Book Review: Darwin On Trial

Darwin On Trial was written by Phillip E. Johnson in 1993. From what I can gather, this is the book that started a phenomenon. Within the pages of Darwin On Trail, we find the genesis of the modern Intelligent Design movement. This is a book written by a Christian, but with very little to say about Christianity and a great deal to say about science and evolution. Johnson does not pretend to be a scientist. He is lawyer that specializes in the nature and structure of arguments, and this is the field in which he attempts to remain throughout the book, dissecting the arguments and logic of biologists and paleontologists.

I think that Johnson does make some good points throughout the whole of the book, though past the midpoint the focus shifts from scientific theories towards legal matters and education systems. This book is at its best when confronting traditional evolutionary theory with challenging questions about the fossil record and assumptions made concerning classification and evolution. This book is at its worst when Johnson portrays the scientific community in a negative manner and links scientific theory with philosophical speculation.

Whenever the matter of common ancestry comes to the front, Johnson sounds like a broken record, his common response being that relationship between organisms does not imply common ancestry, and that evolutionists are biased in their interpretation of the data because they assume from the beginning that evolution is a valid theory. Johnson uses this line of reasoning to address everything from lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to the development of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and neutral theory. On one hand Johnson makes some good points. If our observations do not confirm our hypothesis, then should we not begin to question the validity of the theory which our hypothesis is based upon? Johnson says that instead biologists and paleontologists simply modify the theory of evolution to account for their observations, and therefore the theory can never be falsified, as it has the potential to always explain every observation.

However, I think that Johnson is neglecting the vast amount of evidence that we do have in support of evolution when he follows this line of argument. If every observation we made required a modification of the theory of natural selection, then there would be a problem. But this is not the case, and evolution has a great deal of predictive power as a scientific theory. Therefore, biologists and paleontologist can assume the validity of natural selection and evolution when they interpret their observations.

I have no doubt that Johnson is an excellent lawyer. Like a good prosecuting attorney, Johnson presents the reader with a collection of evidence and demands the conviction of scientists and evolution. However, the courtroom is not the place for this discussion. Instead, scientific research should determine the validity of evolution. Johnson gathers together statements from various scientists, his witnesses, and various aspects of evolutionary theory, his exhibits, and asks that the reader, his jury, reach a guilty verdict. But scientific research is carried out in a manner completely unlike the courtroom setting: instead of witnesses there are theories, instead of exhibits there are experiments. Hypotheses, experiments, observations and conclusions are formed, carried out, and evaluated in the context of the greater body of scientific literature, which is comprised of thousands of scientific papers and various books written by thousands of scientists over the last couple centuries. The validity of a theory is not determined by the conclusion of a few individuals, but the consensus of the entire community. It is in this rigorous, academic environment that evolution must make its defense.

Book Review: Consciousness Explained

Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is a book from the early 90s about the nature of consciousness. I wanted to read it because I think consciousness is a fascinating idea that is important to the nature of faith.

In my opinion the three most mysterious questions in science are how life began (or can begin), how consciousness works, and how the universe began. I have a high degree of confidence that we will figure out the first question within 100 years. I am not sure about the second question, and the third question I am confident we will never figure out. With the second question (consciousness), I often suspect that it will take some radical changes in the understanding of science and our universe before we make serious progress.

There is one single immutable fact in life: You exist, and are experiencing life. Everything else can be taken with a grain of salt. How can the phenomena of experience be explained scientifically? I understand how the human mind could have evolved through evolution and cultural evolution. I understand that our behavior and beliefs could have evolved, but what is the explanation for me actually feeling/thinking/experiencing all of this?

I am a firm believer in naturalistic methodology, and am not satisfied with the idea that there's a separate, supernatural entity experiencing everything, and that consciousness will never be explained because we are separate from our bodies, merely undetectable observers and/or controllers. I'm not alone; Dennett absolutely abhors the idea.

Dennett claims to have a solution to the problem, a scientific "theory of consciousness." Unfortunately, he takes far too many rabbit trails and uses far too many words to say such puny little things.

What I was looking for in this book was a scientific hypothesis on consciousness that is fully explained and defended. Too much to ask for, I guess.

Instead, Dennett distracts readers with cool little experiments that demonstrate how our minds process data very differently from how we often assume. These are neat concepts to be aware of. But they don't get to the heart of the consciousness problem: Why am I experiencing this?

Dennett barely ever gets around to explaining why. He goes on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about how we see red dots turn green at the wrong time and how people who are blind can still see things subconsciously, etc.

Between droning on about this topic for virtually the entire book, Dennett reveals his thoughts on consciousness in a few sentences distributed evenly in the text: There is no explanation of consciousness necessary; if we can explain all the various FUNCTIONS of the brain, we have explained consciousness.

Dennett believes that since, outside of scientifically observable functions of our brains, we cannot scientifically observe "consciousness," it is all a farce and we need not worry about it.

Now, this is an interesting idea and for all I know very well may be correct. But why did I just read a 600-page book when all I needed were those couple sentences? It's a frustrating realization that I spent 30 hours reading a book when I could have just looked up "functionalism" on Wikipedia and been done in 10 minutes.

The reason for Dennett's long-windedness is that of a magician: Distract the audience with lights and sounds long enough and you can slip a fast one by them.

Dennett "entertains" us with stories of how weird our brains are and how our senses don't work like we think, and expands it all into a 600 page marathon so that he can slip in a couple sentences that translate to "I'm a functionalist" without us noticing.

Dennett further adds to the trickery by refusing to use standard definitions and terms for philosophy of the mind. He does this out of arrogance and succeeds at making it so hard to understand what he's saying that you assume it's an original idea (far from it). Unfortunately for me, I took the time to understand every sentence, and as a result wasted a lot of time.

Functionalism may or may not be correct, but Dennett did not argue for it. He pulled a bait-and-switch: He distracted us with lots of naturalistic explanations for functions of the brain, and while we weren't looking, he slipped in the idea that function is all that matters, hoping we wouldn't notice. For someone who read his whole long egotistical book, this is infuriating.

Whether functionalism is right or not, though, this book has helped me confirm a suspicion I had: There is nothing we can say/do to detract from the specialness of consciousness. No matter what explanation we come up with, including functionalism, it is still incredible that I am experiencing looking at this monitor and feeling the keyboard under my fingertips and reflecting on the whole process. It should blow your mind no matter your opinion/theory. And it should make you marvel at the mystery we experience as human beings, wondering about our true nature and purpose. Having a scientific explanation doesn't change this.

One last warning to those reading the book: Dennett relies heavily on the idea of memes, which is a pseudoscience first proposed by Richard Dawkins, up there with astrology, alternative medicine, six-day creationism and bigfoot. It is a theory followed by those who prefer their ideas to be right rather than be either analyzed or scientifically useful. When you hear someone talking about memes as if they're real, you can be sure they've chosen to stunt their intellectual growth by clinging onto this pseudoscience without actually caring to investigate the field of the evolution of ideas, where it is laughed at. For more info on memes, visit the Metaverse.

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, one of my next two posts will confront his anti-intellectualism. Stay tuned!

Book Review: The Language of God

In his book “The Language Of God,” Francis Collins addresses the question: “In this modern era... is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews?” If you are unfamiliar with Francis Collins, then allow me to enlighten you. Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, a thirteen year long project that involved thousands of scientists and lab technicians. This great endeavor culminated in the mapping of the entire genetic sequence of humans. Francis Collins mentions his involvement with the Human Genome Project throughout the book, but the project is not the focus of his writing. Instead, Collins hopes to enlighten his readers about the theory of evolution, its place in our understanding of life, and how it relates to our faith in God.

“The Language Of God” is divided into three main sections. The first section takes on an autobiographical feel as Collins describes his upbringing and early perspectives on religion. The second section focuses on the origins of the universe and life. Also included is a scientific explanation about DNA and genetics that is very accessible to the general reader. In the third section, Collins proceeds to outline the different perspectives about evolution and creation. The book ends with encouragements for Christians and atheists to recognize both the capabilities and limitations of science, as well as the place of faith in our lives.

I picked up this book expecting a detailed explanation of how genetic evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation of the diversity of life that exists today. Collins certainly delivers in that respect, and in ways that are very accessible to someone without a doctorate in genetics. However, there is more than scientific jargon bound between these pages. Reflections on his own faith journey are a valuable insight into how the reader can begin to incorporate these concepts about genetics, evolution, and the origins of the universe into his own understanding of scientific theory and spiritual belief. Collins reveals the shortcomings of both atheism and Intelligent Design and eloquently provides the reader with a third option that compromises neither the theory of evolution nor a belief in God.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the evolution/creation debate, regardless of your current position or religious attitude. Collins speaks to both the ardent atheist and the devout believer. There are words on these pages for both the mind and the heart, a pair too often in conflict, which Collins challenges the reader to reconcile in harmony.

Book Review: Misquoting Jesus

Do you remember that controversial 2006 movie about Mary Magdelene and Jesus having a kid and the Catholic church changing the Bible and cryptology and the Mona Lisa?

Me neither. But about the time that came out, so did, conveniently, a book called “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,” written by Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman.

I only read the back of the book, whose three bullet points told what Bart Ehrman would “reveal” inside: The King James version is not very good, John 8:3-11 doesn’t belong there, and Biblical authors threatened with curses those who would change their words. I thought, “These are the spine-tingling revelations he has to offer?” Three less controversial scholarly facts about the Bible I do not know of.

Later I caught Dr. Ehrman on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. There he offered the same pedestrian report: That story about the adulteress and Jesus writing in the sand? Probably not originally in John’s Gospel. He of course neglected to mention that this is explicitly noted in almost every modern translation of the New Testament. Stewart and Colbert, however, were impressed. They seemed blown away by how easily Ehrman shot holes through the supposedly perfect scriptures.

I still hadn’t read the book, but I became very angry, because Ehrman argued unethically: He was relying on his reader/interviewer’s ignorance about scripture in order to mislead them by making a common truth sound like a Da Vinci Code-esque secret.

So last week after criticizing him in this way for the 12th time, I figured I better actually read the book before I badmouth Dr. Ehrman any more.

My feelings after reading “Misquoting Jesus” are mixed. On one hand, I was surprised and pleased by Ehrman’s love of textual criticism and his passion for the general population to understand it. His stories about early textual criticism adventures make his subjects seem exciting the same way Indiana Jones makes archeologists seem like movie stars. I’d say 80% of the book consists of Dr. Ehrman trying to convince me how cool textual criticism is, and I have to say: I’m convinced, and I thank him for that.

But this alone makes me wonder. Why title the book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why?” Combined with the publishing date, it comes off like confirmation of the ideas in The Da Vinci Code, when really the thesis is, “Textual criticism is cool and you should learn about it.” I’d like to think Ehrman was pressured by publishers with the publication date and the title in order to sell copies. However, his misleading comments on talk shows and wrong ideas he lets readers of his book believe cause me to question his integrity as an author.

A note before I launch the rest of the review: Ehrman and I happen to disagree on the battlegrounds of early Christian theology. I think the basics of theology we have now were mainstream back then; he posits that perhaps dozens of Christian theologies were equally vying for supremacy, and our current theology just won out. He mentions this a few times, and I can respect his (non-mainstream) scholarly view and not criticize the book on those grounds. There are plenty of other reasons.

Ehrman reports there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of differences between New Testament manuscripts. This is likely true. He also says that some changes were made for theological reasons. Also not a lie.

My problem is that Ehrman lets people who want to see the Bible as totally untrustworthy run with those thoughts and imagine the world of The Da Vinci Code is true, that the message of the original Gospels are lost, that Biblical textual criticism is in complete chaos, and that the Bibles we have in our homes are irrelevant to the real thing.

Ehrman, of course, knows for a fact this is not true. And when you read his book closely, he can’t help but admit the facts. He concedes at points that the Bible’s manuscripts are not any harder to reconcile with each other than any other ancient book. He concedes that the vast majority of differences are irrelevant, accidental, and easy to fix, and that the ones that are on purpose are because a scribe was trying to make more clear what (s)he thought the text meant. Ehrman knows that manuscript differences are a basic consequence of hand copying texts, a practical reality of not having a printing press or a laptop, not insidious scribes with political agendas.

Ehrman concedes, at points, that what the large number of differences between the New Testament manuscripts speaks to is that there are so many more old copies of the New Testament than there are any other ancient book. The more copies, the more errors/differences. But also, the more copies, the easier it is to figure out which copy was right.

Ehrman affirms all this, and yet he writes in such a way that (in my opinion) encourages people who want to believe the Bible is profoundly different from the originals. Although he knows it, Ehrman never explicitly points out that the original Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John always had Jesus rise from the dead and that none of them ever had him sleeping with Mary Magdelene.

Ehrman also never explicitly mentions that modern translations of the Bible all take into account the most recent textual criticism. He could certainly assure us that the Bible we have is largely up-to-date and formed by consensus of good textual critcism. Instead he focuses on three examples of minor points he disagrees with the mainstream consensus on, implying the falsehood that Biblical scholars’ Bibles look much different from ours.

In short, he makes mountains out of molehills, and if you read closely, you see that he even has to admit that they’re molehills.

So then, if he knows the Bible is more dependable as any other old book, what is his final argument for agnosticism? As it turns out, it has nothing to do with doubt over the basic reliability of the New Testament in a practical sense. He knows what a silly and ignorant perspective that is. Instead, Ehrman paints a philosophical picture of the nature of ideas, positing that the stories change from person to person no matter how reliable they are trying to be. He says the New Testament stories went from Jesus’ followers to others, then into the New Testament, then copied by scribes, then read and interpreted by you and me. His idea is that once someone states an idea, it means something totally different to every person, and the original person can never truly be understood, even on some basic level.

What??

Believe it or not, this is Ehrman’s reason for losing faith in Christianity. As a Christian, he put the Bible in such a tight little box as to need to defy basic practical realities of copying texts, people telling the story in their own words, etc, and be a magical book that’s passed down through history in a vacuum. He doesn’t lack faith because of the way the Bible is, but because of his (ridiculous and contrived) worldview that two people’s ideas are just never enough alike as to be the same. And so he is an agnostic.

There are plenty of reasons to be an agnostic, but this one I don’t get.

Haven’t you ever talked to someone about a topic and realized you totally agree even though you’ve never talked about it before? Or how about if two people witnessed the same event, spoke about some details differently but ultimately agreed on the story? Ehrman can’t wrap his mind around this idea and loses his faith as a result. I’m stunned.

Ehrman’s book makes some good points. He points out how cool textual criticism is, and tells fun stories about its history. He also rightly points out that most Christians have a flawed view of the Bible, thinking that it is some magical perfect book never influenced in the original texts or their copies by human personality.

But in the end, his book is misleading. His title is misleading, and he purposely avoids striking down silly views like the resurrection not being in the original Gospels so that people keep believing a lie. He lets people go on thinking that the many manuscript differences argue for the Bible’s unreliability, when the large number actually speaks to the large number of manuscripts and our potential to get closer to the originals than for any other ancient work.

I would assume, because of his bizarre view on the nature of ideas, he does not see his misleading words as unethical. But I am deeply troubled by them and am sad that so many people have been taken in by his book.