Ashby L. Camp Interview

		[top_right_buttons.htm]
	Ashby L. Camp Interview	[Rainmakers_Title.htm]

[navi.htm]

Ashby L. Camp Ashby L. Camp graduated with high honors from the University of Florida in 1974. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Duke University School of Law in 1977 and worked as a trial attorney for ten years. In 1990 he earned a Master of Divinity degree from Harding University Graduate School of Religion. He was the 1989 recipient of the Velma R. West Greek Award and the 1990 recipient of the M. Div. Academic Award. Mr. Camp currently ministers at University Church of Christ in Tempe, Arizona. A dedicated scholar, he has studied the issue of origins for years.

1. Were you ever an evolutionist?

Yes. Prior to becoming a Christian, I accepted as true the view of origins I had inhaled from our culture. Like all "educated" people, I "knew" that the Earth and all of its inhabitants had come from nowhere out of nothing by chance.

2. What event or evidence inspired you to become a creationist? When?

I converted to Christianity from atheism (practical if not philosophical) in 1978 at the age of 26. I became a creationist, in the broad sense, at that time. I realized from Scripture that God created all things. As I looked at the world from this new perspective, my former faith in the creative power of natural processes seemed absurd.

For most of my Christian life, I sought to interpret the creation texts in conformity with the reigning scientific opinion. In my effort to harmonize Scripture with scientific orthodoxy, I found myself one day working seriously with the idea that there were two Adams referred to in Genesis (separated by eons). I was convicted at that moment that I was trying to make Scripture say something I wanted it to say rather than listening for what it actually said, which struck me as a sophisticated form of unbelief. That was a turning point in terms of my acceptance of a recent creation.

3. Just how did your formal education impact you on the creation/evolution debate?

My legal training taught me to think like a lawyer, to think in terms of issues, facts, and arguments. My theological training equipped me to interpret the word of God more accurately, and in so doing, gave me a greater appreciation of the complexity of that task (which I hope has humbled me and made me more charitable).

4. Trained as a lawyer, you base your conclusions on evidence, or lack thereof. Describe the single largest flaw, or missing evidence, you see in evolutionism?

In my opinion, the single largest flaw in the claim that all of life is the product of unintelligent causes is that there is no evidence that unintelligent causes can generate the mind-boggling, integrated complexity that exists at every level of life. On the contrary, where the cause of such complexity is known, it is invariably an intelligent being.

5. What other flaws support your rejection of that belief?

Related to the above is the vast problem of the origin of life. I am aware that evolutionists often dismiss the problem saying evolution presumes the existence of life, but to the extent evolution is part of a larger, naturalistic worldview, the origin of life is quite relevant.

As many have noted, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of neo-Darwinist theory. The notion that an eye, to use a classic example, could be created from scratch through incremental steps induced by random mutations is too improbable for serious consideration. As renowned zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse put it, "The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; ... There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." When one considers the vast number of integrated and complex structures, organs, and systems present in living things, daydreaming becomes delusion.

The absence of transitional forms leading up to the multitude of phyla that explode on the scene in the Cambrian period is very difficult to square with the claim that they all evolved gradually from a microscopic common ancestor. Evolution's greatest achievement in diversifying life forms (the morphological distance between members of different phyla being greater than the distance between members of the same phylum) supposedly was accomplished without leaving any clear traces in the fossil record.

The early appearance of the phyla followed by subsequent variation within them seems contrary to gradual diversification from a common ancestor. That is, the cone seems upside down. Diversity does not increase or branch as one moves up the fossil record.

Lastly, some proposed gradual transformations simply are inconceivable. For example, gradually converting an amphibian egg into an amniotic egg, an amphibian heart into a reptilian heart, and a reptilian lung into an avian lung, while maintaining viability throughout the process, raises horrendous problems.

6. Can evolutionism qualify as genuine science? If not, why not?

I don't think there's an agreed definition of "genuine science." If genuine science means exploring the natural world without excluding a priori any explanation of the data, then to the extent "evolutionism" restricts explanations to unintelligent causes, it does not qualify as genuine science. Of course, to the extent creationists restrict explanations to those that are consistent with Scripture, our exploration of the natural world also does not qualify as genuine science.

7. Do you see Darwin as a scientist? A charlatan? Then what?

I am not a student of Darwin's life, but in Darwin's God George Hunter makes the intriguing argument that Darwin's theory of evolution was essentially a theodicy, a solution to the problem of natural evil. The gritty reality of nature seemed inconsistent with Darwin's concept of God. He thus distanced God from creation by coming up with a natural law that could account for nature's carnage and waste. The end result was that God was no longer necessary.

So I would say Darwin was a scientist whose weak theology led him to develop a theory that essentially pushed God out of creation. The rest, as they say, is history.

8. You and Darwin share at least one characteristic: you both trained as clergy. How do you account for your contrasting worldviews?

Again, I don't know enough about Darwin's life to speak with any confidence. From Hunter's analysis, I would say I am more willing to trust Scripture than was Darwin. I suspect the roots of Darwin's skepticism were complex.

9. You authored The Myth of Natural Origins,* published in 1994. What inspired you to write the book?

In the early 90's, out of a desire to inoculate my daughter against the evolution propaganda flooding our society, I began collecting and organizing evidence that contradicts the notion that natural processes are an adequate explanation for our existence. The project grew to the point that I became convinced it would benefit enough people to justify the effort and expense of publication.

10. What reaction have you received from readers of The Myth---generally speaking, creationists, evolutionists? Evidence of minds being changed?

I have received many favorable comments from creationists. There have also been a couple of mindless criticisms from evolutionists. I don't recall any evidence of someone's mind being changed, but I hope that the book has at least opened some minds.

One fellow, whom I assumed to be an evolutionist, convinced me that Michael Pitman's claim (which I cite on p. 55 of my book) that Julian Huxley had calculated the odds against evolution of the horse to be 1 in 10^300,000 was misleading. Assuming that Pitman's remarks were based on Huxley's discussion in Evolution in Action, which seems likely, it is apparent that Huxley believed natural selection was able to circumvent the astronomical odds against evolution of the horse, to make possible what he agrees would be impossible without natural selection. Since Huxley obviously believed that evolution proceeds by natural selection, it is inaccurate to say that he believed the odds against the actual evolution of the horse, evolution via natural selection, were the odds he gave for evolution without natural selection (which were actually 1 in 10^3,000,000, not 1 in 10^300,000).

11. Any plans to write another book?

I published another book in 1999 (Feet Firmly Planted: A Theological Handbook for the Church of Christ), but it touches only briefly on the creation issue. In 2001 I published on the internet a lengthy article ("A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution'" at http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp) and a reply to criticism of Part 1 of that article ("Camp Answers Theobald" at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp). I also maintain a categorized list of web articles of interest to creationists at http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (though webmaster Tim Wallace does the real work). At present, I have no plans to tackle another book.

12. Do you believe public schools should “teach the controversy”? Can it be done without violating the First Amendment?

If by "the controversy" you mean the scientific controversy over whether unintelligent causes are sufficient to account for life, then certainly it should be taught. To fail to do so is to deprive the students of a quality science education because of a philosophical commitment to naturalism. The controversy certainly can be taught without violating the First Amendment. See, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?" at http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf.

13. Given the powerful influence of the genome in life formats, how would you feel about a new emphasis on Genomic Science in public school education as a constitutional means of raising questions concerning evolutionism’s shortfall in public school education?

I don't think that a new emphasis on genomic science is necessary. Teachers just need to be assured they have the academic freedom to question neo-Darwinism. There is plenty of information about the deficiencies of that theory.

14. What do you see for the future of creation science thinking? Is evolution going to lose ground?

If the Intelligent Design Movement succeeds in establishing design detection as a scientific enterprise, and if it that discipline shows that an intelligence was involved in the creation of life, many people will be wondering about the identity of the Designer. Certainly competing explanations will be offered, but I think a significant number will realize that the Designer is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This will not come easily, however. The scientific establishment is vested heavily in the proposition that unintelligent causes are sufficient to explain life, and it will fight like a mad dog to preserve that claim.

* Further information about Ashby Camp’s book is available at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ashby/. The Myth of Natural Origins can be purchased by sending a check in the amount of $11.75 to Ktisis Publishing, 1413 E. Watson Dr., Tempe, AZ 85283-3144. Discounts are available for multiple copy orders.

[rightcolumn.htm]