Dr. Ned Bowden, an associate professor of chemistry at the University of Iowa, has written a piece for a university magazine, Campus Voices, that is one of the most ill-informed and wrongheaded articles I’ve seen in a publication by a reputable university.  Let’s call it a “formerly reputable” university, for I have no idea what the school was thinking when it okayed Bowden’s piece, “Common ground: a case for ending animosity between science and religion.” Yes, Bowden has the right to publish anti-evolution views, and yes, Campus Voices has every right to publish them, as it has every right to publish defenses of astrology, homeopathy, and the accounts of people abducted and sexually molested by space aliens.  But this was deeply unwise, for it just tarnishes the reputation of Bowden’s university, and makes the man look deeply foolish.

The magazine has a disclaimer, of course:

Campus Voices is a place for faculty, staff and students to share ideas, views and information about issues that matter to them personally and professionally. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the University of Iowa.

But when you read Bowden’s piece, which I’ll put in its entirety below, you’ll see why this issue doesn’t matter to anyone except creationists. Its title implies that it’s just another accommodationist article, but it’s really far more than that: it attempts to show that a). the Genesis story mirrors what scientists know about evolution; b). that there are huge gaping holes in the modern theory of evolution; c). that science can contribute to religion, and vice versa; and d). that “a.” shows that God used evolution as a way of accomplishing his aims.

The man doesn’t know evolution, and apparently doesn’t know his Bible, either. But read it (I’ve put a crucial paragraph in bold):

In our era of punditry, it seems that only the loudest, most extreme, and most intransigent voices are heard. It’s not enough simply to have an opinion; you must shout down anyone expressing a different view to demonstrate the “right-ness” of your own.

I wish more people could stop to see that seemingly opposite views do not necessarily cancel each other out. It is possible for different world views to exist simultaneously and even support one another, if we only can ask and answer questions honestly and without name-calling.

Take for example a perceived conundrum in two fundamental areas of my life: science and religion.

I know some scientists who think we can understand everything in the universe without God. I know some Christians who think we can understand everything in the universe without science.

They’re both wrong. It’s unfortunate that so few take the time to consider that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive but can support one another.

Let’s consider one of the most contentious “battles” between science and religion: creationism vs. evolution. Think of all the energy that has gone into knock-down, drag-out, red-faced shouting matches between these two camps. But if you examine both ideas side-by-side, the creation story in Genesis is remarkably consistent with what we believe as scientists.

If we throw out our modern definition of a day as a 24-hour period, Genesis tells us that on the first day, “God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void…”

When this story was written 4,000 years ago, they didn’t have the language to talk about things like the Big Bang theory and subatomic particles. But whether you take the Big Bang or “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ ” it says the same thing.

We can argue whether this happened 5 billion years ago or 10,000 years ago, but really, what’s the point? I have utter confidence in radioactive dating and no doubt that our universe represents more than 10,000 years of history. But I’m perfectly willing to engage with someone who believes otherwise under the premise that at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago the earth was created to appear much older. It doesn’t really matter whether the Earth was created 5 billion years ago, 5,000 years ago, or, heck, even 5 minutes ago.

Moving on through the Genesis story, we see that on the “third day” (remember, not just 48 hours later; perhaps as much as billions of years?) “…the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding seed after his kind…”

Doesn’t that sound like the beginning of photosynthesis and the release of oxygen on earth? Skip ahead to day five when God created, “…great whales and every living creature that moveth…” and you have the next step in the scientific time-table: an explosion of complex life that happened during the Cambrian period.

Which of course leads naturally into the creation of man and woman sometime later. Genesis calls it the sixth day; modern scientists have more accurately dated the emergence of humans. But either way, we went from nothing, to oxygen, to plants, to animals, to humans.

It’s remarkably consistent how evolution and Genesis look at the process and tell the same stories using different words. Science can never prove or disprove God, but science can provide support for the existence of God and that is what the Big Bang and evolution can give us. There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.

There is no reason for Christians to fear science. Denigrating or denying the clear, measurable, logical, repeatable work of thousands of scientists through the years does nothing to bolster Christian beliefs. We should embrace science and what it confirms about the existence of a Creator.

And despite our portrayal as God-less heathens, scientists do take a lot on faith (though we don’t like to admit this.) I’ve never personally observed the full change from a simple to complex organism—it takes too long to see it through—but I believe that it happens. I’ve never seen an electron, but I’m pretty sure they exist!

For me, it comes down to faith and life, not a hard and fast belief in a literal interpretation of one chapter of one book. An argument about whether Genesis and current scientific beliefs are at odds with each other misses the point that Christianity is about Jesus, his life, his death, and his resurrection. We argue so much and get distracted about something that in the end is not that important. Maybe it’s time we stopped shouting and started listening.

Well if Bowden is a Christian—and I assume he is—he needs to read his Bible more closely.  For, as nearly all of us know, there are two Genesis stories, and they give different orders of creation.  Neither, in fact, is compatible with what we know about the history of Earth. Pulling out my trusty King James Bible, I find this:

Genesis Chapter 1

Light
The firmament and water
Vegetation (grass and fruit trees)
Stars
Sea creatures (including whales) and fowls
Beasts of the earth
Man and woman (simultaneously)

Genesis Chapter 2

Earth and heavens
Plants
Water
Man (Adam)
Garden of Eden (moar plants)
Beasts of the fields and fowls of the air
Woman (Eve)

We know the reason for this disparity: the two stories come from two different traditions, and were simply inserted cheek-by-jowl in the Bible, with no attempt to comport them. Its fun to watch fundamentalists try to reconcile them, though!

Bowden has apparently relied on the account in Chapter 1, which is still problematic (in reality, grasses and flowering plants evolved long after sea creatures, and how could you have vegetation before the sun?).  He completely neglects Chapter 2, which is even more problematic since it has plants appearing before water and, more distressingly, male humans before land animals, followed by female humans. That truly violates what we know about evolution.

Some simple fact-vetting by the magazine might have prevented this embarrassment.

Now 25 of Bowden’s colleagues have written a response to his letter (I was pleased to see my one-time postdoc Ana Llopart, now on the faculty, among them), taking issue with Bowden’s claim that there are holes in the theory of evolution “big enough to drive a semi-truck through.” They also note that Bowden’s piece was “initially not labeled as opinion,” suggesting that the magazine backtracked and added the disclaimer.

But the theory of evolution, or at least its major tenets, is supported by a mountain of evidence. That’s the topic of WEIT.  And yes, there are things we don’t understand about evolution, like how life originated (I don’t consider that an area of evolutionary biology but of organic chemistry: the origin of replicators on which evolution could then act), how sexual selection works in many cases, how consciousness evolved, and what is the true sequence of fossils that is forms the lineage of modern humans.  Maybe you can say those are big enough to drive a truck through, but if that’s the case, then physics and chemistry also have their holes.  What is dark matter and dark energy? Is there more than one universe? Is string theory right? Those are huge “holes,” and such holes are why science is exciting and keeps going.  But Bowden doesn’t dwell on physics—for the obvious reason that he’s trying to diss evolution. Nor does he specify exactly what those evolutionary “holes” are. I’d love to hear about them, since I suspect they’d be the usual creationist drivel.

I won’t dwell on Bowden’s accommodationism, or the supposed contributions that faith can make to science, as his claims are almost self-refuting. There’s too much fail in this letter to go after it all (e.g., the “appearance of age” argument for a young earth).

Had I been those 25 professors, I would have added a paragraph about how Bowden is as ignorant of Scripture as he is of biology. Now that would have been embarrassing! Or, rather, more embarrassing, because, in his ignorance of science (and the Bible), Bowden has shamed himself, his department, and his University.

Inside Higher Ed, with its usual cowardice, simply reports the incident and doesn’t take a stand, although its short piece is called “Should university website publish anti-evolution views?” They should have provided an answer: “Well, they’re entitled to, but it’s not very smart to try to comport evolution with an ancient work of fiction when they don’t jibe. And if they’re entitled to publish Bowden’s views, they’re entitled to publish views in favor of ESP, Bigfoot, and homeopathy. Where are the articles on how astrology comports with astronomy and psychology?”

Finally, as expected, the Discovery Institute is lauding Bowden’s piece on Evolution News and Views.  And they make a pretty bizarre argument: University of Iowa faculty condemn Bowden because the school is inferior to places like Harvard.  Therefore, insecure Iowa faulty are forced to fight back when evolution is criticized. In contrast, the accomplished and secure faculty of Harvard don’t have to defend evolution because creationism doesn’t threaten them. I kid you not. Here’s the DI take:

The rush to condemn Bowden, or to censor Ball State physicist Eric Hedin, is probably driven in part by status anxiety on the part of faculty or administration, respectively. The last thing you want to do is let one of your own professors taint you with the reputation for harboring someone with views — so goes the mythology of Darwinism — just a step or two removed from the Ark Park.

The University of Iowa and Ball State are perfectly respectable places to hang your hat as a professor, but there’s only one Harvard. If you’re a tenured professor there, obviously, you’ve made it. You need not feel threatened by something a little bit outré that the guy in the office down the hall says or writes somewhere.

This may explain why Harvard geneticist George Church, who gave a warm approbation to Darwin’s Doubt, has not, as far as I know, suffered a public condemnation by his own colleagues. It’s also one reason why Darwinism makes so fascinating a sociological study, as much as it does a scientific one.

And, by the way, Bowden’s views are indeed just a step removed from the Ark Park.  He’s responded, by the way, to the Inside Higher Ed piece, but it’s just made things worse by accusing evolutionist of lying: