientific--for limiting the implications of Adam's and Eve's sin to humans and the spiritual realm than to suggest their sin produced both spiritual and physical death for human beings and the entire physical realm.

--To be continued. Of course!

---

¹ Look up the standard encyclopedic references, and you'll find nothing about Silliman's Christian commitment or, even, his involvement in geology or "natural history." Davis, however, urges us to read John C. Greene's "Protestantism, Science, and American Enterprise: Benjamin Silliman's Moral Universe" in Benjamin Silliman and His Circle: Studies in the Influence of Benjamin Silliman on Science in America, ed. Leonard G. Wilson (New York: Science History Publications, 1979), pp. 11-27.

Davis summarizes Silliman's life:

[O]ne morning in July 1801, Silliman happened upon his father's friend Timothy Dwight, the evangelical president of Yale College, who asked him on the spot to become Yale's first professor of chemistry and natural history, a post he assumed in September 1802. Although some other scientific subjects had been taught at Yale in the 18th century, Dwight recognized the importance of natural history and desire to fill the position with a person of solid Christian. Or, who would use science as an ally of faith.

To prepare himself for the job, Silliman studied chemistry and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and attended lectures and chemistry at Edinburgh University, where he met Robert Darwin (father of Charles Darwin). In later years he was influenced by the "concordists" approach to Genesis and geology advocated by Edinburgh geologist Robert Jameson.

At Yale, Silliman enjoyed a long, distinguished career as a highly influential teacher (many leading American scientists were his former pupils), founding editor of the American Journal of Science and the Arts (known in its early years as "Silliman's Journal"), and president of the Association of American Geologists, which in 1848 became the American Association for the Advancement of Science. . . .

He was perhaps best known to the general public . . . as a popular lecturer throughout the length and breadth of the early republic, in which connection he captivated audiences with his love of science coupled with his obvious love of God.

"Admiring as we do the perfection of science exhibited continually by the lecturer," commented a Boston reporter who had heard him give a lecture in 1843, "we have yet a higher love and reverence for that beautiful exhibition of divine truth which Mr. Silliman constantly alludes." This, he added, "is the source of our respect for this accomplished Professor, in comparison with which our admiration for his scientific attainments sinks into insignificance."

² Hitchcock's religious views are somewhat more readily recognized. Wikipedia, for example, notes that "His chief project . . . was natural theology, which attempted to unify and reconcile science and religion, focusing on geology."

Davis writes:

From 1821 to 1825 [Hitchcock] was pastor of a Congregational Church in Conway, Massachusetts, before ill health forced his dismissal. The following four months studying with Silliman, he became professor of chemistry and natural history--later professor of geology and natural theology as well as president--at Amherst College, where he remained until his death.

Appointed geologist for the states of Massachusetts and Vermont, his Report on the Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology of Massachusetts (1833) is the first of its kind. Soon afterward, Hitchcock reported on the first dinosaur tracks ever found, though he and others (including Silliman) words.

Hitchcock served as first president of the Association of American Geologists and was a founding member of the National Academy of Sciences. This text book, Elementary Geology, was reprinted at least 30 times after the first edition of 1840, and The Religion of Geology (1851), is most complete statement of natural theology--the subject closest to his heart--was widely read on both sides of the Atlantic.

Question that bothers me: Why have I never heard of these men before?

I see the need for some new directions in scientific education for Christians!

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2a - Evolution and Creation

#2 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

From Miller's opening essay, An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?

Let's start with the definition of creation, as Miller understands it. He says, "'Creation' refers to everything to which God has given being. As a verb, 'creation' refers to the past and continuing action of God to bring into existence all that is and has been. A closely related theological concept is that of 'Providence.' This doctrine include several distinct aspects: God's sustaining and upholding of creation; defined cooperation with creaturely action; and the governance of creation toward God's desired ends."

Having defined creation in this manner, let us move on to the concept of evolution.

Miller defines evolution as "the descent with modification of all living things from a common ancestor. That is, the history of life can be envisioned as a branching tree of life in which all living things are linked together in a genealogical relationship that extends back to the first living cells."

For someone like me, coming from a young-earth creationist social milieu, I have to confess this definition almost takes my breath away! Does he really intend to try to justify such a thoroughgoing, all-in definition? I mean, there are no holds barred, are there?!

Having provided this kind of bold definition, however, Miller then seeks to help us come along on his journey:

• Understood in this way, the word "evolution" includes any of a number of proposed mechanisms by which evolutionary change [may have] occurred.
• [E]volutionary theory does not address whether, or how, God might act to guide such processes.
• Despite the long theological dialogue with evolutionary theory, many people continue to view evolution as inherently anti-theistic and inseparably wedded to a worldview that denies God and objective morality.
• Although this understanding of the meaning of evolutionary theory is widely promoted by individuals both inside and outside of the scientific community, its conflation of a physical naturalism with evolution should be rejected on philosophical, theological, and historical grounds.
• The equation of evolutionary theory with a philosophy that denies the reality of anything beyond matter and energy not only is false but is an impediment to quality scientific and theological thinking.

It is my intention, in my next post, to address some of the key ramifications of these last two items.

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction

I continue to read about evolution.

Both the Haarsmas and Glover included numerous references to Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller, a collection of 21 essays written by some 19 orthodox Christian scholars.

The book is broken into three parts: a discussion of the biblical, historical and scientific context for thinking of the world in terms of an evolving creation; the scientific evidence for an evolving creation; and, finally, a discussion of the philosophical and theological issues commonly raised in connection with discussions of evolution.

In his preface, Miller writes:

This book should be a valuable resource for anyone interested in science/faith issues--particularly those surrounding evolution. It provides access to perspectives and data from a wide range of disciplines, as well as an entry into an extensive and, for the most part, little-known literature. The book should be an especially important resource for Christian college and university students. Often students are seriously challenged with evolutionary concepts for the first time in their college classes. This can be a crisis experience for students who do not have any Christian models of faith/science integration to draw from. . . .

While all are Orthodox Christians with a high view of Scripture, the contributors to this volume represent a relatively diverse range of theological views. There are significant differences of opinion among us. The views expressed by any individual author thus do not necessarily represent the views of all, or even the majority of, those Christians who accept an evolutionary description of Earth and life history. But they all represent well-informed and thoughtful integrations of science and faith that respect the authority of Scripture and the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

I would agree with this description.

It is my intent, over the coming days, weeks, and, possibly, months, to share some of the things that I find most interesting in this book as I read it. So I expect I will just jump in. "See you" in a little bit.

Something more about the theory of evolution

Following my series of posts, January 21-28, about the Haarsmas' book Origins and Gordon Glover's Beyond the Firmament, I have been thinking I should probably say a bit directly about my views on origins, now, as a result of my reading.

Someone wrote she was "disturbed that [I] seem to be leaning more towards evolutionary thinking" based on my post yesterday where I said that "I don't sense [the letter I sent to Arthur Miller] is as relevant today as it was [a month ago]" since "my . . . perspectives on . . . the potential 'awfulness' of evolution have obviously changed."

I suggested that, before she becomes too agitated about my apparent shift, she should read my posts from the 21st through the 28th themselves.

Frankly, at this time I think the primary shifts that have occurred in my own thinking have to do, first, with my view of Old Testament cosmology (I am strongly inclined to believe that Glover and the Haarsmas are correct: the Bible's primary cosmological viewpoint is the same as that held by the Jews' neighbors in the Ancient Near East), and, second, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, and, as such, ought not to produce any heartburn in the hearts or minds of Christians.

Beyond that, I think I am able to "embrace" the theory about the same way I seem to "embrace" most scientific theories: with admiration for those who are pursuing the scientific evidence both for and against its current formulation, and with large dollops of ignorance, wonderment and questions all at the same time.

I think I have some (probably pretty good) understanding of the theory. I can "see" the evidence and can understand why the theory "makes sense." But I also "hear" and "see" what many (apparently qualified and respected) scientists have to say about problems with the theory as it currently stands.

Okay.

So I "embrace it lightly."

As far as I'm aware, it's the best scientific theory for us to consider at this time.

I'm unqualified, really, to attack it on scientific grounds.

I am unwilling to attack it on theological grounds (for reasons pretty well expressed in my series of posts from the last couple of weeks).

If some qualified scientists come up with some minor--or radical--revisions to the current formulation, I'll be happy to consider those as well. The scientific arguments will have to proceed without me, because I'm simply too uneducated in the matter to "take a position" either for or against.

But if the current theory continues to hold sway against the proposed revisions, that's fine with me. And if the current theory is revolutionized by the proposed revisions: that's fine with me as well.

I don't really care.

Maybe that's the biggest change.

The debates don't worry me anymore--no more than do the debates (whatever debates they may be!) between meteorologists concerning weather forecasting, or between materials scientists concerning the development of nano-technology and super-conductors, or between medical researchers concerning cholesterol and Alzheimer's Disease.

I want the researchers to "play fair" with the evidence.

I want them to report accurately whatever they find.

I would dearly love for them to speak up if and when the news media (or anyone else) twists their findings or hypes them beyond what the evidence would properly permit.

But as long as they are doing their jobs within the legitimate "rules of science," I am perfectly happy with the situation.

I believe that is a very different position from where I was three weeks ago.

********

Oh. One more change.

I need to present the reasons for this shift sometime in the future, but I will say, at this point, that I see no scientific reason to embrace young-earth creationism at this time. I am open to hearing scientific evidence for a young earth, but at this time I don't see any compelling evidence for holding such a view. I do see heavy scientific evidence pointing to an old earth.

For what it's worth.

That's where I am at this time.

A change of interpretation on CHEC

Due to some private correspondence, I was inspired, as it were, to go back through what little correspondence I have related to the Sonlight and CHEC situation. And, as hinted at in my response to the 40^th comment on that post (go to the comments screen and do a search for "John Holzmann"), I have begun to think become convinced there probably is a different interpretation to be placed on the facts of this case. [Strikethroughs and bolds because the view I was beginning to form as I first started writing this post has now--just a couple of hours ago--been confirmed . . . as you will see.]

I think the question I raised in my original post (about who controls your thinking) still remains. But I am beginning to think now convinced there is "something more" going on than what I suggested in my original post. And I agree with the commenter to whom I replied: I, too, find it "odd that [CHEC] wouldn’t just come out and say this when [we] asked for clarification."

Or maybe not.

Maybe it's not that anyone at CHEC is was attempting to do anything nefarious. Rather, there is was, possibly, some real disagreement on the part of those who are were making the decisions at the very top. [And, as I have become convinced, now, as I prepare this post for posting, the organization was still working through its philosophy and approach throughout the time that Sonlight was "caught in the riptide," as it were. --You can now read the historical narrative contained here, or "simply" jump to the last-quoted letter from January 28^th and see the conclusion.]

Before I begin, I should note. In going back through my correspondence, I discovered my memory of chronology, as expressed in my January 20th post, was off. The Sonlight banning first cropped up in December of '07. That was after I had tendered my resignation to Sonlight, but before it became effective. [And perhaps I should add: we felt a tremor about six months prior to the outright banning. Despite Sonlight having paid for and been confirmed that it had three booths at the convention, when the Sonlight representative arrived at the 2007 convention, she found she had been downgraded to two booths. Moreover, at some point during the convention, a representative from CHEC came by and told her she was not permitted to display certain Usborne books. "This is a Christian organization and you may not display those books in our conference hall." --Our representative didn't tell me about those conversations until mid-January last year. But, she noted, those incidents "should have told me Sonlight was in trouble."]

Anyway.

My first follow-up letter to CHEC's executive director, Kevin Swanson, was as follows:

From: John Holzmann
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:11 PM
To: Kevin Swanson
Subject: Strange letter . . .

Kevin:

. . . Our conference coordinator, Jessica Brown, forwarded me a letter she received from Mike Cheney. It seems to communicate some rather serious concerns about Sonlight Curriculum--either the company, the curriculum, our behavior at last year's conference, or something. Yet Mike says, "It is our policy not to provide . . . precise [information]" regarding matters about which the committee has concerns.

In other words, it appears, we are not to be granted the opportunity to discover our failures, repent of any wrongdoing, make right anything we have done wrong, or to seek mutual understanding if and to whatever extent there may have been some kind of misunderstanding that led committee members to the opinions they hold and the decisions they have made with respect to Sonlight.

Because of Mike's apparent inability (based on the committee's unwillingness) to discuss these matters, I figure I have no alternative but to communicate with you to see if you may be able to shed some light on the deeper issues so we might fix what is wrong and do better in the future.

Mike gave no indication that he had sent a copy of his letter to you or to anyone else at CHEC, so I would like to copy it here for your benefit. [NOTE: The letter included no date.]

Christian
Home
Educators
of Colorado

Sonlight Curriculum
Jessica Brown
8042 S Grant Way
Littleton, CO 80122

Dear Jessica,

The vendor committee reviews all current vendors who have placed a deposit for next year's conference considering a variety of factors, such as:

• The overall worldview represented in the product(s) or service(s) offered,
   
• The suitability of the product/service for the homeschooling market,
   
• The creativity, originality, utility, and professionalism of the product offering.

This process is challenging and requires much prayerful consideration as we try to balance the vision of direction of CHEC with the needs of you, our partners in ministry.

Unfortunately, at times we are lead [sic] to the realization that a partnership we have had in the past is not the best fit for a partnership in the future. The vendor committee has determined to deny your request to be a vendor with us at next year's conference. The vendor committee's decision is final. Our decisions are made by a volunteer committee. The members provide an opinion individually and together they arrive at a consensus on each vendor applying for the hall.

It is our policy not to provide the precise reasons for the rejection. This is because those on the committee may have different rationale [sic] for their vote.

Although these letters are always difficult to write, the vendor committee was unanimous in their decision.

Please be aware that CHEC provides other avenues by which you may showcase your product or service to the homeschool community in the Rocky Mountain region, via advertising in the conference program, the hand out bag, and CHEC's Homeschool magazine, the Update.

We regret that we cannot accommodate your product offering in our vendor hall this year. We did not charge the credit card number provided at the conference for your deposit.

Sincerely,
[Signature]
Mike Cheney
Conference Coordinator

10431 South Parker Road, Parker, Colorado 80134 * 720-842-4852 * 1-877-842-CHEC * chec.org

I hope you can understand not only how strange, but distressing such a letter might sound to a company such as ours that has taken pleasure in its 17-year history of serving hundreds of thousands of (primarily evangelical Christian) homeschoolers the world over, including thousands of evangelical Christian ambassadors . . . who are working in some of the world's most difficult contexts.

Knowing our history, our commitments and our clientele, I (and we, as a company) seriously wonder: What could Mike possibly mean when he says the committee has been led [by God? Through "much prayerful consideration"] to "the realization that a partnership [with Sonlight] is not the best fit for . . . the future"?

• Somehow our "overall worldview" has become unacceptable according to CHEC's doctrinal standards?
   
• CHEC has deemed Sonlight no longer suitable for homeschoolers?
   
• We've somehow lost our touch and are no longer creative, original, useful or professional enough? . . . (????)
   
• Something else?

We are completely undone!

More confusing: How is it possible that the committee has "realized" that "a partnership we have had in the past" with our company--a company that must be failing substantially in one or more areas "such as" those highlighted in Mike's letter . . . --How is it possible that the committee can "realize" a company is failing so thoroughly that it can no longer exhibit at the CHEC convention, yet that same company is still "good enough" to be featured in the conference program, hand out bag, and/or CHEC's magazine?

Also: What should we make of the unanimous and (apparently) blanket rejection into "the future" alongside the (apparently) more limited statement about the committee's inability to "accommodate [our] product offering in our vendor hall this year"?

I hope you can understand the confusion this letter has caused us. Should we figure the committee has cast us into the outer darkness forever, so it is a waste of time even to apply in the future? Or . . . (???)

And in terms of our ability to re-forge a "partnership" with CHEC: How might we go about proving our renewed (possible) worthiness to the committee? And/or when might you suggest we could expect it would be reasonable to think we might be forgiven by the committee for whatever errors we have committed or wrongdoings we have perpetrated?

Thanks for any insight you may be able to offer.

Sincerely,

John

John Holzmann, Co-Owner
Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd. - "The way you wish you'd been taught. Guaranteed."

His reply:

From: Kevin Swanson
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:19 PM
To: John Holzmann
Subject: Re: Strange letter . . .

John,

This is the first I've heard of this. I will look into it and get back with you.

Thanks for the heads up.

Kevin S.

Two days later he wrote,

From: Kevin Swanson
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:26 PM
To: John Holzmann
Subject: Re: Strange letter . . .

Dear John,

I was surprised to see this move on the part of the vendor committee.

Typically, our volunteer vendor committee works independently and makes their often politically-sensitive decisions independent of myself and the board of CHEC. Believe me, I didn't know they were moving in the direction of the present action. As CHEC is a large volunteer organization, I allow a great deal of independence and leeway in decision making.

What you received is a standard form letter sent to those that are rejected. At this point, I need to do some digging, meet with the committee, find out some more of the specifics, and get back with you.

I plan to bring the CHEC board in on this as well, as I'm sure most if not all of the board members were unaware of this action.

Sincerely,

Kevin Swanson

Sometime about January 22 of 2008, I was informed some representatives from CHEC would like to meet with me and so our general manager and I met with CHEC's executive director, Kevin Swanson, their president, Bill Roach, and Kevin's right-hand apprentice--Kevin's son--at the Sonlight offices on Saturday, February 2, 2008.

At that meeting, Kevin and Bill said they felt they needed to review our materials. So we gave them what we thought were representative samples of our program, including a couple of Instructors Guides and a few of the books we publish.

On Monday, 3/17/08, I wrote the following:

From: John Holzmann
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:05 PM
To: Kevin Swanson
Subject: Sonlight and CHEC

Kevin:

. . . My staff and I would very much like to know how your review of our materials is going. I also thought I would share "the latest" I have heard. . . .

******

One of our customers, apparently, wound up talking with someone "higher up" in CHEC about why CHEC seems to have problems with Sonlight.

Among other things, she said, she was told,

Sonlight has 5 books that are of great concern to the conference board. Apparently one of the books is very anti Christian because it is about a girl author who lies to her parents by writing and having published her works under a pseudo name. At the end the mother finds out the truth and said since it was her daughter it was fine. There were no notes in the IG about the deceit and lying.

???!!!!

I asked Sarita what whoever-it-is could possibly be referring to. She immediately guessed: "Oh! They're complaining about The School Story! . . ." And when she got me the book, I remembered having read it myself. And I have to confess: both Sarita and I are astonished at the alleged complaint.

The story is about Natalie, a middle school-age girl whose mother is an editor in a major children's book publishing house. Natalie has written a novel. Her friend Zoe sees the manuscript and says, "You've got to get this published!" . . . And Zoe decides to act as Natalie's agent. Since both girls are well-familiar with Natalie's mom's employer, Zoe decides she has to get Natalie's book in front of Natalie's mom's employer . . . without the employer (or Natalie's mom) suspecting that Natalie might be the author. (After all, being related to an employee of a company like that could cause problems one way or the other: EITHER they'll reject the book outright for possible conflict-of-interest OR they will face real conflicts-of-interest as they push it through.) . . . So Zoe has the manuscript submitted under a pseudonym . . . and she herself goes to some trouble in order to come across as someone with far more gravitas than a 12-year-old would normally have in the business world. . . .

In the end, the publisher does accept the book for publication and the girls' subterfuge isn't revealed to the publisher (and Natalie's mom) until the publication party at which the author is to be feted. . . .

******

Ay-yi-yi! . . . Let's see. What kinds of notes should we include?

******

Oh. Our customer was told one more thing, she says. Supposedly,

All Sonlight has to do is replace those 4 or 5 books and it will be allowed to submit next year and start back at the bottom.

???!!! . . . Assuming any of these things are true, it is really too bad we haven't heard any of these things from CHEC! . . . And it sure would be nice if we knew which "4 or 5 books" those are!

At this point, however, I think I should note: Sarita is now deeply troubled about the idea of doing business with CHEC in the future.

"For what are we going to be called on the carpet next?" she asks. "The fact that we carry Amelia Bedelia?" (One of our [former] customers returned her curriculum for exactly that reason. The Amelia Bedelia books, she said, "mock people with learning disabilities." . . . Uh. Not really. But how do you respond to such charges? . . . )

******

But honestly, Kevin, based on our conversation, the real, underlying issue has to do with Sonlight's supposed failure to uphold "young earthism," doesn't it? And if so, I would like to make a formal complaint about how CHEC--and the CHEC convention committee--is handling this issue.

I looked again this morning. There is nothing in CHEC's Statement of Faith about a commitment to young-earthism. Nothing. So if the committee really has no such basis for judging Sonlight on this ground, does it? Or, if it does, then shouldn't these doctrinal commitments be stated publicly, so all the world can see?

But, please, if CHEC is determined to narrow its faith statement so much, may I challenge you--an OPC pastor: Consider carefully how far you are willing to permit this kind of thing to go. Will CHEC next ban anyone who fails to uphold adults-only baptism? Premillennial dispensationalism? Dresses only? Head-coverings for women? Quiverfull thinking? Not teaching your daughters how to drive? . . .

Where will this kind of judgment of its vendors' "Christian/biblical thinking" stop for CHEC?

If CHEC is going to ban Sonlight Curriculum, a company that serves--and has served--tens of thousands of evangelical Christians, including thousands of missionaries from many of the leading evangelical Christian mission organizations, it seems there is no end to where it will go in judging fellow believers and their apparent lack of discernment.

******

One last comment.

I have to confess: this whole "process" has left a bad taste in our mouths.

For your consideration, as the CEO of the organization: Is CHEC conducting its affairs in a Christ-like manner? Would Jesus condemn someone without explanation and with a specific demand that the condemned not attempt to gain understanding for the basis on which she/he/they have been condemned? Would Jesus show the kind of partiality it appears Sonlight is being shown (in which our materials are being reviewed in detail for whatever--it appears--committee members can find to complain about, while others seem to get a pass)? . . .

Thanks so much for listening to me!

Sincerely,

He replied:

From: Kevin Swanson
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:05 AM
To: John Holzmann
Subject: status

Hi John,

. . . I have no idea who this woman talked to. We have in no uncertain terms instructed our staff not to speak to this issue at all, and to refer all questions to Bill and myself. Whatever she heard is definitively nothing I would recognize from the board/exec staff discussions. At this point, if people are not speaking to Kevin Swanson or Bill Roach on any of this, they are speaking with the rumor mill.

Now... to where I am... I have had an opportunity to look through some of the materials, and I'm still a little confused, and here's what's got me confused.

Your philosophy statement in the catalogue is excellent. I couldnt' (sic) have written a better one myself. Education is not neutral. Either it will be taught in the fear of God or it will not be taught in the fear of God.

Yet, as I read through the Biology 1 syllabus and workbook that you sent down... I'm not seeing a God-centered metaphysic weaving through it. (I'm certainly willing to be corrected on this perception, John.)

What I see is a verse at the front of it, that seems sort of like a post-it note at the beginning. I see a short summary of Russell Humphrey's view on the age of the earth.

But as far as the content of it... We read Rachel Carson's book... and I'm wondering whether Rachel fears God. Does Rachel maintain the right metaphysic throughout, and if not, does the student ever notice it? Is God missing? Why does Rachel want to preserve the earth? Why do we want to preserve/take dominion over the earth?

At the end of each book, does the student understand both the creation and the providence of God, and is he/she pressed to worship God? In fact, I only found 1 or 2 references to God in the entire syllabus, which seemed strange when the books appear to be written by those of a materialistic/naturalistic mindset.

Now, I know that nobody does any of this perfectly. I can see that Wile tries to include references to "Creation" throughout his books. You see references like "God has designed each living organism's. . . " or "Symbiosis is an incredible testament to God's forethought in designing his creation..."

I know that you like to use books written by materialists/naturalists for their engaging content. But I wonder how you intend to weave the fear of God and a God-centered metaphysic back into the course? If you could just share a little bit on how you intended to do that in the Intro to Biology course, I think that would be helpful for me.

Thanks John. I hope you don't find this too burdensome. I'm trying to assess what is a Christian vs. a secular curriculum, and to tell you the truth I haven't really spent a whole lot of time thinking about it (esp. in the implementation phase.) It's one thing to philosophize, it's a lot harder to implement!

Yours in Christ,
kevin

Now, looking back on this, I see something I had not noticed before. All of a sudden, instead of this being a matter of the vendor committee and the vendor committee's issues in which Kevin maintains a hands-off stance, it became something very much more personal for Kevin. And I understand something that transpired a little over a month ago. But I'll get to that in a moment.
First, here's how I replied to Kevin's email:

From: John Holzmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:15 PM
To: Kevin Swanson
Subject: RE: status

Dear Kevin:

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my email! And for the detailed comments. Please forgive my slow reply. I was away at a conference in California over the weekend through Monday evening, and I've been pretty buried trying to catch up.

In response to your email in general, two things strike me:

1. Your comments are wonderfully thought-provoking and challenge us to do WAY more and WAY better than we have in the past and/or up to the present in terms of, as you put it, “[weaving] a God-centered metaphysic” through our curriculum. Indeed, speaking very candidly, I will confess you have, as it were, “caught us with our shorts down” . . . and I appreciate your pointing that out so as to challenge us to do better.
   
   As we had intended to begin our science curriculum revision within the month, this is perfect timing!
   
   To push this one step further, however (partially in order, potentially, to receive some further clarification on what you may have in mind): let me say that I don't think Sonlight Curriculum provides in the science program you're reviewing answers to questions such as those you have asked:
   
   • “Does Rachel [Carson] maintain the right metaphysic throughout?” [No. Her metaphysic, as you call it—a word which no average American Christian would ever use— . . . Her metaphysic is non-Christian. ]
      
   • “Is God missing?” [Yes.]
      
   • “Why does Rachel want to preserve the earth?” [Because the world is less beautiful, less pleasant, the fewer species there are. . . . ] “Why do we want to preserve/take dominion over the earth?” [For the glory of God; to advance His Kingdom; because He commanded us to. . . . ]
   
   --I have few doubts: virtually all Sonlighters doing the course in question (parents and students) could answer these questions as well as I have.
   
   I get thinking, however: does one’s ability to answer such academic questions have much of anything to do with changing students’ hearts? (I doubt it.) So, then, what do we gain by asking the questions (that they could answer if they were asked)?
   
   Moving on:
   
   • “At the end of each book, does the student understand both the creation and the providence of God?” [I don't know. But, in most cases, since Sonlight has left that up to the students’ parents—much as “the” evangelical church, in general, has left far too much education totally up to [woefully uneducated] parents—I expect not. We could certainly speak more forthrightly and directly to the subject. And I believe Sonlight ought to do such a thing. . . .]
      
   • “Is he/she pressed to worship God?” [Sonlight Curriculum does not take it upon itself directly to press either students or parents to worship God.]
   
   You made a few additional comments:
   
   “I wonder how you intend to weave the fear of God and a God-centered metaphysic back into the course?”
   
   My response: ????
   
   If it were up to me, I'd write everything in a manner similar to how I wrote my Introduction to Biology book, or my Incans, Aztecs & Mayans book (in the Core curriculum). . . . But I'm afraid a steady diet at that level would quickly kill off any young- to middle-elementary child’s desire to continue learning. . . . Personally, I think a few doses, here and there, is probably strong enough medicine. I don't think we need to hit kids (or parents) over the head with our metaphysic at every turn. . . . ]
   
   And then you asked/suggested: “If you could just share a little bit on how you intended to do that in the Intro to Biology course, I think that would be helpful for me.”
   
   Again I reply: ????
   
   The question itself confuses me, Kevin. Are you writing to me personally, as a friend? Functionally, as a brother in Christ and/or an ordained minister of God? Formally, as the president of CHEC?
   
   I am delighted to think that you might ask me such a question as a friend, as a brother in Christ, and/or as a minister of God. But if I assume (as I think I ought) that you are asking this question as the president of CHEC, I am uncertain how to respond and to what end. How would I be helping you? And toward what end do you think I should be seeking to help you?
   
   ******
   
   Well, I have gone very deep in expressing my first “thought.”
   
   Here is (or was) my second “thought” upon reading your email:
    
2. I think there is little question Sonlight is being singled out.
   
   As I wrote to our management team, Kevin:
   
   I think, on the one hand, we should seek to make the Sonlight science program SIGNIFICANTLY more biblical/Christian than it is at present. I think, on the other, it is legitimate for us to cry "foul" about how we are being treated by the CHEC convention committee and/or CHEC’s board.
   
   If you-all want to ban Sonlight from your convention for the kinds of failures you appear to be hinting at in your email, then it sounds as if CHEC needs to shut down its convention, period, don't you think? Because I can't imagine half of the vendors at your convention could answer to the satisfaction you seem to require from us questions about maintaining a “right metaphysic” [or even being concerned about their metaphysics] in their products and services:
   
   
   • RightStart Mathematics?
   • Mathetes Solutions?
   • Classics for Childhood?
   • Drills, Skills & More?
   • BooksBloom?
   • Good Things Company?
   • NEST Family Entertainment?
   • Miller Pads and Paper
   • Thetford Country?
   • Christian Writers Guild?
   • The Family Baker?
   • R & D Educational Center?
   • Progeny Press?
   • Edu-Track Home School
   • CollegePlus! ?
   • Generation Joshua?
   • Exploration Education?
   • Colorado State History by A Helping Hand?
   • Bright Ideas Press?
   • Heart of Dakota Publishing, Inc.?
   • The Critical Thinking Co?
   • Classical Conversations?
   • Math on the Level?
   • Write Minded Education, Inc.?
   • Excellence in Writing?
   • Dragonfly Innovation Inc.?
   • Math-U-See?
   • Teach4Mastery?
   • Rainbow Resource Center, Inc.?
   • Auralog?
   • Jim Hodges Audio Books?
   • Total Language Plus?

I think, in the end, Kevin, I am concerned, simply, that you-all should not only openly state your grounds for making decisions (“Agreement with our Statement of Faith,” for example) but then make your decisions consistently with those standards. I sense, at this time, that CHEC has done, and is doing, neither.

Thanks.

So time passed. Finally--I believe someone at Sonlight pushed for the final get-together, but I may be wrong--on Wednesday evening, 12/17/08, we had a big pow-wow at which Sarita and I along with two of our key employees, Wayne Griess (general manager) and Tim Heil (product development manager) met with Kevin, Bill Roach (CHEC president), Chad Roach (Bill's son and Kevin's assistant), Brenda Kelly (I believe she is head of vendor relations for CHEC(??)), Arthur Miller (current chair of the convention vendor committee) and Steve Vaughan (a regular member of the convention vendor committee).

Sadly, Arthur didn't arrive until long after the meeting began. Indeed, the tone of the meeting was so bad, Sarita and I, both, had objected to feeling we were being brought before the Inquisition. (More on that in a moment.)

What I found strange and disconcerting--beyond the inquisitorial feeling--was how completely out-of-sync with one another were Kevin and Bill's questions with what Arthur said when, after he arrived, he was finally asked for his perspective.

Prior to his arrival, the vendor committee members said very little. Instead, Bill and Kevin took a strong lead. Bill more or less launched the discussion with several leading questions:

• "Would you agree that . . . ?"
   
• "Shouldn't . . . ?"

Bill: "Wouldn't you agree that a Christian curriculum should be written by Christian authors?"

I answered: "I would expect the instructors guides would be written by Christians. But it can certainly use books written by non-Christians!"

Bill: "But shouldn't the majority of the books be written by Christians?"

"Not necessarily. . . . "

There was more, but this little interchange certainly gives you the flavor.

And then Kevin came in with comments and questions about a Christian metaphysic and how Christians need to be incorporating a Christian metaphysic and a Christian ethic into all their teaching. . . .

At the time, I had completely forgotten what he had written back in March. I made no correlations at all. I remained of the opinion that the real issue with the vendor committee was Sonlight's failure to toe the young-earth party line. And I continued under the thought that it was the vendor committee we had to satisfy, not Bill Roach and Kevin Swanson.

Now I realize I was almost certainly wrong in my assessment.

But in the midst of the conversation as it transpired, I objected to the vocabulary Kevin was using in his question, because, in context, it sounded as if he expected us to use words like metaphysic within our curriculum itself . . . even, potentially, at the first and second grades (since it was to our early elementary curriculum that I understood there had been objections). I objected that, though I understood what he was talking about, and I believed that, in fact, Christian Sonlighters do, no doubt, teach their children a Christian metaphysic and ethics, " most people don't use that kind of vocabulary" and we don't either. At least not generally!

I attempted to demonstrate how someone might teach Christian ethics and metaphysics by use of just one of my personal favorite books from the Sonlight K program, a Newbery Honor book, The Hundred Dresses.

As I noted above, through all of this "inquisition," a dialog that lasted, as I recall, for about 40 minutes, Arthur, the current chairman of the vendor committee, was absent. When he finally arrived, I figured maybe we could get down to "real" business. After all, according to Kevin's comments from a year ago, he and Bill and the board had nothing to do with Sonlight's having been banned.

I wish I could remember what the specific question was that elicited the one key comment from Arthur after he arrived. But his answer, I thought, was telling. It was exactly along the lines of what I indicated in my blog post of January 20th: Sonlight includes certain books that present evolution in an attractive light and some child might pick the book up on his or her own (after all, the books are attractive and are meant for consumption by children!) and the child might thus become corrupted by the book. . . .

Kevin wrote me a gracious email later that evening--particularly gracious considering the tone of the meeting (the meeting became quite heated at a couple of points . . . with a Sonlight representative or two definitely expressing some . . . uhhh . . . shall we say . . . frustration at the way the meeting was being conducted):

From: Kevin Swanson
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:16 PM
To: John Holzmann
Subject: Thank you

Dear John, Serena [sic], and Wayne,

Thanks for the time Wednesday night to discuss Sonlight's philosophy.

Despite the apparent difficulties in our discussion, I think it was healthy for our volunteers who work the vendor committee to hear your clarification of the curriculum. I apologize that it came off like an "inquisition." The tension wasn't helpful. We were however, able to get some of our questions answered to our satisfaction, and will seriously reconsider having Sonlight back into the vendor hall. We need a board decision on this, and I will press for it right away (instead of waiting for our next board meeting in February). There is by no means a unity of opinion on the matter amongst us, but I sense some desire for concession on the part of the people who were there.

My hope is that we can listen to each other and humbly consider what is said in Christian love and thoughtfulness, as we all know nobody has complete monopoly on truth here. I trust the sentiment is mutual.

Grace and peace,

Kevin Swanson
Executive Director

I replied the next day, with copies to Wayne, Sarita, and Bill Roach:

From: John Holzmann
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Kevin Swanson
Subject: RE: Thank you

Kevin:

Thank you for [your] gracious email.

I forwarded your email to Wayne and Sarita so they could "hear" your message as well.

Sarita has drafted a response. I thought I would like to take a very different approach than did Sarita in her reply which, I expect, you should receive sometime in the not-too-distant future.

********

You said you hope we can listen to each other and humbly consider what each one is saying.

I would like, first, to note that I believe I heard what you affirmed early on in our conversation last night: Neither you nor Bill had anything to do with Sonlight having been banned from the CHEC conventions. Instead, it was the vendor committee--of whom Arthur is chair and Steve is one among several other committee members.

I would like also to note that, while Bill suggested that we--CHEC and Sonlight--may have to agree that we have had to part ways (the final decision is yet to come), he would like us to agree that our parting is "simply" a result of a philosophical disagreement.

And, clearly, over the course of the meeting, as you and Bill raised questions, the discussion certainly sounded "philosophical."

But, I have to confess, when the person whose perspective makes all the difference--Arthur--opened his mouth, it was clear that Sonlight's having been banned had nothing to do with philosophy. It was, at minimum, all about a major--major--misunderstanding of Sonlight's product and methodologies and/or, at worst, a refusal on the committee's part to permit vendors onto the floor who don't utilize a particular (unspoken) methodology or approach to teaching about matters of controversy.

Reality: there is no way that Sonlight promotes or teaches or advocates for or believes in or recommends Darwinism or Darwinian evolution.

"But," I can imagine Arthur or someone else on the committee complaining, "someone could read [small portions of] certain ones among the hundreds of books you use in your curriculum and see, on those [few] pages, presentations that are blatantly Darwinian!"

And our response: Yes. We use books that include such passages. We use books like that "even" at the kindergarten level. And, as I mentioned (possibly before Arthur arrived, but, possibly, after he came), we deliberately refuse to schedule some of those pages (and usually explain why), and/or we schedule those pages along with copious responsive notes.

The point being: We believe, if we are to help train the next generation to reply to presentations of false doctrine, then we should let the propagators of falsehood speak for themselves . . . and then demonstrate--for parent and child alike--how we would respond.

Talk about discipleship! We are trying to disciple parents and, through the parents, children.

*********

I don't remember who it was who said this--as I recall, it was either Steve or Arthur (or possibly both). Whoever it was, he said he didn't think it was appropriate to broach the topic of evolution at the kindergarten level.

Fair enough. That's his opinion. It's his prerogative to make those determinations for his own children.

But we have found many parents--Christian parents--who disagree. They want to teach their children about these kinds of fundamental controversies "even" at the kindergarten level. Not in-depth. But at a level appropriate, in their eyes, for what their children need to hear. And they appreciate that someone--in this case, Sonlight--offers materials (including, most particularly, our Instructor's Guide notes!) that deal with these issues in age-appropriate ways.

I would hate to think that CHEC, in unwritten, private policy decisions, will permit the preferences of those who prefer not to discuss certain matters at certain times to overwhelm the preferences of those who would prefer to pursue different paths.

**********

Finally, I would like to note that, despite Bill's plea for peace, having a group that calls itself Christian Home Educators of Colorado ban you from their convention is not exactly a peaceful action toward a company that is undeniably Christian, that is fully engaged in home education, and that is based in Colorado! "What part of 'Christian,' 'Home Education,' and 'Colorado' does Sonlight fail to match?" The mere fact that Sonlight has been banned raises these questions in many people's minds.

Bill said that Sonlight's presence at the CHEC convention has raised questions in (some) people's minds (or, perhaps, it has raised some people's blood pressure). It is striking to me that we have never heard of such distress before. We have never heard of their questions or concerns. We have "simply" been banned. On the testimony of two or three witnesses? With no one permitted to respond to their specific charges or concerns?

As I fumbled to express last night: What changed in the last year or two, that a company that had attended CHEC conventions for upwards of ten years suddenly finds itself "on the outside"?

Kevin: You and Bill have said you don't want to overrule those under your oversight.

I believe there comes a point where leaders must, sometimes, step up to the plate. I believe this may be such a time. It is time you stood up for principle and either

• Vouch for Sonlight as obviously meeting all the legitimate requirements CHEC has established for its vendors and, therefore, it is inappropriate for the committee to bar Sonlight from the CHEC convention.

Or

• Change CHEC's charter, its statement of faith, its policy statements, or something that will permit it (CHEC) and Sonlight--and any other interested parties--to see and understand what it is that makes a company like Sonlight no longer welcome at CHEC conventions.

Or, perhaps,

• Change CHEC's name to make its true character better known:
   
  • Fundamentalist Christian Home Educators of Colorado.
     
  • Christian Young Men's Apprenticeship, Mentoring and Entrepreneurship League of Colorado.
     
  • Or some such.
     
  • Something more "narrow" than the moniker "Christian home educators" implies and something by which . [--Oops! I never finished this sentence! And I have no idea, at this time, what I might have intended to say. --JAH, 1/31/09]

Because if you let the committee's decision stand, it seems that the name "Christian home educators" doesn't fit. Not when you're willing to let your vendor committee ban from your conventions a professedly, avowedly, openly, structurally--in every practical way possible--Christian Home Education company, a company that, without reservation, is able to sign your statement of faith, that has abided by every "rule" laid down by CHEC, that serves a significant portion of the Colorado Christian home education community, and that "even" has its headquarters in Colorado. . . .

Thank you.

Sincerely,

I also sent an email to all the attendees, with copies to the key players from Sonlight as well:

From: John Holzmann
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:26 PM
To: 'Bill Roach'; 'Brenda Kelly'; 'Arthur Miller'; 'Steve Vaughan'; 'Kevin Swanson'; 'Chad Roach'
Subject: Thank you for attending last night's meeting

Lady and gentlemen:

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for taking your valuable time to meet with us last night.

I have to confess, on the one hand, my great disappointment that Arthur was unable to be present for the major portion of our conversation. As he expressed his/the vendor committee's concerns, it struck me that they came from a very different perspective and for very different reasons than those implied by the questions raised by Kevin and Bill, both of whom openly disavowed having anything to do with Sonlight having been precluded from attending the CHEC conventions.

Having heard Arthur express his (and the committee's?) concerns, I would like to write you, Arthur, directly, so that you can be assured that Sonlight in no way promotes, advocates for, believes in, or in any other way "stands for" what you-all seem to believe we support. We oppose Darwinianism, purposeless/directionless/chance evolution, and all such philosophies. Let me go further: let me state unequivocally that we do not promote old earth creationism, either, despite allegations on the part of Mr. Ham to that effect. But, as I said, I will make that case--to you and to Steve, as members of the vendor committee--in a separate email.

It "just" seriously disturbs me that we may be being banned not because of substantively real issues, but because of someone's prejudiced failure to consider what Sonlight really teaches and its methodology.

I think there is little doubt we, personally, and most of you who visited us, personally, disagree about many things related to homeschooling. But I imagine that is the case, too, between you and many other vendors whose goods you permit to appear at your convention. I think it is a travesty of the name Christian Home Educators of Colorado, however, that you would permit personal preferences to force a vendor out of the hall, meanwhile suggesting that we should view it as a matter of "philosophical differences"--especially if and when the one potential philosophical difference the chairman of the committee identified is completely unfounded.

With that, I "just" want to say, once more, I--and we at Sonlight--are grateful for the opportunity you afforded us to "hear your hearts."

Thank you.

Sincerely,

A week later, I then sent the letter I had promised to Arthur--with copies to all the other attendees as well.

I don't sense that is as relevant today as it was then. (Consider some of the things I've written over the last week and a half.) At the time, I had not even begun to read Haarsma or Glover and so I said some things in my email to Arthur that I'm sure I would not be able to say today. Or, at least, I would not say them the way I expressed them back then. (Sonlight Curriculum itself is the same; but my own perspectives on--how might I best express this?--the potential "awfulness" of evolution have obviously changed.)

Anyway.

Just this morning--a couple of hours after I began writing this post--Sarita opened and showed me a letter from CHEC that was sent on January 28^th:

January 28, 2009

John and Sarita Holtzman [sic]
Sonlight Curriculum Ltd.
8042 S Grant Way
Littleton, CO 80122

Dear John and Sarita,

Thank you for meeting with us and providing dinner.

After meeting with you a second time, we concluded that the meeting did not go well.

Part of the fault may lie with us and part of the fault may lie with you. We sense that there is a lack of agreement and unity in our perspective of Christian education. We may not be communicating well or there may be fundamental philosophical differences. Our question remains, "Is there an appreciable difference between Secular Curriculum and Christian Curriculum, and what is that difference?"

We are still uncomfortable moving ahead, unless we can make further progress in our discussions.

We are open to having further meetings with you if they would be more profitable than the last one.

Sincerely,

Kevin Swanson
Executive Director

Bill Roach
President

Based on this letter, I would say my impression was correct that "evolution" or "young-earth creationism" is, at this point, hardly the basis for CHEC's objection to Sonlight. There is a very much more fundamental difference of opinion. Indeed, a whole slew of differences of opinion--about the kinds of books a Christian curriculum should use, the emphases of such a curriculum, etc. And Sonlight is clearly on the "outs" with CHEC's current/newly developed (and, perhaps, still developing) vision.

It will be interesting to see how CHEC works out its philosophy into the future. Will they, indeed, begin banning all the other vendors who fail to weave a God-centered metaphysic (as CHEC would define that term) into their products?

(Actually, now that I look at their list of approved vendors for 2009, I see that they seem, indeed, to be doing that pretty consistently. There are still a few companies that are not explicitly Christian in outlook. Saxon Homeschool, Rosetta Stone, Highline Vision Center, National Driver Training Institute, and a few others stick out in that regard. But all the other publishers clearly and unequivocally claim "biblical" and "Christian" roots.)

Interesting!

And still it hurts that this company that clearly and unequivocally claims "biblical" and "Christian" roots is banned.