Sproul/Stein III

Which brings us to the R.C. Sproul/Ben Stein interview I listened to recently (thanks, Andrea!).

My limited experience with Sproul has been that he is an intelligent man and a good speaker, and I am aware that he has been a well-respected theologian and apologist for decades. And I had heard that Stein was an intelligent man, but honestly I had only thought of him as a character actor ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and former game show host ("Win Ben Stein's Money"). Through the hubbub surrounding "Expelled", it has been interesting to learn that he is an Intelligent Design and pro-life proponent, from which I surmise he may be a Christian of some type.

But darn it if they didn't both fall all over each other to twist the issues and perpetuate the confusion! Before the interview even starts, the announcer refers to the "church of Darwin," casually throwing in a phrase that conceals volumes of issues and questions, with no explanation. I'm sorry, I don't think there was any part of the interview, except maybe when Sproul was joking with Stein about his lines from "Ferris Bueller", that wasn't off the mark and contributing to misinformation and confusion. I'll try to hit the main ideas.

It is my understanding that the "Expelled" movie primarily argues against Darwinism or evolution, so I was confused to hear Sproul and Stein spend the bulk of their time discussing why the universe couldn't have come into existence out of nothing, which has nothing to do with evolution. They characterize the scientific view of the universe and evolution as "random," something that no scientist claims. So you either believe in a "random" universe, or you believe it was designed. You believe we came from a mud puddle or we were designed. I have yet to see or hear anything that tells me why it can't be both. (Incidentally, if you don't believe we were formed out of a mud puddle, when was the last time you read Genesis 2:7?) Stein goes on to quip that if you question where everything came from in a university setting, "you would probably be shot." Really? The universities that I know of have whole departments for those kinds of questions - philosophy and theology departments. The science departments don't receive that type of discussion favorably within the realm of doing science, because it's not science. If the beauty, complexity, or very existence of the natural world points you to something supernatural, then praise God, you are on the right track. But you have, by definition, stepped outside the realm of science and into philosophy. Therefore, philosophy and theology aren't allowed in scientific papers (I'm not sure why they should be), but Sproul and Stein insist that this is arrogant, closed-minded, suppressing free expression, and fearfully defending job security on the part of "Big Science." This gets at the definition of science and how it operates, which maybe someone should cover in a future post.

Another main topic was the supposed implications of evolution, and I guess it's related to the above. This argument starts with the mischaracterization that evolution has its "origin in nothingness, it's destiny in nothingness", gives human beings no significance, and is "the death blow to human dignity" (Sproul). These may be the philosophical conclusions of some, but by definition they cannot be part of evolution because it is a scientific theory. I cannot see why these assertions have any more validity or are any more necessarily derived from the theory of evolution than the assertion that evolution is how God created us and we have worth and human dignity as creations of God, but Sproul and Stein spew them and refute them as if they are given. They are refuting an amalgam of philosophical viewpoints as if they are evolution/Darwinism.

"If I were a scientist convinced of the theses of macroevolution . . I would have to accept it with tears. Why would I even bother to get up in the morning?" (Sproul)

"There's no hope for any kind of eternity"(Stein)

If evolution abolishes human dignity and significance, then it is responsible for all kinds of evils and immorality, including things like Hitler's holocaust. This is getting a little long, so I won't even go into the Hitler thing, which is misguided on multiple levels, and Sproul and Stein should know better. Of course we should be against a nihilistic world view that rejects the significance of human life and says there is no purpose in the universe! But that's philosophy, not evolution. If a scientist advocates that point of view, he is stating his own philosophical conclusions, not scientific truth.

Here is another quote that is neither here nor there, except why would you even say something so nonsensical that all it does is undermine your rationality and credibility?

"People go into academic life, in large measure, because they're frightened people." (Stein)

Anybody else listen and have any opinions?