Audience of One

Creation

This morning, while talking to a colleague at the library, he made reference to the first chapter of Genesis, citing it as the Hebrew equivalent of “unintelligible business jargon”. On the contrary, I feel the account to be lucid – God created. However, there is more in the passage – there is a whole area of debate in Christian circles over what the correct interpretation is. To go into that at length would take far too long so I won’t attempt it. However, last night I heard a talk by Denis Alexander, a Cambridge academic, who is one of the most prominent Christian critics of the intelligent design movement, part of which I will attempt to report here.

Dr Alexander split his talk into two parts, the latter of which was about intelligent design. In the first part, he explored the concept of design in biology, and came to the conclusion that the concept is not useful in scientific study. Believing in a designer does not help form any new theories of biology, nor does it suggest any new experiments. He explained, concisely, how evolution works, and showed that, far from being a chance process, evolution has very predictable outcomes. He explained many different methods of evolution, from gene duplication and mutation to merging populations. Unfortunately I am not biologist enough to reproduce his explanation – I am sure there are many books on the subject. (One of his own, Rebuilding the Matrix, was on sale at a bargain price, but I’ve yet to begin it.) He also talked of where the notion of design should be discussed, if it isn’t necessary for biological study. Design belongs in the religious and philosophical sphere, rather than the scientific.

One of the points he returned to were two arguments related to design. He explained the concept of natural theology (from Romans 1:18-20), and said that this was accepting design first and foremost, and arguing that there must be a god. This is in the Bible – it is a valid argument. However the other argument starts with the existence of God, as revealed in Scripture, and argues that the world was designed.

In the second part of his talk, he explored the intelligent design (ID) movement. The thesis of the ID movement is that there are some biological mechanisms that could not have formed using the Darwinian idea of natural selection – they are “irreducibly complex”. The often-quoted example is that of a bacterial flagellum (a bacterial “outboard motor”). It has over thirty constituent proteins that work perfectly together, but are useless if only one isn’t present. The ID proponents argue that such irreducibly complex systems point to the presence of a designer. Evolution explains most of life – but the creator has intervened at particular points. (There were various quotes to back this up, notably from Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box.)

Dr Alexander started by arguing that ID is not a valid scientific theory. Theories can be tested – ID cannot. Theories also lead to experiments, whereas ID does not. He then went onto explain how, during the past few years, scientists have discovered evolutionary pathways that could lead to the development of the flagellum, and other irreducibly complex systems (gene duplication being one such method). He also argued that life is so complex, that there is almost no system that does not fit the ID proponents’ definition of an irreducibly complex system.

His final point showed that the ID movement, rather than espousing a form of natural theology (“nature reveals the creator”), had actually a very poor understanding of the Bible’s teaching of creation. It is interesting that the Bible never mentions nature, but always creation. God continually upholds his creation – he didn’t just sit back and let evolution take his course. This seems to be what the ID movement are suggesting, however. Dr Alexander concluded that, whereas the ID movement believed in a “god of the gaps”, he believed in a God of everything, who had used evolution to create everything in the world.

Somehow relating the talk without relating the arguments in detail doesn’t quite lend itself to discussion. I really should have taken notes. I have his book to read though.

The most interesting thing I learnt in the talk was the creation theology of the ID movement. Philip Johnston, the founding father of ID, has written about “theistic naturalism”, a description of how evolution took place under God. Of course, naturalism by definition means without God, so the phrase is somewhat of an oxymoron. We can talk about “theistic evolution”, but not “theistic naturalism”. Evolution is not necessarily a naturalistic process. Dawkins and his ilk may feel evolution proves naturalism, but the hallmark of the creator seems to me to be stamped over the whole concept.

(For the record, I believe the Genesis account of the six days of creation to be a poetic explanation of creation for a nation with no concept of science. It was not written to explain how exactly the world was created – the Bible is not a scientific textbook. It was written to show that God created, and he created everything.)

Matthew @ 21:11, March 11, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Green Issue

Today the Independent had a special edition: “The Green Issue”. The front cover carried the headline “The most important issue that we face”.

I’m not a single-issue voter as those who know me will realise. However, as the headline says, I believe the environment to be the most important issue we face politically/as a country/as a planet. What else could have an effect on the whole world in our national policies? Not immigration or top-up fees, that’s for sure.

The interesting thing about this headline is who it’s quoting. Last year when questioned about the environment, this is what Tony Blair said – yet it barely appears in the Labour manifesto. So much for an important issue – Labour don’t think it’s worth including. Any mentions of green issues appear to have been stuck onto their manifesto afterwards, and bear no resemblance to the rhetoric of senior Labour figures – even Blair, to whom the environment is “the most important issue”.

So do the Conservatives present a good opposition to this? Surely if Labour are ignoring it, the Conservatives should pick up on it and fight for the green vote? Well, no. In fact, they’ve pledged to make cuts to the Environment Agency, the political body in charge of protecting the environment in this country. In their manifesto, the environment is mentioned in a subsection of a subsection of a chapter. They also pledge to end “Labour’s war on the motorist” and don’t mention decreasing carbon dioxide levels at all.

On the other hand, the Lib Dems, living up to their slogan of “The Real Opposition”, have a “green thread” running right the way through their manifesto. They mention the word “environment” more than the Greens!

It seems to me that the Lib Dems and the Greens are the only parties taking the environment seriously. If they made an alliance (and didn’t run against each other, as the Lib Dems lose out wherever the Greens make gains) they’d make a fantastic opposition. (They’d make a fantastic Government as well, but I’m not expecting that quite yet. Hey, I’m not even expecting them to become the Opposition yet either…)

As I say, I’m not a single issue voter, and would vote for Labour or the Conservatives given their environmental stances if their other policies pushed me to. The thing is, they don’t. The Lib Dems are a centre-left green liberal party, and I’m a centre-left green liberal (though a conservative evangelical Christian – it’s fun being liberal and conservative) so they’ll be getting my vote. If you’ve got a vote, consider the Lib Dems – and consider some of these facts.

• 50% of waste is recycled in Austia, Germany and the Netherlands, whereas here it’s 18%
• Ten of the hottest years we’ve recorded have occurred in the last fifteen (that’s in the world, not just Britain)
• The average European’s lifespan is reduced by two-thirds of a year due to pollution

I think these issues are rather important, and I hope that the parties make more mention of them in the coming weeks. As of now though, it’s only the Lib Dems and the Greens who are really considering it.

Matthew @ 16:39, April 18, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Brain

Today I attended a lecture by Professor Susan Greenfield of Oxford University, who happens to also be a Baroness and head of the Royal Institution. Rather an illustrious personage, really – she’s one of the leading researchers in the world on Alzheimer’s disease, and was here to talk to us about the brain.

Now, I’m not a biologist so I wasn’t quite sure why exactly I was going along to this lecture when I had plenty of work to be getting on with. I soon found out that it was worth it though. Professor Greenfield is a very engaging speaker, and as she reminded us near the beginning of the lecture, not all scientists are middle-aged white men with beards. (She didn’t mention beards, but I’m including it in the stereotype anyway.)

The talk was based around what makes the human brain special and unique. (Of course I know why it’s unique, but the science of how is of course interesting.) We worked top-down looking at different sections of the brain, and bottom-up looking at neurons. I learnt quite a lot, but the interesting thing was to do with what drugs actually do to the brain: it seems brain-drugs don’t just change our outlook or mood temporarily but their residue always leaves a mark. (This isn’t just the case with cannabis or ecstacy but with prozac and other prescription drugs as well.) The drugs mimic our natural brain-chemicals (for want of a better word), but instead of breaking down after sending a message they hang around. So people’s personalities can actually change – and even if cannabis smokers then stop after using it heavily, it can permanently affect their memory and/or reaction times. Scary stuff for any drug users in the audience (as I’m sure there were – nicotine counts).

It feels like quite a privilege really, having such a well-known figure come to give a talk to you and your peers. We’ve done quite well really – had Wendy Woods, the wife of Donald Woods last year, as well as a guy who’d made it to the North Pole with quite a public expedition. No Radiohead members though. Ah well.

So yeah, good talk, interesting speaker, almost wish I was doing Biology. I always say that though – I guess I just find almost everything too interesting.

Matthew @ 19:36, March 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (9)

Awareness-raising about local food

What’s the use of reading an article on a reputable news website about something you already know if you can’t use it to tell others? In other words, go have a read of this article on local food and go eat healthier food because of it. Healthier for the environment that is. Yet another thing that conscientious consumers can do to be ethical in their shopping and eating. Local, organic, fair trade food – it’s the future, peeps. If it costs more, just think of what that little bit extra you’re paying is doing for disadvantaged people or the environment. If it’s cheaper, even better! The money’s still helping with something good – you’re supporting those who are doing things to help with our messed up world. Always a good thing.

Matthew @ 17:57, March 3, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (16)