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.

I found it!

I mentioned a couple of days ago that I had been looking for a statement about the theory of evolution being, "merely," a scientific theory, and, therefore, unworthy of the kind of fear and venom and opposition heaped upon it by so many Christians.

I believe I finally found the original I was looking for. It has nothing to do with biological evolution. It is about the Big Bang.

This is from Glover's book, Beyond the Firmament:

The Big Bang is a serious attempt to explain the obvious astrophysical data from some kind of coherent story that allows the laws of nature to operate continuously over the entire course of cosmic history.

Trouble begins when the Big Bang is intentionally portrayed as an atheistic alternative to creation. This is about as silly as claiming that medicine is an atheistic alternative to healing. Christians don't make these kinds of silly statements about other scientific theories. Take germ theory for example. If a doctor were to rely on unexplainable supernatural phenomena to heal an infection, he would be considered a "witch doctor" and immediately have his medical license revoked. So just like serious doctors who seek to explain sickness and disease in terms of natural cause and effect, serious cosmologists seek to explain the astrophysical data without supernatural interference.

If we truly believe that God is sovereign over His creation, then Christians should not fear these naturalistic explanations. God is just as present through the continuous operation of the laws of nature as He is with miracles. And if the story of cosmic history does include any miracles, then the discernible patterns of providence that we call physics might even reveal some obvious discontinuities that defy a cause-and-effect explanation. But even then, honest science demands that we continue the search for a material explanation until one is found.

So when Christians accuse cosmologists of intentionally leaving God out of the picture, it does not encourage constructive dialogue between science and religion. We can avoid this by simply adjusting our theological expectations before asking science to describe the formational history of the cosmos. Quite simply, if you ask a scientific question, you should expect to get a scientific answer.

[When] Christians feel compelled to dispute the Big Bang on religious grounds as a godless version of creation, . . . [it] makes about as much sense as rejecting meteorology as a godless view of the weather. The Big Bang is just an idea that tries to explain what scientists observe in nature with a useful physical model that relates observed effects with material causes--as far back as physics can reasonably reach.

If anybody thinks they have a better way to explain the changing structure and properties of the cosmos over time, then they are free to challenge the Big Bang theory on scientific grounds. In fact, there have been a few opposing theories that have made their way into the professional journals. But attacking the science of the Big Bang on religious grounds is extremely counterproductive.

--pp. 120-121

Glover concludes the chapter in which he makes this particular statement with the following questions and observations:

So what . . . is the point of the Big Bang? Is . . . it just another way to attack Christianity and the authority of the Bible, or to keep God out of the public schools?

For the longest time, that's pretty much what I thought. Judging by the rhetoric of most creationist literature, I'd say I wasn't the only one.

Of course, any scientific theory can be hijacked by atheistic presuppositions for the sole purpose of arguing against God and creation. This is a common tactic used by the enemies of Religion. But is that really the point of the Big Bang theory? . . . Is it possible that the Big Bang is really nothing more than a tentative natural cause-and-effect explanation of what scientists observe in nature? It seems to me like a pretty coherent way to explain things like cosmic redshift and the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation--JAH] in terms of the known patterns of material behavior that we call the laws of nature. And isn't explaining the discernible patterns of natural behavior the point of any scientific discipline, from medicine to meteorology?

Whether we agree with it or not, there are many very intelligent people who consider the Big Bang theory one of the crowning achievements of modern science. It represents decades of hard work, a little good fortune, and an unparalleled cooperation between the world's leading [physicists in various subspecialties]. The reason it has such a broad appeal to the scientific community is not because it makes no reference to God, but because it considers all of the observational and experimental data and attempts to provide a coherent natural explanation that assumes the known laws of physcs have been operating continuously since the beginning of time.. . .

One thing that Christians need to understand is that these are firmly held beliefs based on what appears to be overwhelming physical evidence. The Big Bang is not just something that atheists can conveniently substitute for special creation to avoid the existence of God any more than gravity is something they can exchange for providence to avoid God's sovereignty. . . .

[A]ttacking the Big Bang theory as a "silly creation myth invented by people who hate God" does not address the real problem. These tactics assume that naturalistic theories are . . . themselves the root of the problem. I submit to you that they are not. Christians don't take this approach to other areas of science. Do our naturalistic theories of biological development from a single fertilized cell to a fully grown adult undermine our belief that God made us? Do our naturalistic theories of planetary motion or the water cycle undermine our belief in common grace? Do our naturalistic theories of germs and antibiotics undermine the need to ask God for healing?

--pp. 128-129

Answer, obviously: No. And unstated conclusion: "So let's lay off charging the Big Bang with producing such noxious results."
******I would like to suggest that you re-read these last two sections and replace every occurrence of the word physics with biology, and every occurrence of the Big Bang with the Theory of Evolution , and every occurrence of the cosmos with the various plants and animals we find in the world today.

I think you will find the "argument" works just as well.

And so I stand by my comment from a couple of days ago: Let us view neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Big Bang as threats. Indeed, they really offer no threat either to the Bible, to the sovereign God of the Bible, or to Christianity.

Beyond the Firmament, I -- Accomodating human limitations

I mentioned, several days ago, that I had been reading two books on origins while away on my trip. I've more or less summarized the key items that impressed me with the Haarsmas' book. It's time for me to talk about Beyond the Firmament by Gordon J. Glover.

Where the Haarsmas seek to summarize a wide range of evangelical Christian viewpoints on origins, Glover, I would say, "goes for jugular." No ifs, ands or buts: he believes God used evolution to create the world as we know it today. He believes this unapologetically. And he wants us to know why he believes as he does.

Happily, by and large, he is quite gracious in his presentation. At the same time, I'm glad I read the Haarsmas first. Being so much more "open" in their presentation, I found myself able to listen better. But then, having acquired from the Haarsmas a hunger to learn more, Glover offered a wonderful next step.

SIDEBAR--Presentational Difficulties

Glover could have used a copy editor. His book features a far larger number of typographical errors than I can recall seeing in any other published work: misspellings, phrase repetitions, missing words, punctuation errors and more.

After a while, I found them a bit annoying.

His use of the second person plural when speaking to his readers is also rather jarring. (As I have often explained to my fellow copywriters at Sonlight: Though you know you are writing to many people when you write an article, every person who reads what you have written will experience it on his or her own, as an individual. So you need to address your audience individually--as you [singular]. Thus, for example, instead of saying, "Some of you . . . " or, "Many of you . . . ", you should say, "Now, perhaps you. . . . ")

If you find yourself, like me, annoyed by such errors and infelicities, please be assured that the annoyance is more than offset by the quality content. Moreover, you'll have no trouble understanding what Glover is trying to say. He writes in a vigorous, folksy, down-to-earth manner with lots of pithy analogies that make his meaning easy to grasp.

In Chapter 1, Glover talks about the differences between modern scientific explanations of physical structures and how things work . . . and ancient mythological stories intended to explain transcendent meaning and purpose: why things are as they are. He also discusses the significance of self-validating (as opposed to externally provable) truths. Self-validating truths include such beliefs as the principle of the uniformity of nature (a scientific doctrine) or the truth of Scripture (a Christian doctrine).

Glover takes much the same view of Genesis 1 and 2 that I explained a few days ago when discussing the Haarsmas' Origins: that the Bible's cosmological model is not scientific (in any modern sense of the term) and we ought not to be looking to the Bible for scientific insights into the structure or operation of the physical universe. Instead, the Bible was written to speak to a culture that already accepted a particular cosmology. God's purpose for writing the Bible didn't include any need to correct or improve the cosmology of those who would read or hear the Bible's message.

Glover understands how this view will disturb many evangelical Christians. And so he writes:

[Many of us want to ask,] [W]hy would God intentionally recycle the erroneous cosmology of the ancient Near East? [But] the real question is [W]hat would have been the point for God to overturn the established view of the physical universe?

An incorrect view of the cosmos borne from ignorance is not a problem for God. I'm certain that even our best efforts today are lacking because of things that we just don't know. But an incorrect view of God borne from bad theology is a serious issue that must be addressed. [And t]hat was obviously God's focus in Genesis.

To put it simply, the intent of Genesis is theological, and any references of a "scientific" nature are culturally bound by the cosmology of the author and his audience.

--p. 75

In another place:

Basically, the creation narrative was God's theological rebuttal to the Egyptian creation mythology, not a scientific rebuttal of ancient Near-Easter cosmology. . . . Genesis is not giving us creation science. It is giving us something much more profound and practical than that. Genesis is giving us a biblical theology of creation.

--p. 70

Glover invests two chapters (3 and 4) and some 40 pages (51-92) pursuing this line of thinking in depth. And I think it was as I read his comments about these matters that I began to understand why, as the Haarsmas suggest, it would have been distracting to the Israelites (not to mention just about everyone else down through the centuries), if God had communicated the equivalent of, Look, earthlings. Your [Ancient Near Eastern] cosmology is completely wrong. The earth is not stationary. It is not flat. The sky is not a solid dome. The sun and moon and stars are not attached to the lower face of the dome. There are no windows in the dome through which the waters above fall down upon the earth. There are no pillars holding up the sky. . . . And so on and so forth.

God's use of the ANE cosmology, Glover suggests, is an example of what [some] theologians refer to as the "principle of accommodation"--God's making allowances for--accommodating--human limitations.

In Psalm 136:7, Glover notes, the psalmist refers to "the two great lights" (the sun and the moon). "Are we to infer from this that the moon is physically greater than the stars, planets, and galaxies?" Glover asks.

Clearly not. But that is exactly how some Christians once understood this passage.

While nothing in the text demands that we draw these astronomical conclusions, if we bring these kinds of nonsensical questions to the foothills of Mt. Sinai, we will get these kinds of nonsensical answers.

--p. 79

Glover quotes Calvin's commentary on the book of Psalms:

The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy [in Psalm 136:7]. . . . [Instead,] he made use by Moses and the other prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity. . . . Accordingly, as Saturn, though bigger than the moon, is not so to the eye owing to his greater distance, the Holy Spirit would rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned.

--p. 79¹

Glover offers another example of this principle of accommodation at work in the recent past.

The situation involved Western doctors trying to prevent the spread of infection by midwives in a [prescientific/non-Westernized] culture. Rather than try to teach [the midwives] about bacteria and germs, concepts that had no familiar cultural context, the doctors decided to use the [midwives'] own unscientific traditions to communicate the knowledge necessary for [the task at hand]. This instruction took the form of "ritual" washing so that "demons" from the hands of [the] midwives [would] not be transferred to the baby or mother.

The desired effect was achieved, even if by means of factually incomplete or incorrect knowledge.

--p. 79

I have thought about this illustration, now, for several days. And I have thought, first: Wouldn’t it have been better, long-term, if the doctors had taught these midwives the full truth about bacteria?

But then I realized that, though, yes, in the long run, it would be better if and when the midwives learn about germs, for the time being, it may have been a very good thing, indeed, for the doctors to have used the midwives' familiar cosmology.

Our culture, of course, has had the privilege of centuries to become familiar with microscopes. We know how they are used. We understand their strengths and limitations. Most Western adults have either seen microorganisms directly through microscopes, or we have seen enough photographs and heard enough testimonies that we have no questions about the reality of microorganisms--living things too small to be seen with the naked eye. We--most of us, anyway--are familiar with the tory of Louis Pasteur and how he came up with and proved the germ theory. We understand how bacteria work. This is all "old hat" to us.

But what about these midwives?

I do not know the details of the circumstances under which the doctors had to teach the midwives about the need for hygiene. But I can imagine.

I imagine they lacked the laboratory equipment and/or multimedia capabilities that would have been necessary to demonstrate even a tenth of what the average American high school graduate knows. And so, in the midst of one-shot three- or four or five-hour classes designed to help these midwives become more effective in their work generally, how much time do you think the doctors should dedicate solely to teaching these women the germ theory and the need always, always, always to wash their hands?

Glover asks,

If these [midwives] are ever to advance their knowledge to the point of understanding the actual material mechanisms by which infections are transmitted by unclean hands, will they curse these Western doctors for not giving them the [full, scientifically accurate] truth? Or will they appreciate the wisdom of these doctors, accommodating their ignorance and meeting them in their time of need--so that, despite their lack of knowledge, they might still [serve their patients effectively]?

--p. 79

Glover doesn't answer the question. But I think you know the answer he would choose. And I agree.

We don't always deal with our children strictly in accordance with the cold, hard facts. Instead, we make allowances for their ignorance and immaturity because there are often greater issues that may be obscured by laying down the factual account. . . . [And so w]e might refer to the passing of a loved one as "sleeping," or we may withhold the fact of adoption, or refer to sexual intercourse as some form of "advanced snuggling" for mommies and daddies. . . . The bottom line is that we don't give them more than they can handle, even if it is the truth. And so our Heavenly Father often deals with us much in the same way.. . .

--p. 77

---

¹ Quoted from John Calvin, Commentary of the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1949), 5:184.

A wonderful book about origins

I'm out-of-country right now and have been blessed with many hours to read books I would otherwise have been hard-pressed to get around to.

Among those I've been reading, I just finished Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution by Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma and Beyond the Firmament by Gordon J. Glover.

I am so grateful for my correspondent (I can't remember his name at the moment) who told me about them. They have satisfied me in several ways that no books having to do with origins have satisfied me . . . in quite some time.

I was impressed with David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth when I read it a couple of years ago. I sensed he attempted to handle much of the biblical text with care and integrity. But when all was said and done, it seemed pretty obvious to me that he was permitting his "science" to push his "exegesis" into some rather "interesting" corners I doubted the original human authors--much less God Himself--would have intended the text to go.

But now come the Haarsmas and Glover.

I read the Haarsmas' book first. I appreciated their even-handed summary of the amazing diversity of approaches to origins taken by Christians of all different stripes. Beyond that, they provide a number of useful analogies and forced me to think new thoughts I had never considered before. One example, from the book's Introduction:

What causes the rain? Most of us were taught how water evaporates from the ground level, rises to where the air is cooler, and condenses into water droplets that form clouds. We learned how cold fronts and warm fronts and low pressure systems bring rain. When we watch meteorologists on television, we hear that scientists now use sophisticated computer models to help them understand and predict the weather a few days in advance. Their ability to understand meteorology is especially important for farmers, airline pilots, military personnel, and coastal residents. Every year, scientists develop increasingly accurate computer models of the weather.

Now imagine that debates arise about what should be taught in schools about the weather. Imagine that prominent scientists write popular books about meteorology that state, "From our scientific understanding of the causes of wind and rain, it is clear that no divine being controls the weather." Imagine that a professional organization of science teachers writes a set of guidelines that state, "Students must learn that all weather phenomena follow from natural causes; weather is unguided and no divine action is involved."

Meanwhile, other people insist that these scientific explanations of rain and wind must be wrong because the Bible clearly teaches that God governs the weather.¹ These people write books and give public speeches saying, "Atheists have invented their godless theories about evaporation and condensation. But we can prove that their so-called scientific theories are false and that the Bible is true." They go to churches and teach, "If you believe what these scientists are saying about the causes of wind and rain, then you've abandoned belief in the Bible." They petition school boards and courts to require that science classrooms also teach their "storehouses" theory of the weather as an alternative explanation to evaporation and condensation. . . .

Fortunately, we don't have such debates about what causes the weather. The majority of Christians say that when it comes to the weather, both science and the Bible are correct. God governs the weather, usually through the scientifically understandable processes of evaporation and condensation. And the majority of atheists today would also agree that having a scientific explanation for the weather, by itself, neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. So there are no court battles about what science classrooms should teach about the weather.

Debates about creation, design, and evolution have some similarities to the above example. . . .

--pp. 8-9

Except, say the Haarsmas, the creation-evolution-design debates are more complex.

Indeed, they say the purpose of their book is "to lay out a wider variety of options [than the two options of young-earth creationism v. old-earth evolutionism] and to examine what both the Bible and the natural world can teach us about these options." They seek to "explore in depth the issues of origins and consider where [evangelical] Christians generally agree with each other and areas where [evangelical] Christians disagree.

"Our goal," they say,

is not to convince you that one particular opinion must be correct, but neither will we merely list a wide variety of opinions without doing any analysis. We will

• summarize what we believe God's Word teaches about origins when it is studied using sound principles of interpretation.
• summarize what we believe God's world can reliably reveal about origins when it is studied using sound scientific methods.
• distinguish between scientific theories that are well-established and have a great deal of data supporting them and scientific theories that are more tentative and speculative.
• look at the range of opinions that Christians hold about origins and discuss some of the pros and cons of each in light of what we can learn from God's Word and God's world.

--pp. 9-10

As I read their chapter summaries (pp. 10-11), I thought they just might be right: they would dramatically expand my horizons. I mean, when was the last time you read a popular-level book that set out to "consider God's governance in four areas: explainable natural events, unexplainable natural events, supernatural miracles, and random events" . . . much less "four concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 . . . [and] five non-concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 and then [discuss] all of these interpretations in light of [fundamental conservative] principles of biblical interpretation"?

I was blown away. Not merely by the summary (frankly, I didn't know what "concordist" and "non-concordist" even mean--so the fact that they could suggest there are nine clearly distinguishable interpretations of Genesis 1 . . . let alone that four are concordist and five are non-concordist: well, that impressed me!). But, far more, I was impressed by the Haarsmas' actual performance.

By the end of the book, I think you can tell, pretty clearly, "where they are coming from." But I don't know if I have ever read such an even-handed presentation of such a wide variety of perspectives on any subject.

I look forward to pushing Sonlight Curriculum to carry this book!

---

¹ The Haarsmas note: "Many Bible passages proclaim that God causes rain and drought (see Deut. 11:14-17; 1 Kings 8:35-36; Job 5:10; 37:6; Jer. 14:22). Writers of Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Jeremiah refer specifically to storehouses of rain and snow (see Deut. 28:12, 24; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13)."

Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear?

There's a little story I've been sitting on for close to a year. It's time I told it.

As most of my readers know, I am a co-owner of Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., a Christian homeschool curriculum developer and supply company. I resigned from day-to-day involvement in the company effective April 1 last year.

Shortly after I resigned, I received news that the company had been banned from displaying its materials at the homeschool convention sponsored by CHEC, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado, our local Christian homeschool association. The letter that informed us of our having been banned was strangely uninformative. I am not at home right now, so I don't have access to a PDF of the letter to show you. But, in essence, the author said, "You don't meet our standards. We are unwilling to talk with you about it. Don't ask."

Happily, I have enough of a relationship with the president of CHEC (not much, but enough!) that I wrote to ask what was going on, what insight he might be able to shed on the subject. . . . I mean: It's not as if Sonlight had changed in any fundamental way over the 13 years it had been in attendance at the CHEC convention. . . .

Ultimately, Sonlight received no written or full "official" explanation, but got the message: the convention committee was of the opinion that the company isn't Christian enough . . . primarily because it isn't strict enough in its young-earth teaching. It carries Usborne books that, as virtually all secular books that touch on issues related to origins, present an evolutionary perspective.

That Sonlight doesn't schedule those pages, or that, when it does schedule them, counters those presentations with young-earth creationist material: Not good enough. Someone--a child, perhaps, without Mom's or Dad's permission, or maybe even a mom or dad--might find the offending books so attractive that they will read those pages and become convinced of their truth. . . .

CHEC, apparently, can't trust Christian homeschoolers in Colorado to do their own research, read what "the other side" is saying, and/or come to their own conclusions in these matters. CHEC feels the need to protect homeschool families from themselves . . . and from companies like Sonlight that don't teach origins in quite the way CHEC prefers.

What really bothers me: CHEC's behavior, in essence, answers my paper--Young-Earth and Old-Earth Creationists: Can We Even Talk to One Another?--in the negative: "No. We can't. And, to the extent it is up to us, we won't."

Moreover, its behavior suggests that, if it were up to CHEC, they would keep modern homeschoolers away from a whole lot of evangelical and fundamentalist stalwarts of the last hundred years or more: people like B.B. Warfield (a giant in conservative biblical studies during the late 19th century), J. Vernon McGee (key radio evangelist of the mid-20th century with the Back to the Bible broadcast), James Dobson (yes, that James Dobson--of Focus on the Family), and others. Y'know, these guys simply weren’t (or aren't) "pure" enough in their stance on the age of the earth and/or the specific mechanism(s) by which God created the world. Only leaders who teach in lock-step with Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research crowd deserve a place at the CHEC convention.

Pretty amazing . . . and depressing (in my opinion).

But Sonlight's banning occurred quietly. In the "back room."

Who heard?

I think CHEC hoped to keep it that way.

But I finally decided to tell the story. Because I don't think stories like this should remain hushed up. We need to know how our knowledge is being circumscribed.

If you're involved in homeschooling, especially Christian homeschooling, I wonder if your state convention sponsors may be keeping you from hearing the "other side" in debates that concern you?

****Editorial "Revision" (1/30/09; 6:20PM): I was just reviewing some old documents and discovered my memory of the chronology of events was incorrect. I want to correct, here, my false memories of chronology.

I will post a separate/new post with unmistakable details that may clarify and/or throw greater light on what really has taken place.

(1/31/09; 11:30AM): Full update is now available here.)

Trying to get a "balanced view" of Islam and Muslims . . .

Mark Steyn notes in America Alone that too few of us in the West are aware of the different sects of Islam--Wahhabi, Deobandi, Sunni, Shiite, Sufi. . . .

I confess to ignorance.

Steyn points out that Saudi Arabia, the great exporter of Islam worldwide at this point in history, exports Wahhabi Islam--the most "radical" and violent version.

So how does one gain a more balanced view? And how does one encourage the supposedly "moderate" Muslims (who, I am coming to believe, are really the equivalent of what we, in Christian circles, would tend to call "liberal" and/or non-observant or nominal Muslims: people who identify themselves culturally as Muslims, but have no strong religious practice) . . . --How does one encourage the "moderate" Muslims to spread their "moderation"?

Honestly, I'm not sure. But I bumped into the following websites and comments/commentary and have been caused to at least begin to meditate on their significance. . . .

First . . . there's a blog by an obviously non-violent Indonesian Muslim who is currently living in Belgium. You get an idea about his personality from his latest post titled "Adventures on the streets of Europe":

I almost got mugged (again) yesterday. I was walking down a quiet street alone when a man stopped me. He asked me to take a picture of him with his camera. I was suspicious, but anyhow I agreed just to get it over with. When I looked through the camera two guys came up from behind. One of them flashed a police ID badge and said he wanted to see my passport. Now that was like a deja vu because the same thing happenned to me already a few years back in another part of this city.

It's an old trick these thugs play on tourists. They expect you to be afraid of the police and they will run with your passport once you pull it out (they sell these passports for up to 500 euro in Amsterdam). Thankfully I managed to play it cool. I gave the man back his camera and walked away with that four letter word gesture. I was actually quite scared, but surprisingly those two fake polices look dumbfounded that I didn't seem to be scared. They actually then looked more like those guys in "dumb and dumber" rather than thugs. I think by the time they got their mind back I was already going over the street corner, then I started to walk fast, very fast.

This reminds me of another incident a couple of years ago under the streets of Paris. I was again walking alone through a quite part of Paris metro station when a guy stopped me. He started to kick around a football expecting me to play. At certain point I felt his hand was reaching down my back pocket, so by reflex I shoved him to the wall. I was surprised by my own move, but he seems to be more surprised. Perhaps he thought this Asian looking guy knows Kung Fu. So after a few seconds of silence looking at each other eyes, he ran away... and at the same time I also ran, to the opposite direction of course ... :P

Times like these, I am simply glad I had my running shoes on, and that I watched enough Hollywood movies So guys, if you can't avoid streets like these, and you can't kick like Jet Li or Jacky Chen, make sure you can imitate Chow Yun-Fat's coolness and have those great running shoes on!

More seriously (or, rather, more to the point of this post), however, he writes:

Many moslems, including me, feels that Islam is largely misunderstood in the West. The current dominant perception of Islam in the US and Europe has been shaped seemingly by a small minority of moslems, which have hijacked the global stage because they somehow shouted much louder. As a result, in many parts of the West today, Islam is almost identical to terror. To be fair, many moslems (again including me) have not done much of our homework to practice, let alone communicate, Islamic values in our daily life. We need to communicate our values to non-moslems, but communication of our values start at home. It starts with practicing in daliy life the values we belief in.

In response to a comment about his orignal post, he continues much the same theme:

God is everywhere, and He is speaking to us all the time, we only need to listen. Unfortunately many of us turned a deaf ear to Him most of the times. We get too busy listening to other voices instead, too easily satisfied with confining our relationship with Him to routine rituals or sometimes to almost nothing at all. Again this is mainly a reminder for myself ...

Interesting.

And then I saw this comment:

Did you know that experimentation comes from Muslim Science and differentiates it from Greek Science which was more based on Speculation? Learn about this and so much more from this fascinating site courtesy of the Foundation for Science Technology and Civilisation (UK).

He provided a link to MuslimHeritage.com where I found an article titled "The Islamic Origins of Modern Science".

As I began to read, it struck me: the style, the substance, the manner of quoting the Qur'an: it all sounds a bit too familiar. It reminded me of how a lot of Christians use (or misuse) Scripture.

[T]he Qur'an called upon them to think, to investigate and to use their minds, perhaps for the first time in their lives.

In one of the first revealed verses of the Qur'an, God drew the attention of the Arabs to the camel, a part of their everyday lives:

Have they not looked at the camel-how it was created? And at the sky-how it was raised up? And at the mountains-how they were embedded? And at the earth-how it is spread out? So remind them! You are only a reminder. (Qur'an, 88: 17-21)

In many other verses of the Qur'an, people are instructed to examine nature and learn from it because people can know God only by examining His creations. Because of this, in one verse of the Qur'an Muslims are defined as people who think about the creation of the heavens and the earth:

Those who remember God, standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth (saying): "Our Lord, You have not created this for nothing. Glory be to You! So safeguard us from the punishment of the Fire." (Qur'an, 3: 191)

As a result of this, for a Muslim, taking an interest in science is a very important form of worship.

I am curious: Does any of this strike you in a similar manner? Or am I completely "messed" in my head? I try to follow the "logic" of (for example) just this section that I have quoted, and "it does not follow."

But/and then, I compare it to some of the arguments I see in Christian circles, especially between young- and old-earth creationists, and I sense a lot of our/their arguments appear just about as "logical." Are we (Christians and Muslims; Jews, too?)--we who seek to take our sacred Scriptures seriously--. . . Are we all subject to "taking Scripture out-of-context" and, potentially, at least, of seeking to make it say what we want to say, rather than what it says for itself?

In many verses of the Qur'an, God instructs Muslims to investigate the heavens, the earth, living things or their own existence and think about them. When we look at the verses, we find indications of all the main branches of science in the Qur'an. For example, in the Qur'an, God encourages the science of astronomy:

He who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? (Qur'an, 67: 3)

In another verse of the Qur'an, God encourages the investigation of astronomy and the composition of the earth that is the science of geology:

Do they not look at the sky above them? How We have made it and adorned it, and there are no flaws in it? And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-To be observed and commemorated by every devotee turning (to God). (Qur'an, 50: 6-8)

In the Qur'an, God also encourages the study of botany:

It is He Who sends down water from the sky from which We bring forth growth of every kind, and from that We bring forth the green shoots and from them We bring forth close-packed seeds, and from the spathes of the date palm date clusters hanging down, and gardens of grapes and olives and pomegranates, both similar and dissimilar. Look at their fruits as they bear fruit and ripen. There are Signs in that for people who believe. (Qur'an, 6:99)

In another verse of the Qur'an, God draws attention to zoology:

You have a lesson in livestock... (Qur'an, 16:66)

Here is a Qur'anic verse about the sciences of archaeology and anthropology:

Have they not traveled in the earth and seen the final fate
of those before them? (Qur'an, 30: 9)

In another verse of the Qur'an, God draws attention to the proof of God in a person's own body and spirit:

There are certainly Signs in the earth for people with certainty; and in yourselves as well. Do you not then see? (Qur'an, 51: 20-21)

As we can see, God recommends all the sciences to Muslims in the Qur'an. Because of this the growth of Islam in history meant at the same time the growth of scientific knowledge.

Maybe I need to get into the "swing" of things and, as I suggested at the beginning of this post, seek to encourage "moderate" Muslims to spread their "moderation" . . . through the use of the Qur'an!

As some Christian ambassadors to Muslims in southeast Asia suggested to a conference of which I was a part a couple of years ago: maybe, "properly understood," in the same way that, as St. Paul said, the law was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, so Muhammad truly can be God's prophet to lead Muslims to Christ. . . .

What allowed Muslims to create such an advanced scientific culture was derived from the faculties of the Islamic understanding. One of them was, as we have noted, the motive to learn about the universe and nature according to the Qur'anic principles. Another one was open-mindedness. Both the Qur'anic wisdom and the Prophetic teaching gave Muslims a global outlook to the world, overcoming all cultural barriers. In the Qur'an, God states:

Mankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you might come to know each other..." (Qur'an, 49:13)

This verse clearly encourages cultural relationships between different nations and communities. In another verse of the Qur'an is it stated that "Both East and West belong to Allah" (2:115), thus Muslims should see the world in a universalist and cosmopolitan vision.

The hadiths, or sayings, of the Prophet also encourage this vision. In a popular hadith, the Prophet tells Muslims that "wisdom is the lost property of the Muslims; he takes it from wherever he finds". This means that Muslims should be very pragmatic and broadminded in adapting and using the cultural and scientific achievements of non-Muslims; those non-Muslims are also creatures and servants of God, even they might not recognize so. The "People of The Book", i.e. Christians and Jews, are even much more compatible, since they believe in God and stick to moral code He revealed to man.

Some "wild" meditations this morning. . . .

[Oh. PS. I followed a further link or two to discover that the original source of the "The Islamic Origins of Modern Science" article . . . is an Answers in Genesis-style organization dedicated to Islamic creation-evangelism: Harun Yayhah: An Invitation to the Truth.]