The Gospel of the Young Earth
Are young earth creationists actually leading people away from the Gospel? This is not necessarily the argument that made by Vance McAllister at the Euangelion blog, but he does bring up some very good points. In a blog well entitled “Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism,” Vance challenges readers to consider the debate from a more philosophical perspective. He writes:Â Â
I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or†teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.
I really don’t think it sounds over dramatic at all. In fact, for a long time I was one of these people. I can still remember the names and faces of those whom I have encountered in the past with whom this became the dividing issue. I would present the “Gospel of the Young Earth.” Sometimes I would not even get to Christ. Yes, I was a dogmatic young earther. Why? Because that is what all Christians are. You believe that Christ rose from the grave and your believe in a young earth. Well, if only I could redeem the time with those people.
Don’t get me wrong . . . I don’t have this issue figured out. In fact, I don’t talk about this issue much unless it is trying to help people (both young earthers and old earthers) see that it is not quite as cut-and-dry as people like to make it.
I agree with Vance. He tells of a (the?) major danger of “the Gospel of the Young Earth” with regards to young people:
First, there are Christians, especially young people, who have been raised in a dogmatic Creationist households or attend such a church, and have been taught that evolution, or even an old earth, are evil and absolutely contrary to Scripture. That if you believe Scripture, you can not also believe in these “liesâ€. They are taught that those who do believe both are deluded or compromising Christians, probably not even worthy of the name of Christian. They are taught these as absolute truths, rather than one interpretation among the many that sincere Christians hold. These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully. Then they come into contact with the scientific evidence and begin to suspect that evolution or an old earth scientific might actually be supported by the evidence. This creates a severe crisis of faith. They have been taught that if evolution or an old earth were true, then the atheists are right and the Bible can not be trusted and God did not create everything after all. I have seen this crisis in action. I have discussed this matter with those who either had abandoned Christianity or were about to because of this dogmatic teaching, and did my best to explain to them that the conflict was not inherent and that they could, indeed, believe in both. Most did not even know that there were Christians who accepted evolution, which shows how sheltered their lives had been.
 Thoughts?
The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?]
- None Found
Print This Post
Sean on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:40 am #
I agree wholeheartedly. Faith in a literal interpretation of Gen. 1 has justified and regenerated precisely 0 people in all of human history. Sometimes you might get only one chance to share with someone. That opportunity should be used wisely.
Jesus saves, and Jesus alone. Our witness needs to stay on target. How to interpret Gen. 1 is intramural sports.
Sola Christe!
Sean
murmex on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:54 am #
Another fine article that should generate much debate, I remember in biology the teacher said that God could have used evolution to make man. I was devastated when I found out there was never was a brontosaurus (wrong head on a skeleton). My beautiful Nebraska Man vbillage was all based on the tooth of a pig. The Piltdown Man was a college boy hoax. The latest example is Lucy. She made her “discoverer” millions on the college tour (our tax dollars at work). Lucy, when examened by outsiders turned out to be a monkey. The man who found her said he mis measured her bones because he was trying to find a missing link in the 250,000 year range( meaning liar, cheat, deceiver, and low down thief).
For something that may explain something of a young earth and not a 4000 BC creation, I suggest reading http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/reading/article.cgi?id=61 an interesting article. Not inspired, just helpful.
When it comes to these thing, why can’t we have strong beliefs personally and yet have charity toward those who disagree with us. Our minds work best like parachutes, when they are open, so why not ask questons to see if things are what someone claims they are? I have been married 32 years and it is okay to be wrong. So why not, when we are right, listen to what the other person is saying, ask them to define terms so we really understand what they are saying, and show respect even though we disagree? We can pray to a sovereign God Who can change kings hearts like water in an irrigation ditch (Prov.21:1), why can’t He show the truth to our friends? Or does He need us so badly we must behave rudely?
I know what I believe, and I don’t believe my doubts when I can help it. I hope I will always be open to learn in love. Also to share in love.
David
Sean on 05 Sep 2007 at 6:49 am #
One thing I think people should try to get out in the open in this debate: the scientific theories about the age of the earth and the common descent/evolution of life are NOT part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Christian faith. Some bad things may have been done with them, and some bad people may be associated with them, but on the whole, these theories are not about people “just being against the Bible.”
They were formed by scientists looking at the available evidence and trying to put together rational theories to explain the evidence. They did not arise from an evil cabal gleefully rubbing their hands together and thinking, “What can we do to get those Christians?” We may hold our own personal opinions about those theories, but I think certain Christian parties need to step back a little, detach, and look at how they are looking at this debate. This is not a clear-cut battle of good versus evil, and we should not try to turn it into one.
I encourage Christians who are really interested in this issue to visit the “Talk Origins Archive” (google it for the link) to try to understand some of the science and evidence behind the theories. It is a mostly fair and irenic site; they present the vast amount of evidence in a clear and charitable manner. (It’s really a lot nicer and less hostile than I thought it would be.)
On the other hand, what some creationists have done in spreading misinformation and attacking their opponents is an absolute embarrassment to the cause of Christ.
richards on 05 Sep 2007 at 7:41 am #
How dare you blaspheme the name of Henry Morris!
I had a (recent) Sunday School teacher who taught on Genesis, and Morris big orange book was used extensively. It’s why I left that class.
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 8:43 am #
Sean, good points. I have written a short piece on the history of anti-evolutionism, discussing how we got to where we are, and what most people don’t realize is that the Creationist movement really only took off in the 70’s. one of the earliest supporters of evolution was Asa Grey, a devout Christian. It has always been controversial, but I think what happened is that since an old earth and evolution DO create a possible alternative for atheists (since it could happen without God), and some atheists began to USE evolution to support their own agendas (like Dawkins does today) that it pushed many Christians to other extreme. Rather than point out the simple fact that a system which COULD work without God is not a system which DID work without God necessarily.
Regardless, I don’t want to have this thread devolve (a little joke there) into a discussion about which position is right, but rather the concept that we need not preach which is right to preach Christ, as Sean correctly pointed out!
Josh on 05 Sep 2007 at 8:54 am #
This is a good post, and I confess that I had this mentality for a long while: “I will just “prove†to them that they are wrong and then they will believeâ€. At the time I didn’t think through that mentality very well, but after reading the Bible more and listening to many great Christian thinkers, this issue became less and less “a hill to die on†for me. I think perhaps the main thing that hit it home for me was understanding that the Bible was written in different genres and that those genres had different methods of communicating Gods Truth (i.e. not everything is meant to be taken as literal).
That being said, I still think evolution (in the molecule to man sense) poses serious difficulties to the Christian worldview (as Moreland & others have said). But to use it (or that line of arguments rather) as the primary (or at least the opening) method when trying to express the Gospel seems to reflect the focus away from Christ, which is the only thing that can truly awaken their heart to it.
It’s interesting, because this whole debate arises from how we define and determine the word inerrancy. While I do not believe inerrancy is necessary for salvation, I find it extremely difficult to grow in the Christian life. I also do not think the strict fundamental literalism is the correct definition, but it’s painful to watch what happens to good seminaries like Fuller when they drop it.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Nick N. on 05 Sep 2007 at 9:00 am #
I recently commented on my blog about how I saw Tim LaHaye say on David Reagan’s television program say that you can judge a person’s orthodoxy by where they stand on “the creation of the earth without the help of the evolutionists” (as well the virgin ‘birth’ (aren’t we all born virgins
) and the pre-trib rapture). I have personally been accused of being an evolutionist/Darwinist/atheist for simply denying a YEC (I’m a Gap Theory guy myself — anyone else with me on that?).
But I think that most Christians (and definitely those of the fundie persuasion) associate evolution with naturalism and see it as a way to explain how everything came to be apart from God (and I’m sure for some atheists it is exactly that). Now I’m certainly no expert but as I understand it, even if evolution is in fact true and is the best theory to explain the data — it still doesn’t thwart the existence of God or his ability to create via evolution. Maybe I’m wrong and please correct me if I am, but doesn’t evolution simply deal with the process by which things are presently what they are? It doesn’t actually seek to explain the origin of all things, does it?
Oh, and has anyone else noticed a connection between YEC and KJV Onlyism or am I alone in that?
Saint and Sinner on 05 Sep 2007 at 9:31 am #
Vance said, “I have written a short piece on the history of anti-evolutionism, discussing how we got to where we are, and what most people don’t realize is that the Creationist movement really only took off in the 70’s.”
That’s true. Of course, the majority of the support for Darwin’s theory came from Anglican clergy, and the majority dissent came from scientists, particularly biologists. Funny that.
YECism is much older than the 70’s. Statements on the age of the earth being young can be found in the intertestamental literature and the church fathers.
Steve on 05 Sep 2007 at 9:48 am #
Well said. I’m finding it hard to grasp that there are actually people out there who don’t ‘discuss’ origins/creation at the top of their lungs (or in all caps). As others have said, this is an interesting academic and philosophical discussion, but doesn’t have a bearing on salvation or our call to share the gospel with a lost and dying world. Thanks for you clarity on the issue.
Steve
Sean on 05 Sep 2007 at 9:57 am #
I don’t have a cite handy for any of this, but I have heard that from the 19th/early 20th century, both Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield were open to evolution. That’s kind of ironic considering how much impetus they gave to the fundamentalist movement.
Also if you read Darwin, he does mention “the Creator” and “the Creation” a few times. What caused Darwin to lose his faith was the problem of evil, not his theory.
As far as a biological theory, evolution does an admirable job of explaining the preponderance of physical evidence.
As a theory of history… well, let’s just say I’m very skeptical when anyone says, with such great confidence, that they can know anything about what happened so many eons ago.
Ed Kratz on 05 Sep 2007 at 10:03 am #
What I find the most interesting in this post is that CMP being a Five Pointer should not be so concerned about missing opportunities to effectively witness to people and going off track and possibly ‘missing’ an opportunity. If grace is truly irresistable, then a young earth/old earth argument should be as effective as anything else.
How can you lead someone who is one of the elect to miss the gospel over such an argument?
I know, I’m just being difficult…still it seems contrary to the professed position to me.
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 10:45 am #
While I am definitely not a five-point Calvinist, I do believe that God is the one that calls when the message is presented, and he just uses men to present that message. However, I think God does want us to actually present “the Message”, which is the Gospel.
There are two things the Scriptures seem to be telling us, regardless of “who does what” when it comes to evangelization:
1. We ARE to preach the Gospel to the unbeliever, as Paul and the others did.
2. We are to AVOID putting stumbling-blocks in the way.
So, regardless of our view about how the evangelization process works, we are given our marching orders and should follow them.
Now, that does not mean these peripheral issues are not important for us to discuss, as long as we keep them in perspective and avoid linking the truth of the Gospel to our particular viewpoint of origins or how Genesis should be read. Like Augustine said, we should not hold a view of Genesis such that if we ended up being wrong, it would bring our faith down with it. And if we should not even HOLD such a view, we should definitely not TEACH such a view to others.
The way I often see people raise the issue of origins to a “salvation” issue, or an essential, is to approach it from an “if/then” angle. They say “if you believe X, then you can’t believe Y” or worse, “if X is true, then Y can’t be true”, where X may be a non-essential and Y is an essential. So, someone might say “if you don’t believe in Genesis as I do, then you can’t believe in a Fall, and so there would be no need of redemption, and the Gospel is undermined”.
This is what I call the “phantom menace” since it is simply not what happens. Millions of Christians all around the world, including nearly all of our Catholic brothers and sisters, and a large percentage of our fellow Protestants DO accept the scientific conclusions of an old earth and evolution, but STILL fully accept that there was a Fall, original sin, a need for redemption, etc, all the way down the orthodox line. There are many ways to explain this, which is better explored elsewhere, but the point is that this is not an overlooked issue by all of these millions of Christians who, upon hearing that point, pull a Homer Simpson and say “Doh! I hadn’t thought of that!” Basically, the concept is that HOWEVER it happened, Genesis does describe actual historical events, albeit using figurative, symbolic and typological language. So, when it says there was a Fall, there WAS a Fall. Although I can consider different ways this could have taken place, I don’t fret too much about it.
In fact, the problem only really arises when dogmatic Creationists DO create this dichotomy, and convince people that a belief in evolution does, indeed, negate any concept of a Fall, etc. To the extent people believe this to be true, then an acceptance of evolution CAN be a faith-shaking proposition. Thus, the danger.
Josh on 05 Sep 2007 at 10:54 am #
Ed,
You still have the same problem if you stick with a traditional arminian framework. As they hold to mans inability (depravity) as well, until God’s grace (within the arminian framework) frees them from their bondage so that they have to ability to “freely†choose or reject Him.
A better question to ask would be, “why do you think you (or I) can lead anyone to Christ?â€
Chad Winters on 05 Sep 2007 at 11:11 am #
Its too simplistic to limit it to evolution vs creation. The old earth argument from science is much stronger on the cosmoligical side than evolution. Personally I lean to the Old Earth, non evolution, some natural selection side (Wheew). I was actually impressed with with http://www.reasons.org and how compelling an apologetic for the Bible it can be too see that our universe was specifically designed and not random
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 11:30 am #
I do want to point out that, while I think these should be moved to another level of our Christian dialogue, that does not mean these peripheral issues are not important for us to discuss, as long as we keep them in perspective and avoid linking the truth of the Gospel to our particular viewpoint of origins or how Genesis should be read. Like Augustine said, we should not hold a view of Genesis such that if we ended up being wrong, it would bring our faith down with it. And if we should not even HOLD such a view, we should definitely not TEACH such a view to others.
The way I often see people raise the issue of origins to a “salvation” issue, or an essential, is to approach it from an “if/then” angle. They say “if you believe X, then you can’t believe Y” or worse, “if X is true, then Y can’t be true”, where X may be a non-essential and Y is an essential. So, someone might say “if you don’t believe in Genesis as I do, then you can’t believe in a Fall, and so there would be no need of redemption, and the Gospel is undermined”.
This is what I call the “phantom menace” since it is simply not what happens. Millions of Christians all around the world, including nearly all of our Catholic brothers and sisters, and a large percentage of our fellow Protestants DO accept the scientific conclusions of an old earth and evolution, but STILL fully accept that there was a Fall, original sin, a need for redemption, etc, all the way down the orthodox line. There are many ways to explain this, which is better explored elsewhere, but the point is that this is not an overlooked issue by all of these millions of Christians who, upon hearing that point, pull a Homer Simpson and say “Doh! I hadn’t thought of that!” Basically, the concept is that HOWEVER it happened, Genesis does describe actual historical events, albeit using figurative, symbolic and typological language. So, when it says there was a Fall, there WAS a Fall. Although I can consider different ways this could have taken place, I don’t fret too much about it.
In fact, the problem only really arises when dogmatic Creationists DO create this dichotomy, and convince people that a belief in evolution does, indeed, negate any concept of a Fall, etc. To the extent people believe this to be true, then an acceptance of evolution CAN be a faith-shaking proposition. Thus, the danger.
Mike Liptack on 05 Sep 2007 at 12:09 pm #
Like too many debates, polarization has set in. Belief in one aspect causes you to be quickly labeled by the loud voices on either side. What far too few fail to realize, is that Naturalism and it’s reliance on an atheistic view is not evolution from a scientific perspective. Scientists as well as Creationists make this mistake all the time. I saw this false connection all the time back when I was in graduate school studying gene flow & genetic drift, and publishing papers on molecular evolution. Many biologists and researchers on evolution know that micro or small scale evolution has strong scientific backing, and there is also strong evidence for an ancient earth, but proving what is called beharioral evolution, and other social darwinism and other pseudo-scientific efforts, are on shaky ground. On these topics, from a purely evolutionary science standpoint, the evidence is weak at best.
How did human thought arrise? Why are we intellectual? Is “thought” selectively advantageous? Why do we all agree that murder is bad? These sorts of questions are where science begins to fade out, and where assumed atheism creeps in if we don’t stand up and point out the answers Christianity provides for these questions. There is no scientific evidence for these being atheistic. In other words, where the leap to atheism exists is at the level of what caused the higher order items that make us different from all other animals ( thoughts, morals, ethics, etc. ) and the answer to why we are this way.
I don’t want to spend too much time on where I stand (which is on the lines of theistic evolution and a belief in the poor and incomplete story we have in comparison to the immensity and power of God) I think we need to be careful lest we try to shut the gates on potential seekers.
Because there is no disproving the existence of God (sorry Dawkins), most scientists and many other non-believers would gravitate towards an agnostic view if it weren’t for all the vitriol and battles against anything that wasn’t a 6,000 year old earth and a 20th century reading of early Genesis from my Picture Bible. We might even be able to calmly discuss what we believe and why this makes intellectual sense if some weren’t so quick to label. We only push these people away when we label them evil pagans. I wholeheartedly agree that dogmatism in this area only furthers those who wish to stop the spread of the gospel…..
Michael Liptack
Cory on 05 Sep 2007 at 12:28 pm #
Actually, I noticed a connection between YEC and Christ-mythers. Christ-mythers are always quoting the same oft-refuted sources like Kersey Graves, Frecke and Gandy, etc. Likewise, almost every book I’ve ever encountered that tries to counter evolution and propose a young earth has some sort of connection to Ken Hamm or AiG.
Ultimately, that is what lead me to reconsider my position of YEC. I’m still very skeptical of evolution, however, because I just don’t see why animals would suddenly stop giving birth to the same type of animal and give birth to a slightly modified version, which over generations would give rise to a new species.
Maybe I need more faith?
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:04 pm #
Cory, if you want to know why, I can tell you!
But, really, I think Mike raised the good point. I DO think there is a battle to fight here, but it is not with the purely scientific concepts being presented, and it is not over a particular reading of Genesis. There is nothing atheistic or anti-Christian about scientific theories like evolution or an old earth. Where the battle can and should be fought is over the worldview of philosophical naturalism, the idea that however it happened, it DID NOT happen because of God. Atheism is what contradicts Christian belief, not evolution or an old earth. Evolution is not a synonymous with this philosophical naturalism worldview since it is a concept that is accepted by people of very different worldviews, including the Christian worldview.
Science should be non-religious, not anti-religious or pro-religious, because science only does one thing: it tells us how nature works, and only how it works naturally. From a Christian point of view, this means that it can tell us how God’s Creation works, and give us some clues (if not always final answers) regarding how He did His creative work in the first place.
What has happened is that science has come to be viewed as more than it really is, it is now viewed as something that can provide final answers, rather than just one form of evidence for those answers. Rather than just using methodological naturalism to find out what nature can tell us, science has been overlapped with philosophical naturalism too often. Then (and here is where the problem really lies), the Christian community bought into this Modernistic thinking, and figured that if science is where the answers lie, then we must go to science and get the Christian answers!
Science can’t disprove God since science simply can’t analyze such things. Science deals with the natural only, not the supernatural. It can not confirm or deny God. What we need to do in our society is move away from this Modernistic, post-Enlightenment idea that every thing that is “REAL” is subject to scientific analysis.
We need to remind the world that “there is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”
jntowers on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:15 pm #
I haven’t read through every word above, so forgive me if this is a bit of a repeat…
“These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully.”
To me, that’s probably one of the biggest underlying issues here, and whenever we get too dogmatic about (almost) any issue – especially with kids these days. More often than not, it seems kids (and adults for that matter!) are being taught what to know, not what to learn, or how to learn. Therefore, when their “knowledge” is challenged, it all crumbles, as in Vance’s example.
Michael – I think a TTP preschool program is in order
On a side note, let’s not also forget that Satan will also use these seemingly important (albeit sometimes fun) discussions and debates to detract from the core message of Christ.
historic salve on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:36 pm #
“Yes, I was a dogmatic young earther. Why? Because that is what all Christians are. You believe that Christ rose from the grave and your believe in a young earth.”
Michael – do you really believe that Christians are defined by their belief in young earth creationism?
While I agree that the issue is not as clear cut as some people want to make it, I believe it is also misleading to say that there are no definite conclusions to make about the (billions-of-years-old) earth.
C Michael Patton on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:48 pm #
Historic slave…sorry that my post was not clear. I was describing how I used to believe. I don’t believe what you believe about young earth or old earth is part of the Gospel.
While I must say that I am not leaning toward either position concerning the age of the earth, I do definitely believe that theistic evolution is the most indefensible, both biblically and scientifically (which I am not very qualified to speak about), of the positions we are speaking about.
However, if someone believes that God created everything using evolution, this is within the bounds of orthodoxy.
I think everyone should learn from history and remain somewhat apophadic about these issues. It is just not clear enough to make a definitive decision either way. Either side COULD be right. Humility is important.
The main point that I was making with my post (and what Vance is making) is that it is not essential one way or the other. We need to recognize this.
C Michael Patton on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:50 pm #
Nathan,
You said:
“On a side note, let’s not also forget that Satan will also use these seemingly important (albeit sometimes fun) discussions and debates to detract from the core message of Christ.”
Right on!
Steve Martin on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:50 pm #
I think there are two issues here.
1) We need to ensure that we do not shackle the gospel with something that is not inherent to the good news. As Christians we are all creationists. This is the critical issue on which we all must be dogmatic. However, on the issue of “how God createdâ€, we must, as Vance has noted, have true humility. So I, as an Evolutionary Creationist, should not insist that other Christians come to my conclusions on the interpretation of scripture or the scientific data. In many situations, it’s surely wrong for me to press the issue. In some situations, it may even be sinful to present the issue at all since it will simply cause division. The “Gospel of a Young Earth†is not the gospel, but neither is the “Gospel of Evolutionâ€.
2) We do however, as Christians need to think through the issues of our day. In our 21st century society this does include science. We can not hand over any field to the atheists, whether that be cosmology, biology, anthropology, or neuroscience. As evangelicals, we have unfortunately done this on way too many occasions, and that, as Mark Noll has shown, is scandalous. “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no Evangelical Mind.â€
C Michael Patton on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:54 pm #
Steve, good points. I agree. We do need to be informed and perpetually discovering God’s world.
BTW: I really love your movies. I just did not know you were an evangelical
(I am sure you have never heard that before)
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 1:58 pm #
I would agree that there are conclusions that can be reached on these issues, but the important point is to remain humble about it and remember that we are fallible humans and can be wrong. So, our conclusions should only be held to the extent (no more and no less) than the evidence, both from Scripture and from Nature, really justify. That is on a private viewpoint level.
Then, when we consider how this is presented to others, we must add in the potential “stumbling-block” factor. Since presenting a young earth creationist viewpoint CAN be a stumbling-block, it should not be presented dogmatically unless we are sure that we are right, and sure that it is important enough to risk the stumbling block.
It is true that some doctrines ARE that important, regardless of how difficult it is for a non-believer to get their heads around. The resurrection is just such a “scandal”. So, I am definitely NOT saying that we should avoid the controversial issues. But, with this particular issue, the danger is SO high, and the importance is SO low, and the breadth of belief by dedicated and Bible-believing Christians is SO wide, that it behooves us to hesitate before taking dogmatic stances.
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 2:06 pm #
Michael, forget Steve’s movies, you should check out his site!
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
While I did like “The Jerk” from that other Martin, this stuff is much better!
Marvin the Martian on 05 Sep 2007 at 7:37 pm #
I am sooooo ticked. I just spent an hour writing something, and I forgot to put in the email address. I clicked submit comment and a screen popped up saying I needed to submit the email address. I went back to add it and my entire comment was gone!!! GRRRRRR.
I will try and summarize it…..again.
Jewish/Church history up to the 1800’s always held to a young earth interpretation. Why is that? If Genesis wasn’t mean’t to be taken literally, then why was it taken literally until the dawn of the “enlightenment” when some new scientific theories emerged about the age of the earth and the origin of species? Could it be that people are interpreting Genesis through the lens of fallible science? Don’t be fooled, don’t think that Darwin and the geologists who first postulated the old age of the earth did so without their anti-biblical biases firmly in tow.
In my mind, at stake in the young vs old debate is the reliability of scripture. And I speak as one who once held to the theistic evolutionary, billions of years belief system. If you hold to an Old earth, Genesis is allegory interpretation, then you basically hold to a view that God inspired Moses to redact what amounts to a bunch of clearly embelished campfire stories, none of which have a basis in historical or scientific reality. Fanciful stories of all the universe being created in six days, a talking serpent, outrageous stories of people living several hundred years, a flood covering the entire earth, none of which are true if you are an old earth evolutionist (OEE).
To an OEE, the fossil record records death, disease, violence, mutation, bloodshed, and natural disasters of monumental proportions millions (if not billions) of years before humans entered the picture. That hardly seems the picture of the “very good” creation before the curse after the Fall spoken of in God’s inspired Word.
When the tsunami struck a couple years back and hundreds of thousands of people perished, a common question was “How could a loving God allow this to happen?” The common answer would be that those disasters were not a part of God’s original plan, but that we live in a fallen, cursed, sin-filled world where sometimes tragic things will happen. The OOE cannot logically say that. God created the world with death, disease, and natural disaster in it. When the hurricane kills hundreds and leaves millions homeless, or the newborn is plagued with Downs syndrome, or the young father gets cancer, God is the ulitimate cause, that is the way things always have been from the beginning. Crap happens.
The reason Young Earthers are so passionate about this is issue is that we view it as an attack on the reliability of scripture itself. If God took “artistic liberties” in Genesis, maybe Jesus did too when He said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man come to the Father but by Me”. So while I do agree that it isn’t an essential doctrine for salvation, to say that the importance of it is “SO” low is, I believe, a gross overstatement.
Steve Martin on 05 Sep 2007 at 8:09 pm #
Hi Marvin,
First, the questions / challenges you pose to OEC’s / EC’s are good ones. From my perspective, the key issue is “death before the fall†which ultimately leads to making theodicy that more difficult to resolve. This is the toughest question that those of us that are EC (or OEC) have to answer. I think Vance has touched on this and has mentioned some resources for this as well. But, I understand fully why it is very difficult for many (including yourself) to accept. That being said, I think a key corollary to this post is that there are many of us who do take the authority of scripture seriously AND accept an old earth (and for some of us evolution). We haven’t figured out all the answers but then again who has? But faith isn’t about having all the answers; its about trust is Christ to whom the inspired scriptures are witness.
Anyways, addressing each of your concerns is probably beyond the scope of this post, but I’d like to point out that your statement:
“Jewish/Church history up to the 1800’s always held to a young earth interpretation.â€
is not really accurate. By the end of the 18th century (ie. before 1800) many, if not most, scientifically educated Christians, including evangelical Christians, believed in an old earth (not billions of years, but certainly many tens of thousands of years). Michael Roberts has written some good stuff on this. Ron Numbers “The Creationists†also documents this. Basically, before Darwin wrote “Origin of the Speciesâ€, the antiquity of the earth was settled for many Evangelical Christians.
Vance on 05 Sep 2007 at 8:27 pm #
Well, first things first, I hold to the reliability of Scriptures as much as anyone, so that is not what is at stake. The only thing that is at stake is a particular reading of Scripture, not it validity. In fact, I think the YEC position is much more damaging to the reliability of Scripture than any other.
The reading of Scripture that I am talking about is not based on myth or fable or untrue stories. I am talking about reading Genesis the way the ancient Israelites would have read it. They would not have read it as strict literal historical narrative, but instead as true stories of actual events in the past, but simply using figurative, symbolic and poetic language. Not allegory or false stories just meant to contain theological truths, but ways of telling about these actual events in a way that highlights the grandeur of the events, and the major drama of creation itself, in a way that a mere mundane recitation of facts could never do. They would find our Modernistic telling of history pretty uninspired and boring. So, this raises the obvious question: why should we insist on reading it differently than the ancient Israelites who first wrote and read these texts would have?
Second, as for how many Christians LONG before Darwin read Genesis, I would direct you to my article here:
http://euangelion.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/how-should-we-read-genesis-a-lesson-from-augustine/
If you have a problem with Augustine, then we can discuss that there if you like.
You discuss the issue of whether we should allow the discoveries made about God’s Creation to inform how we read God’s Scripture. While caution is always called for, I would submit that if we did not EVER do this, we would still be insisting that a heliocentric solar system is contrary to Scripture, as Calvin, Luther and most of the Church did at the time of Galileo.
Yes, many views of Genesis do allow for physical death before the Fall, and yet all of those who hold this view (including MANY very conservative pastors and biblical scholars) still have no problem with God calling it “good”, and for them it does not impinge on their view of original sin, the Fall, the need for redemption, etc.
Keep in mind, we ALL believe all of these same essential Christian doctrines, it is just that many of us are able to hold those views just as strongly coming at it from a different reading of Genesis. So, it is a non-starter to argue that any view other than the YEC view will necessarily lead to disbelief in any of those areas. Millions of Christians around the world prove that proposition wrong.
Lastly, you seem to agree that the age of the earth is not, itself, a major issue, but your concern are the “implications” of such a belief. You seem concerned that a belief different than yours regarding how to read Genesis will undermine issues that truly ARE important, it will cause a slippery slope to unorthodox or even heretical views. Well, that is an important concern, but it is not one based in reality, since it simply doesn’t happen, in my experience. I have seen just the opposite, in fact. It is not the OEC or the theistic evolutionist who then comes to disbelieve, but so often those ingrained with YEC doctrines who end up abandoning their faith. I have a collection of testimonies to this effect, and it is scary.
So, that is the reason why I have taken the approach I do, it is based on “real world” situations. I have reached my own conclusion based on my review of the evidence, and I expect others to reach their own conclusions. But, if we insist on such conclusions dogmatically, we risk being in the same positions as those geocentrist Church leaders who condemned the new scientific evidence for heliocentrism that SEEMED to conflict with their reading of Scripture. Eventually (and it took a LONG time) they eventually realized that it was not science that had gotten it wrong, but it was their reading of Scripture that was wrong.
Oh, and as for the motivations behind the presentations of an old earth, it was long before Darwin, and those geologist were all Christians who set out to confirm their assumptions that the earth was young. They were a bit taken aback by what they found!
Gordon J. Glover on 05 Sep 2007 at 9:00 pm #
This is a great discussion. I spent about 30 min reading through everything, and I first want to say how sweet it is to actually see Christian brothers discussing creation/evolution without any name-calling or ad hominem attacks.
Secondly, this is wierd, but I now feel like I have a twin brother out there in cyberspace named Vance who says everything I think.
If any of you have time to sit and watch my 3-part internet video series on “Science and the Bible” I think you will find it interesting and very relevant to this discussion.
You can get to it here: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/
-GJG
Paul Pinson on 06 Sep 2007 at 12:02 am #
When you look at the night sky, the light from the most distant stars is at least 12-13 billion years old. This is simply the nature of light. I have studied physics and cosmology, and the majority of facts from these sciences are built on very fundamental principles. If anyone would take the time to dedicate a year or two to a secular science, one would discover a very fact-based truth-seeking scientific community. There is no conspiracy behind the lab coats.
That being said, I must admit this same community is extremely dismissive of anything remotely religious or Christian (I’m talking first hand UC Berkeley/ Lawrence Labs).
Why?
It is usually not a problem with the faith itself, rather the image certain (most?) Christians leave them with. After spending years meticulously studying the night sky and working out math and physics based on logic alone, the mere idea of something possibly believing in a 6000 year old Earth is laughable and downright sad (for them, not necessarily me). Therefor, every single thing that follows that believing in a 6K world will seem equally ridiculous. Try converting a cosmologist after dropping the young-earth line (oh boy!)
Christians lament the unwillingness of the scientific community to consider or embrace Christian belief, but it is not very surprising that such an event has occurred when ideas like a 6000 y.o. Earth are thrown around. That idea runs directly contrary to ALL academic understandings of science– be that geology, astronomy, and even history (there are whole civilizations that predate 6000-12000 years).
At this point in my life, I am not a fully-convinced follower of the infallible doctrine, specifically in regards to Genesis. Nevertheless, I am concerned with the state of Christianity and its transition to this scientific world.
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:56 am #
Paul,
I share your concern for the current state of evangelical Christianity, but I think that the doctrine of infallibility is one that we can’t afford to abandon. That being said, I do think that we need to work hard to try and take back this precious truth from those who have turned into something that it was never intended to be. The problem is not the doctrine of biblical infallibility per se, but the misguided expectations that modern Christians have about what this doctrine actually requires.
Modern standards of academic scholarship or journalistic accurracy would have been completely irrelavent to the original ancient Near-Eastern people who committed God’s Word to writing. Even before archeologists uncovered the ancient Mesopotamian creation stories that help to put Genesis in a very relavent and timely contex, the great Reformer John Calvin was perfectly comfortable in allowing Moses to be “wrong” on matters of astronomy for the sake of his original audience; and this in no way detracts from the ultimate intent of revelation, which is to point all men to Christ.
For instance, in Genesis 1:16, Moses clearly describes the moon as a second luminary, greater in magnitute than the stars. When the Medieval astronomers concluded, based on irrefutable evidence, that the “star” of Saturn was actually much larger than the moon, and only appeared smaller because of its great distance, and that the moon actually produced no light of its own but rather “borrowed” its light from the sun – many Christians rejected these discoveries because they contradicted a straightforward and unbiased reading of Genesis.
John Calvin, who held the Scriptures in very high regard, responded to this controversy with the following statment:
“Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God…There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendour of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.”
Calvin also makes the point that it was God’s perfect wisdom to accommodate His revelation to the ignorance of His primitive audience. And that to do otherwise would damage the credibility of His prophets, who would have quickly lost their authority had they proposed such “rediculous” ideas as a round earth that moves through space at thousand of miles per hour. So in that sense, the Scriptures can still be considered inerrant, since it would have been a tragedy for God to have revealed any other cosmological reality other than that which was commonly held at the time.
-GJG
Ed Kratz on 06 Sep 2007 at 8:55 am #
Josh, I’m not Arminian. There are more than two choices, you don’t have to be one or the other.
I just find it odd how many times irresistable grace falls in real practice, it seems that someone who will defend the TULIP so vehemently should not be so concerned about messing up the Gospel. If the Spirit is drawing that person in, it shouldn’t matter if the evangelist gets sidetracked during their delivery.
That’s all, I personally agree that the debate over young earth/old earth has no place in the sharing of the gospel, and only adds potential for being sidetracked.
C Michael Patton on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:02 am #
Ed, you should not frame the discussion as one of belief in Calvinism, but one who believes in unconditional predestination (the foundation for irresistible grace). That is the issue you are struggling with. There is no middle ground there. You either believe it or you don’t. If you do, then you present the Gospel because it is God’s chosen means to change the person. If you don’t, you present the Gospel because it ultimately depends on you and your persuasiveness.
Ed, frankly, I would study more on this before I spoke in public about it. You certainly don’t seem like you took the soteriology class very seriously.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:20 am #
Gordon, it really is amazing how similar our approaches are! Steve just linked me over to an article you wrote on the ANE and I am eager to see what you have to say, as well as check out those videos!
Here is an article that might be right up your alley as well, entitled Making Sense of Genesis 1, giving one possible analysis, but then also providing some useful ANE perspective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:25 am #
Oh, and Gordon and Paul, on the issue of infallibility, I think it is very possible to hold to both infallibility and inerrancy with our reading of Genesis. Something is only in error if it is attempting to do or say something and then gets it wrong. Something can’t be in error scientifically or historically if it was not intending to provide that type of strict level of detail.
Yes, this becomes a squishy standard by which we simply say that ANY actual error or contradiction must, therefore, be solved with this “intended purpose” approach, and circularity can ensue. But, if it is backed up with historical, cultural and literary analysis, I think it is very supportable.
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:16 am #
Great points. Another way to avoid the “squishyness” of this type of hermeneutic is to recognize that scientific truths are always culturrally bound – regardless of what generation is expressing them. This is something that I emphasize in my video series. What is “true” for one generation, might be “false” to another generation – simply on the basis of discovery (progressive natural revelation). In fact, most Nobel Prizes that get handed out go to those folks who are able to completely overturn years of accepted scientific paradigm. Science is simply a community activity of fallen individuals who have a very impressive, but ultimately limited, ability to acertain the world around us.
The Bible, however, is God’s timeless and unchanging Word – relavent to every generation. So how can something that is timeless and unchanging be expected to keep up with something as tentative and progressive as science? You and I know that it can’t – and to expect that it can is dangerous – since liberals and atheists will gladly take us up on this challenge. But when a particular biblical author writes under inspiration, he really has no choice but to employ the science of his own day – which is “truth” at that instant.
The Bible, however, contains many timeless truths that stand for all time, irrespective of what each particular culture might believe. Things like the law of God, our fallen nature, our need for Christ, the person and work of Christ, etc… These things simply can’t be deduced from natural revelation, and thus they are non-negotiable. The shape or age of the earth, however, I think we can handle that one.
-GJG
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:59 am #
Vance and others…
For the sake of argument, let’s say that your hermaneutic in regards to Genesis is accurate. There are still many questions that you have to answer. First, what is the symbolic meaning of people having life spans of several hundred years? What truth is being told through that symbolic or figurative language? What truth is being told through the telling of a global flood (which according to OOE didn’t happen) that God used to eradicate almost all life on earth?
Second, at what point in Genesis do the “true stories” switch from the fugurative/poetic/symbolic language to a more literal, historic, “boring” language? Certainly the history of the Patriarchs from Genesis 12-50 is meant to be taken quite literally, yes?
Third and most importantly, you still have no answer for the fact that if you are correct, then God created a fallen world with death, disease, violence and natural disasters before the Fall of man (whether it be literal or figurative. No amount of interpreting Genesis using your approach can adequately answer this troubling notion.
BTW, I am quite familiiar with Augustine’s view on creation and that he viewed it in a more figuratively than in the literal six day sense. That being said, Augustine still held to a Young Earth view, “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed” from City of God Book 12, Chapter 10.—Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 12:38 pm #
Right, Augustine had no scientific evidence regarding the age of the world to work with. I like to think that if he were alive today, he would agree with me!
Anyway, what is important to realize is that each Scriptural text must be taken on its own terms, and the “degree of strict historicity intended” should be done afresh for each. I believe that we have a spectrum of genre that moves more and more toward a intention of strict historicity as we move forward in time, such that the Acts was meant to be more strictly historic than Chronicles, which were meant to be more strictly historic than Joshua, which was meant to be more strictly historic than the patriarchal stories, which were meant to be more strictly historic than flood narrative, which was meant to be more strictly historic than the creation stories, as an example.
And the exact degree of historicity is not always crystal clear, and that is why we need to be so careful to insist on strict historicity in the very early texts.
Let me ask it this way. If you were able to go back in a time machine, and determine without the possibility of doubt, that the earth was old, God used evolution, the flood was only covering a local area and the biblical personages did not live hundreds of years, would you lose your faith? Or would you step back and say, “hmm, maybe I need to reconsider how I am reading these texts”?
Personally, I am not sure exactly what happened in history that is described by Genesis in the Garden and Fall stories. I don’t know whether it happened all at once, or is it figurative for a larger process. I don’t know whether “Adam” was meant to be a type for all of Mankind, or whether there was a literal Adam set apart as a representative. I don’t know whether there was eternal physical life provided at the time of the “breathing”, which was then nearly immediately lost as a result of the Fall. I just don’t know, and really, I am not worried about it.
I know there WAS a Fall, and that Man is in a state of sin, separated from God and in need of redemption, and I think Genesis makes THIS clear. How it all played out historically I find an interesting thing to ponder, but I don’t think it is on our “need to know” list.
Speaking of God’s “breathing”, here is something to consider as an example of figurative language. We know that God is spirit, and that he does not have a corporeal body (although God is God and He could take such a form whenever He likes, I suppose). But here in the early Genesis text, we have a phrase that God “breathed†into Adam. Now, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that God took human form so that He would have human lungs to create human “breath†to perform this action. Yet, we all agree that SOMETHING happened. Something real, some true event. Something that is DESCRIBED using the powerful and evocative language of “breathingâ€. This language is figurative for something, maybe something our limited human understanding would not really be able to comprehend. Or maybe something that we can just more easily get the “feel†of with this type of language. That is what I mean by using figurative language to describe a real event.
Steve Martin on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:10 pm #
Hi Marvin,
I’ll take the “historicity” part of your question, and let someone else tackle the much, much more difficult sin – death – theodicy relationship question. (Vance, Gordon: Aren’t I a generous?
)
On the historicity of Gen 1-11, even many (most?) agree that it is historically based – some would even use the word “literal†– see my post at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-genesis-1-11-historical-many.html. However, many other EC’s would consider it to be not historical at all. Here is how one EC (Paul Seely) put it to a mailing list on which I participate:
“Perhaps it should be added that there are two issues involved. Science as such and historicity. My belief is that the science in the Bible is always the science of the times. It is always accommodated by God. I have tracked this in my studies from Genesis to Revelation. Or to put it in other words, God had no intention to reveal scientific truth in Scripture and did not do so. ”
“Historicity is a separate, if overlapping, problem. Biblical historians say or imply that they got their historical facts from human sources. Accordingly, their history can be no better than their sources, and this is why Gen 1-11, which evidences being based in part on outdated Mesopotamian sources, is so bad, later Genesis based on oral traditions and Kings based on royal chronicles is better, and the Gospels based on eye-witness accounts are best of all. This also answers the question of how we can with logical consistency make a separation between Gen 1-11 and what follows.”
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:14 pm #
Let me ask it this way. If you were able to go back in a time machine, and determine without the possibility of doubt, that the earth was old, God used evolution, the flood was only covering a local area and the biblical personages did not live hundreds of years, would you lose your faith?
I don’t know. I can say this, as a person who grew up believing macro-evolution is fact and that we evolved from pond scum over billions of years (what choice did I have, public school teaches it as dogmatically as you can), when I got saved and when faced with Genesis and other fantastical stories in the Bible, I held a very liberal view of scripture. I denied miracles, parting of the Red Sea didn’t really happen, fire from heaven consuming false prophets didn’t really happen. Jesus miracles were more psycho-somatic in nature. The only real miracle I couldn’t deny was the empty tomb. To not take Genesis as literal as possible does start a slippery slope. Vance, I don’t understand how you can hold the view you do and not follow the same road I did. The Genesis stories are fantastical, but so is Exodus. The destruction of Jericho, Elijah and Elisha, and on and on. Where do you draw the line?
I understand what you are saying Vance. And I still am looking for the answer to the ultimate question as to why, in you view, would God create a world with all the awful things we attribute to the results of the Fall (disease, death, mutation, natural disaster) BEFORE the literal or figurative fall of man?
Of all your eloquently penned posts about how the ancient Israelites would have interpreted Genesis, there is still no answer for this most troubling of consequences to believing as you do that God created a fallen world before we ever evolved.
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:16 pm #
Marvin,
Your questions are very thoughtful, and get right to heart of the matter. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to them. But as soon as I figure out the trinity (1+1+1=1) and the incarnation (1+1=1), I’ll get right to work on these other mysteries. But seriously, like these other difficult, but almost universally accepted doctrines, sometimes I think we over-think and over-analyize the OT, rather than just try and understand the points that the authors were intending to make.
For instance, I like to read bedtime stories to my kids. Paul Bunyan is one of their favorites. However, when I finish reading it to them, there is no confusion. They do not come away thinking that the Grand Canyon was literally created by a giant lumberjack who dragged his axe across the desert. Nor do they think that the Great Lakes were made by his footsteps. But they do have an appreciation for the larger themes that these stories are intending to communicate, like the stregnth and vitality of the American Frontiersman who brought order to the wild west. What better way to communicate these things than by larger-than-life characters who perform larger-than-life acts.
Now, if our expectectation is that all Bible stories must resemble journalistic-style reporting with referenced footnotes, then would be holding Scripture to a standard of communication that did not exist in the ancient Near-East. The result is that we will either miss the point of these stories entirely, dismiss them as irrelavent falsehoods, or read things into them that were never meant to be communicated.
Now obviously unlike these bedtime stories or the stories that circulated throughout the ANE, Scripture was given to us under inspiration. But what does that mean exactly? If we are willing to cast aside our modern preconcieved notions of what divine revelation SHOULD look like and instead study the Bible to find out how God actually communicates to us, then none of this shoud be a problem.
If this hermeneutic is valid, then the doctrine of inerrancy is maintained, and God’s infinite wisdom can be seen in how he accomodates himself to His people. However, if only strict literalism is allowed, then we have to conclude that God knows less about science, history, medicine, physiology, weather, and a host of other academic disciplines than we do. Unfortunately, many people do reach this misleading conclusion and reject both God and His revealed Word.
-GJG
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:30 pm #
Marvin,
If God had no problem with death and decay before the fall, which appears to be the case based many independent lines of irrefutable evidence, then why should we? If God is God and we are not Him, then obviously He has reasons for why He does things – and we may never know them.
To deny that there were billions of years of death and decay before the mankind came onto the scene is to ignore the testimony of nature itself. But the 17th century controversy over the double motion of the earth should remind us how the physical realities of the universe God created and sustains moment by moment do not always line up exactly with the way we interpret the Scriptures.
You might not have any problem with an earth that moves through space, but for the Medieval Christian, this was just as offensive to him as the notion of death prior to man is to you. You see, if hell was located “under the earth” and the heavens were the holy dwelling place of God, then it was a very troubling thing to elevate the world, which was a “sink of impurity”, into the heavens! You can find many statements by Medieval theologians to this effect, some of them like Calvin and Luther are my personal favorites.
But unless you are member of this group (http://www.fixedearth.com/) few Christians have any problem with the heliocentric arrangement. We simply made the appropriate adjustments in our expectations of those 67 geocentric Bible passages, recognized them as ANE cosmology, and moved on.
-GJG
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:33 pm #
Just to clarify, I meant that Calvin and Luther were some of my favorite theologians. And no that I somehow favored their unfortunate statments about heliocentric theories.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 1:35 pm #
On your first point of the slippery slope, I think you are equating a figurative reading with a disbelief in the fantastic or the supernatural. I agree that if the reason why someone wanted to avoid a literal reading of Scripture was because it involved too many fantastic and supernatural elements, this could definitely be a slippery slope.
But that is not at all the basis for reading the early Genesis texts in the way I do. I have no problem AT ALL with miracles or the most fantastic events in Scripture. My analysis starts from the other way. Here we have all of these types of literature in Scripture, and only one of those is strict literal historical narrative. We approach each text and we say “OK, what form of literature, what method of telling God’s message, do we have here?” From that starting point, without a presumption of literalism, I don’t see how you can get to literalism to begin with. It doesn’t read like an historically literal text when compared to, say, Acts. It reads much more like the Psalms or even Revelation.
As for the death, et al, I think we have to consider the natural order of Creation as “good”, and this includes every natural process we have today. What is evil, and bad, and the result of the Fall is Sin. It is disobedience. This is what corrupts our lives, not death or disease. And what did Jesus come to give us? What “death” did Jesus come to “undo”? I believe it was spiritual life, eternal life with God. That is the only death that Adam and Eve suffered “on that day”. They were kicked out of the Garden, they were separated from full communion with God. And what do we gain from accepting this redemptive gift of salvation? Eternal life, surely, but what does that mean? It can’t mean just physical eternal life since that everyone gets that, both the redeemed and unredeemed, who will spend eternity alive, but not so well. What will distinguish the redeemed from the unredeemed is not physical life, but spiritual life, an eternity in full communion with God.
So, I would propose that we have jumped the gun a bit in determining what “must” have been meant, and what “must” have happened at the time of the Fall.
And there are other views as well, by people who also fully accept all the orthodox doctrines that you and I do. Some propose that Adam and Eve were literal, and were the ones who God chose out of humanity for His purposes, the way He chose Israel out of the nations. He developed a covenant with Adam and Eve, from whom the line developed toward Abraham, etc., and the Covenant continued. He gave them opportunities and they failed, just as Israel did repeatedly after them. BTW, this would also explain the others around at the time of Adam and Eve for Cain to marry and those he was fearful of, etc.
There are many possibilities here, but as I said, for me, it is mere speculation (although interesting) because it does not impact in the least my views on original sin, our need of redemption, etc.
No slippery slopes in sight!
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 2:09 pm #
To deny that there were billions of years of death and decay before the mankind came onto the scene is to ignore the testimony of nature itself.
No, it is to deny a particular INTERPRETATION of a set of data that neither you nor I was there to witness. You seem to believe that scientists exist in a mental vacuum with “just the facts” forming their interpretation of said facts.
All people, even scientists, have biases that color their interpretation. A large majority of scientists operate with a naturalistic/atheistic worldview. Christians who accept that God used evolution don’t do so because the “evidence” says so, they do so because they have adopted that view a priori, and then they interpret the evidence to fit that view.
Secular science does have an agenda, which is why they mock and scorn creationists. There is a palpable disdain from secular science towards the creationist camp. Why is that? How does teaching a Creationist model hinder the progress of “true science”, which last time I read, was done in a lab where you could test theories with repeatable experiments. What is it about macro-evolution that is really testable and repeatable?
I choose to take God at His Word because He was there when He made it.
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 3:24 pm #
Marvin,
I understand and appreciate your trepidation, but there are 67 verses in the Bible that describe the earth as fixed and immovable, and all of the heavenly bodies in motion around it. For thousands of years of human history, the world’s leading scientists also viewed the world this way. There was no controversy because there was no data to suggest otherwise.
That all changed in the 1500’s. The controversy lasted about two centuries, but when the dust settled, most Christians decided to put their faith in the astronomers over the Bible’s descriptions of celestial mechanics. Why? Neither you or I was there to see God put all things in motion? Neither you or I can feel the earth hurling through space? Only God has the proper vantage point from which to make such ultimate declarations – so why do we cast our lots with the astronomers?
There are only two ways to explain the ovewhelming evidence for an old earth and cosmos: (1) God actually made it a really long time ago and takes great pleasure in ruling over it according to His perfect patterns of providence that we like to call the “laws” of nature, or (2) He created it instantaneously in such a way that several different lines of evidence all give a coherent “appearance” of antiquity.
If (1) is true, then we are treating these biblical descriptions of the young cosmos no differently than we treat other biblical descriptions of the geocentric cosmos – we understand that they were written during a time of scientific ignorance. If (2) is true, then we need to add the “appearence of heliocentricism” argument to the “appearence of age” argument. Perhaps we are being misled by the astronomers and the earth really is fixed and immovable just as the Bible repeatedly declares?
And perhaps the organ of the heart really is the seat of all thought and conciousness, and the brain only “appears” to serve this function; or perhaps a mustard seed really is smallest of all the seeds, and orchid seeds only “appears” to be smaller; and perhaps the moon really does generate its own light, and only “appears” to borrow from the sun; and perhaps it really is greater than the stars, but only appears much closer than them, etc… The list goes on.
Why should we trust the evidence when it contradicts these passages, but not when it indicates that the earth must be older than 6000 years? And that things have been living and dying on this planet long before Adam and Even walked with God? If you really have problem with this hermeneutic, then perhaps you need to wrestle with these other passages of Scripture as well?
-GJG
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 4:30 pm #
Gordon,
Your sardonic comments aside, I am sure you have heard of the “language of appearance”, yes? The bible’s descriptions of celestial mechanics were consistent with the earth being the frame of reference. And given that you would certainly agree that the Bible isn’t meant to be a science text book, why do you place such rigid limitations on biblical authors? Even modern day astronomers don’t look at a sunset and say “what a lovely earthspin.” But you expect biblical writers to do so?
Furthermore, while I agree that the Bible isn’t a science book, there are other Scripture passages that seemed to get things right scientifically long before science got them right. Job 26:7 declares in that God “he suspends the earth over nothing.” Isaiah 40:22 says “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy”, which is in agreement with modern astronomy about the expanding universe. God told Abraham in Genesis 15:5 “He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” In ancient days, 3000 stars was about the max that could be counted. God obviously knew there were many more than that. Or Jeremiah 33:22 “I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.” Clearly God wasn’t mearly referring to the 3000 visible stars.
I find it amazing that people say in effect, the people were too dumb to understand how God did things, that God couldn’t directly reveal certain aspects of Creation. God revealed himself directly to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses, the prophets, to Paul. Why when it comes to how God created, we limit Him to the “ignorance” of the authors He is inspiring to record it? As you said “Only God has the proper vantage point from which to make such ultimate declarations, which is why I choose to believe the Bible first.
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 5:50 pm #
Marvin,
Actually, I’m allowing the authors to speak in the context from which they wrote. It is the literalists who demand that they meet modern western standards of scientific and historical accurracy.
There is a big difference when you or I say “sunrise” or “sunset” and when anybody living in the ancient world said this. When we say it, it is obviously phenomenological because we know that it is actually not the case. However, before Copernicus and Galileo started to question the longstanding assumption that the earth moves and turns, there was no reason to believe otherwise. Everybody was a geocentrist! That was the contemporary “scientific” view for thousands of years.
ANE cultures had a very detailed cosmologies, and the Bible is filled with references to them. The very passages you quote above require much manipulation to fit into a modern framework. Even the passage about God “stretching out the heavens like a tent” is a perfect reference to the solid dome that arched over the earth, which was assumed to be a flat disc (or circle). In fact the passage in Psalm 104:3 follows this phrase with, “and lays the beams of his upper chamber on thier waters.” Now I ask you: what model of the cosmos featured a solid dome over the sky and all the heavenly bodies on top of which an ocean of water rested? This is not the expanding universe, nor is it Aristotle’s universe. It was in fact the ANE universe, believed by all ANE cultures from Egypt to Mesopotamia – and yes, this included the Hebrews.
What worries you so much about having the Biblical writers drawing from the popular cosmology of the day?
-GJG
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 5:58 pm #
Marvin,
Oh, I think God could have found a way to describe things in more detail if that was His purpose, but I don’t think it was. I think He inspired the authors with the images and concept and, if you like, even the words (although I am not sure we HAVE to go that far), that would be most familiar and common to that group. I do think that in addition to the language of appearances (which, as you say, we still use today), there was also some language of accommodation, such as when they described the sun as standing still, when really it would be the earth stopping its rotation. Well, I can guarantee you this was not JUST the language of appearances, it was also an accommodation, since the author and every reader for the next two thousand years simply didn’t know the earth was moving in the first place!
But, really, I think that it mostly comes down to a matter of style, and literary genre.
Expecting God to have the author of the creation accounts tell of it using strictly literal historical narrative would be like God having Solomon write the Song of Songs as a clinical analysis of his physical attraction for his woman, including the medical and chemical causations behind that attraction.
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 6:25 pm #
This is going no where fast. Forget hermeneutics, phenomenological language, this amounts to a bunch of hand waving. All I want an answer to is this….the Bible makes it clear that the creation is cursed because of Adam’s sin, whether Adam is literal or figurative matters not one bit, this is what the Bible teaches. The Bible also teaches that one day that curse will be lifted when Jesus returns, Rev 22 “1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse.”
According to the old earth view, this curse was caused not by our sin, but by God’s design. If you can explain how the Bible gets it wrong on the Curse (which is the consequence of the old earth view, whether you admit it or not), I would love to hear it.
tnahas on 06 Sep 2007 at 6:30 pm #
eating popcorn and lovin Marvin!
Go Marvin! Go Marvin!
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 6:35 pm #
tnahas
You’re mocking me aren’t you? (buzzlightyear voice).
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 6:46 pm #
Marvin:
Yes, but what does that have to do with the natural processes of death, etc? I don’t see any direct and conclusive Scriptural statement that there was no physical death on the planet before the Fall, or that the curse is directly associated with causing such natural occurrences. I think the entire approach is a series of presumptions built upon one another. Just like the insistence upon geocentrism by the Church was built upon a series of Scriptural and theological presumptions. They sounded great at the time and, more importantly, absent the scientific evidence that the earth is just one planet among many circling a sun which is one star among many, those Scriptural and theological presumptions would still be in place, and we would all still believe that Scripture describes a geocentric universe.
I provided a reasoned argument as to why the “death” and “curse” spoken of in Genesis was referring to a spiritual death, not a physical one, and I think that is definitely one possible way of reading that text (whether it must be the right one I don’t know), but rather than respond to that, you simply ask the question again. I think it deserves more serious thought.
If the question of how to read those texts is an open one, and I think it is, then I will definitely take into consideration the overwhelming evidence that the world, including a great deal of death, has been going along for billions of years.
tnahas on 06 Sep 2007 at 6:53 pm #
Marvin, its Taffy and no way bro!! You rock!
Scripture records “So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned.” Rom 5:12 (NET)
BTW this site rocks back and forth with “my presups are better than yours”.
Marvin, not only do you rock but your posts actually articulate the gospel too!
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:13 pm #
I wanted to respond quickly to something that was said earlier:
“…it is to deny a particular INTERPRETATION of a set of data that neither you nor I was there to witness. You seem to believe that scientists exist in a mental vacuum with “just the facts†forming their interpretation of said facts.”
There is common misconception, propogated by YEC literature, that in the back of every laboratory there is this group of scientists huddling together trying to figure out how to supress all of the evidence that points to a young earth. Or at least that the evidence could go either way, and people just interpret it to fit their preconceptions.
I can promise you that this isn’t the case. In fact, the only reason we are still discussing these issues is due to bad hermeneutics, not physical evidence. I’ll share with you just one case.
On the standard period table, there are 117 confirmed elements. Many of these elements have unstable isotopes, that is, similar versions of themselves that have an unstable nucleous. There are hundreds of such isotopes and they all eventually decay into some other element by radiating away some of their nuclear constituents.
Here is what’s so neat about radioisotopes: any given sample will decay at a very steady rate, called a half-life. This rate results form the interaction of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and is not dependant on the environment.
When you list all of the known radioisotopes with a half-life longer than a million years that are not a product of some other radioisotope’s decay, you can make some very testable predictions. For instance, if the universe were eternal, then everything on the list should have decayed long ago, leaving nothing to detect in nature. On the contrary, if the universe were only a 6000 years old then everything on the list would still be present, assuming that they all existed in the beginning of creation in some measurable quantities.
As it turns out, 11 of the 29 them have compeletely dissappeared, and the other 18 can still be found. So already, we can rule out the eternal universe. There is no other explanation for the abundance of 18 radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 1 million years. But what about the 6000 year old earth? The 11 missing isotopes present a problem, but there is still hope for the young earth hypothesis.
Here we can make another very testable prediction: if the earth is only 6000 years old, then there should be no ryme or reason to these 11 missing radioisotopes. In the absence of any clear trend, it could then be assumed that they were not part of creation, and therefore never existed in the first place. However, if the earth were in fact very old, then all of the 11 missing radioisotopes should have something in common, something that indicates why they are gone when the other 18 are still present.
At this point in history, God could have settled the age debate once and for all. But what do we find? In fact what we find is that the 11 missing missing isotopes all have half-lives less than 80 million years. In other words, there is a very rational explanation why 11 are missing and 18 remain. Now this data can’t place earth over 1.6 billion years old becasue we don’t know what the original quanties were. But it does rule out a 6000 year old earth by several orders of magnitude.
Now this is just one example, there are many independent lines of evidence that all give consistent results. But this is typical of the kind of data that scientists base their conclusions on.
Now you might still object, that nothing in this data rules out a young-earth created with the “appearance of age” ex nihilo – and you are correct. Such a thing is impossible to disprove because any evidence to the contrary can be explained away as “appearance”. But the power of science is its ability to make testable predictions. The appearance of “fill-in-the-blank” can’t actually help you do anying scientific. It can only explain away rational data, not make teatable predictions. Good scientific theories, however, can make such predictions, just as we did with the radioisotopy data. And when the observations confirm the predictions, the theory survives another day.
So even if you can never bring yourself to believe in an old earth (and that’s perfectly ok brother), you should at least have some appreciation that as long as old earth assumptions continue to bear out in laboratories accross the world, we will continue to utilize them to achieve results.
Sorry for the long post, but someone had to stick up for the scientists!
-GJG
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:14 pm #
You know, one thing that must be kept in mind in such discussions is that these issues that are easily presented as “obvious”and clear teaching from Scripture are read very differently by Christians. Too often, those of a young earth creation persuasion try to frame the issue as if any other viewpoint than theirs is novel, outlandish, surprising and just obviously contrary to sound teaching.
This has always struck me as odd since until just recently the large majority of Christians had no problem with an old earth and even evolution, which obviously includes death before the Fall. It is not as if all of these Christians simply forgot about those issues and accepted it anyway. Here are some of the Christian groups (and a couple of Jewish, since they wrote the book) who have no problem with the idea of death before the Fall, since they are willing to accept evolution itself. This doesn’t prove anything, but it does show that thinking, believing Christians do differ on this issue, so it is NOT a cut-and-dry answer such as “well the Bible is clear that there is no death before the Fall”:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church:
“The ELCA doesn’t have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
“Historical criticism” is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.â€
The Presbyterian Church:
In response to recent discussions regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has placed on their web page a 1969 Theological Statement on the issue, indicating that, “Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory…Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists…We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction”
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in June 2002 approved a statement that “Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture,” and that “a natural explanation of the history of nature is fully compatible with the affirmation of God as Creator.”
The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. [now part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)] issued statements in 1982 and 1983 opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Therefore, the Program Agency recommends to the 194th General Assembly (1982) the adoption of the following affirmation:
Affirms that, despite efforts to establish “creationism” or “creation-science” as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma as agreed by the court (McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education); Affirms that, the imposition of a fundamentalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature — where every word is taken with uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific — is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in Biblical literature.
The Episcopal Church:
A statement by Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold is open to the idea of evolution. The statement concludes, “The divine creativity can be equally proclaimed in both the creation stories and the theory of evolution.”
Billy Graham:
“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book
of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ….. whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” (Quoted in
David Frost, 1997, Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, p.
72-74.)
The Catholic Church:
In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated the following:
“Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence…In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points…
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”
And here is the Pope again:
“Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.â€
United Methodist Church
In 1984, the Iowa Annual Conference passed a resolution opposing “efforts to introduce ‘Scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.” [not explicitly accepting evolution, of course, but many of their leaders are open to the idea]
Greek Orthodox:
The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, “The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being” Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.
Orthodox Church in America:
In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, “Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing — evolutionary, if you will — process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis…Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution — as some people may view it — eliminating the need for God as Creator of All.”
Jewish Theological Seminary:
“The Torah’s story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin’s theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah’s entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.â€
Orthodox Judaism:
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations references an article which states, “Belief in science and belief in the Creator are absolutely consistent…In Genesis, the Torah describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science.” The article states that the “days” of Genesis represent six epochs or stages of creation, and is very clear that the process of creation was guided by God.
The groups which I have seen come out and take a position directly contrary to evolution are:
The Assemblies of God (the denomination in which my father was a pastor, and which I still attend).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
Seventh Day Adventist
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:15 pm #
Vance,
I ask the question again because I don’t agree with your interpretation that the curse is merely a spiritual death, and I believe the text backs me up on this. Genesis 1 says “And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for foodâ€; and it was so.” No mention of man being able to eat flesh, no mention of animals eating other animals, all were supposed to be vegetarian. In fact, animals are not allowed to be used for food until after the flood. This is strong evidence from the text that there was no animal death prior to the curse, but immediately after the curse, physical death did enter, at least for the animals. The skins God gave Adam and Eve for clothing must have come from the hide of some dead animal. This is all evidence from the text itself that there was no death in God’s initial “very good” creation.
Your reasoned argument for the curse being a spiritual curse is borne not from the plain reading of the text, but from your acceptance of science and the billions of years of death and suffering that is current evolutionary dogma, you have to read the spiritual curse into it. Paul says in Romans 8 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” It makes sense to interpret this in the light of the curse of death, disease, and fallen world coming as a result of the curse of Adams Sin. It makes no sense if your view is correct and God made the “corrupt” to begin with.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:25 pm #
I don’t find those proof-texts in any way conclusive, since they are not explicit and pretty thin on the ground. And, the list of church denominations I listed above would seem to agree with me on this.
The point of this entire discussion is that there ARE different viewpoints held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians, and that we should all remain humble about our fallible ability to interpret Scripture, which is by no means always correctly found in the “plain meaning”. Traditional readings have been seriously wrong before now, even assuming that your approach was the traditional reading. Most of the senior Christians who put together the “Fundamentals”, the document upon which the Fundamentalist movement was based, accepted evolution. In fact, the first draft of that document contained a cautious acceptance of evolution, so they obviously had no problem with death before the Fall.
I see where you are coming up with that position, but you seem to hold onto it as if it was an absolute, rather than something that greater theologians than either of us have differed upon. I don’t think most of us keep this wider scope of theological thought in mind.
BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT » Blog Archive » Home for a lost post on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:29 pm #
[...] was having this great conversation over on the Parchment and Pen blog when I accidental spend like an hour working an post that must have exceeded the limits set by [...]
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:33 pm #
I just spent like an hour working on a post that address one of Marvin’s comments about scientists. But I think that it must have too long because it keeps getting rejected. Since that’s an hour of my life that I’ll never get back, I reposted it on my site here:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2007/09/06/home-for-a-lost-post/
Sorry about this.
-GJG
Gordon J. Glover on 06 Sep 2007 at 7:36 pm #
Now I see my post before Vance’s, that’s wierd. My apologies to the administrator for the redundancy.
-GJG
tnahas on 06 Sep 2007 at 8:14 pm #
Vance,
Nice sources but most of those you quoted worship another god IMNSHO in any event.
What ever happened to “to God be the glory alone”?
Marvin the Martian on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:25 pm #
I don’t find those proof-texts in any way conclusive, since they are not explicit and pretty thin on the ground. And, the list of church denominations I listed above would seem to agree with me on this.
This isn’t an answer to my bottom line question. Especially given that the “plain meaning” is usually, not always, but usually the best way to interpret Scripture. Your view requires one to adopt all sorts of “not plain meanings”. And since you seem to frequently draw upon argument from authority, C Michael Patton believes that physical death is a result of sin.
and that we should all remain humble about our fallible ability to interpret Scripture
I agree. But is it not true that science has been demonstrated to be fallible also, interpreted by fallible men? Where is the call for humility on the side of science? Crickets chirping…
even assuming that your approach was the traditional reading.
With all due respect, I don’t have to assume. It was in fact the traditional reading up until the late 1700’s early 1800’s, even by Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. It was when fallible science was then used to reinterpret things that all these nuanced interpretations sprang up.
Ok, I am done with this discussion, it is clear that we won’t be changing each others minds. You deny that Sin is the first cause of physical death. That’s fine. That means death, disease, bloodshed, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes are all “very good”, and what God intended for His Creation. How you get this from reading the Bible is beyond my understanding.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:30 pm #
tnahas, I am not sure which ones you would say worship another God. As far as I know, they all worship the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
C Michael Patton on 06 Sep 2007 at 9:31 pm #
You know…I have read SOME of these posts (been very busy) and I think that, as I have said before, both sides have arguments.
I do think from a purely exegetical perspective it is difficult to separate the genre of Genesis 1-6 from the rest. I think that McGrath’s accommodating language is best way to see these early chapters of Genesis as non-historical as the rest of the book. In the end, while there are some really good commentators on both sides, it would seem that the Bible does teach a young earth.
Yet we must see science as the word of God as well and we dare not ignore it as it speaks forth His voice (Ps. 19). While this voice is unarticulated in a manner that speaks to particulars, it can speak very clearly. In many cases, natural revelations can illuminate special revelation. In the end here, it would seem that science is speaking clearly that the earth is old.
Science can be misunderstood and Scripture can be misunderstood. We just don’t know with regards to this issue. However, the ultimate agnosticism that we have with regards to this issue does not preclude scientists from moving forward under the assumptions that the evidence demand at this point.
Again, what I would continue to plead for is that young earthers would not demonize in any way those who are believe that God’s voice is speaking one way through nature and then seeing their interpretation through this voice. I would also plead with old earthers not to look down upon young earthers for starting with their view of Genesis and seeking to find God’s fingerprints in a different way. If both sides continue with the attitude of humility understanding that the other side could be right, then both side can progress in peace.
Alan Nelson on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:14 pm #
Thanks for this post Michael. I have grown up in an evangelical atmosphere
where I felt like if you even entertained the idea of evolution then you
couldn’t possibly be saved. My son (a sophmore in college) has basically
left the faith because of this issue. I think he felt like he had to choose
between science or faith. I just finished reading “The Language of God” by
Francis S. Collins – a fasicinating book. I have let my son know that he
doesn’t have to choose between God or science – there are those who
strongly believe in evolution and also fully believe in Christ. But frankly,
when you have seemingly been misled by the church it is easy to
dismiss everything the church proclaims.
I pray my son will come back to Christ and I believe he will.
But the church really shouln’t place unneccessary obstacles in front of the
gospel message.
Vance on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:05 pm #
Alan, I have seen many such scenarios and I feel for you. With children of my own, I want to make sure they are not faced with this same false dilemma.
Michael, obviously I agree with your sentiment, since it was the purpose of the article. I would have two quibbles though.
First, and less important, is the idea that all of Genesis seems to be the same genre. Regardless of whether they have the same author, the literary style of the two creation accounts alone are very different, much less comparing Genesis 1 to, say, the Joseph accounts. If I took those two texts out and, absent any prior exposure, showed them to you separately, you would never think they were of the same literary genre.
Second, you seem to presume that those who read Genesis in a way that allows for an old earth do so for that very reason. In other words, you assume that the science drives the interpretation. While I would have no problem allowing for some of that (the evidence from the natural world should definitely be a factor to some degree, where appropriate), the conclusion for a figurative reading of Genesis 1 and 2 stands entirely on its own, purely on the historical-grammatical approach, in my opinion. Not all who use that approach come to that conclusion, of course, but I think you can easily get there. In fact, I DID get there purely on these grounds before I had ever even considered the scientific issues, when I was still an YEC. In fact, it was my exegesis which came first, then when I realized that Genesis 1 and 2 really did not say anything definite on the WHEN and HOW of the creative process, I was willing to consider the scientific evidence objectively without my YEC pressupositions acting as a filter.
What I find most telling is that the secular ANE scholar, who would be the most likely to insist on a literal reading in order to damage the validity of the Bible, is the most likely to show how it should be read in the manner I am suggesting.
murmex on 06 Sep 2007 at 11:32 pm #
No one ever answered my questions so I will ask a couple more.
1. Did sin come to us through a real man Adam or was Paul just misguided when he made the point in Rom. 5?
2. What do ‘evening and morning’ making a day in Gen. 1 mean? By that, I do not mean, How do you feel about the statement? I mean, what does it say?
3. I would hope scientists are fair and balanced. I have a friend who is a mineral expert and former archeological student. He was on a dig with Arizona State University in the Payson Az. area when he made a startling discovery. He found carbonized dinosaur skin. The Professor was excited and called a paleoentologist from Utah who flew in to share in the discovery. He agreed the find was geniune. My friend has two of the three pieces in his home even as I write this. My friend, being a Christian and young earther(by that I mean thousands, not millions or billions, or in the future, cazillions of years) jokingly asked, Where does this fit in on the time charts? (You see, for it to be real, according to the usually accepted time lines, it would be so old it would no longer be carbonized but petrified). The teachter replied that it didn’t, and that technically, it didn’t exist.
My question, why is evidence skewered to fit someones ideas, instead of forming the ideas?
I am not a scholar of any sort. My father was a truck driver and I drove one too for a while. Everything I ever learned I had to read about six times just to get it. But I did go to three different debates on the Aruz State Univ campus between creation scientist and evolutionist teachers. Either the evolutionists were paid off or they could not answer simple scientific questions about their positions. One of them had a main atgument that religion has killed more people in the world than science ever has.
We have now reduced our nation to a people that cannot find the United States on a wolrd map. The students think this is because of the education in South Africa, Iraq, or helping Asia. The President can ask the question “what do you mean by ‘Is’?” And then the classic “I did not have sex with the woman.” He could say that because words no longer are accepted as having real meaning.
I will stop now. Can we just read the Bible for what it says? By the way, By the way, I love B.B. Warfield (evolutionist leanings) and A.W.Pink (Gap man). I wish I had 10 % of their brains. But I don’t automatically hang my thinking process on a hook when these men speak.
David
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:39 am #
David, I will try to answer your questions, because they are all good questions. But my answer might not satisfy you. At any rate, here it goes:
1.) No conservative Bible believing Christian would ever say that Paul, or any other NT author, was misguided. But consider this, if the OT writers wrote in ignorance of 21st century cosmology, geology, and anthropology, then it should be no surprise that the NT writers who quote them do so in ignorance of these same observations.
Take the ANE idea of a flat earth for instance, this was not just a Hebrew tradition, but was common to all ANE cultures from Egypt to Mesopotamia. So when Paul makes reference to this comology (Romoans 10:18), he is simply interpreting those OT passage just like everybody else during that time would have. Matthew (12:42) and Luke (11:31) do the same thing, and even the story about Satan taking Christ upon a tall mountain to see “all the kindgdoms of the earth” (Matthew 4) uses the ANE cosmology.
Even Jesus speaks in ignorance of 21st century botany when He claims that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31). Obviously, His audience was not yet aware of orchid seeds, which are much smaller. Had Jesus spoken accurately on this, His audience might have thought him to be ignorant of “contemporary” ANE science, which regarded the mustard seed as the smallest.
Now extend this same logic to matters of biology or anthropology. If Genesis 2 is the story of humanities fall from grace, and God had very specific reasons for telling it the way He did (which had little to do with physical science), then we should expect the NT authors to interpret it just as it was written – without regard to subsequent findings.
The theology doesn’t change one iota. C.S Lewis said the following: “For long centuries, God perfected the animal for which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself…We do not know how many of these creatrues God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell…For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”
I could say much about this, and how Second Temple Jewish hermaneutics are evident in the NT interpretations of the OT, but that should be enough for now.
2.) I agree with you, “Day” means 24 hours, plain and simple. I agree with the YECs that you can’t read anything into the creation week other than six literal days. Moreover, I’ll go a step further and say that the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6) always means solid sky. You can reinterpret this in any other way either. The firmament had to be solid in order to support the weight of waters above it and keep the heavens from falling down to the earth. It was every bit as literal as day is, and all of the OT writer understood this. The only reason it is no longer interpreted literally is because of new data to the contrary. But prior to the rise of science, all theologians understood the firmament to be solid.
Origen said is was “without a doubt, firm and solid.” St. Ambrose said that “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant.” and St. Augustine said that it “constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below.” Even Martin Luther, less than 500 years ago said, “Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters…It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night…” Do you believe in this as well? Probably not – no many Christians still do.
And there are many other facinating elements of the ANE cosmos that God made during those six days. So the issue is not just what the author intended and what do the words themselves literally mean. If it were as simple as that, then not only should we all believe in literal 6-day creation, but we should also believe in a literal firmament, the literal waters above the heavens, an immovable earth and a host of other Genesis details. But we don’t.
However, if those of us who are comfortable allowing the Biblical writers to write in ignorance of scientific realities, even under divine inspiration, are correct, then we don’t have try and rework any of these verses to fit modern scenarios, which are always in flux. We simply have to recognize the widosm of God in accomodating Himself to the original audience who recieved His Word.
If you want to find out more, please purchase my book, “Beyond the Firmament” on Amazon.com or B&N.com.
Gotta run.
-GJG
Hawke on 07 Sep 2007 at 7:14 am #
I watched John Ankerberg’s program discussing the verses about the 7 days (literal vs. figurative). It was a debate between Dr. Hugh Ross and Ken Ham. They spent much time in Genesis, and I think that ultimately both agree that God created the heavens and earth. I have my own personal view of the account in Genesis, but it is merely my opinion.
For those leaving the faith because of a projection of how old the earth is…? The age of the earth has been calculated by humans, but it seems that not all scientists agreed historically. Dependant on the methodology of the calculations (steady state theories) one could calculate or project the age. To my knowledge, science does not have any way to actually measure any dating beyond (carbon-14) a reasonable doubt with reproducibility or repeatability that could reach unanimous conclusions.
If one is to assume that carbon-14 increases (not to mention its rate of decrease) with time, then it would also be safe to assume the carbon-14 was next to zero at creation. Bottom line is that RCD is not always consistently calculated. For stringent testing facilities, (such as I work with) the maximum measurement uncertainty is crucial for gage R&R. I seriously doubt that the RCD is accurate within a tolerance of say 0.2% for any dating over 10,000 years old. Mathematically it could be calculated, but then again one has to assume many characteristics of gases and states that are not always predictable. I leave it up to the scientists to debate, simply because the stage is too crowded and the accountability is not held with astuteness.
Good day Reginald….
Dennis
Chad Winters on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:26 am #
For Marvin’s comments I would say the “Creation as Science” by Hugh Ross was effective in showing that the Earth was carefully created to have the minimum necessary earthquakes, tornadoes etc. Without them the Earth would be unliveable. Plate tectonics are necessary for life on Earth. The biosphere is carefully balanced and designed and death is a part of that. Very good does not mean perfect or deathless. Are you saying God created the Life Cycles, the food chains after the Fall. Did tigers not have incisors and digestions designed for eating meat before the fall. The predator/prey symbiosis is too tight to be an afterthought.
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 9:39 am #
I am with Gordon, the actual words used in Genesis 1 refer to a 24 hour day, and six of them. I don’t think we have to go to a “day-age” view. I think they used the term “day” in the 24 hour sense of the term, but that the whole structure is meant to be read figuratively for the entire process of creation. Much the way a poet might use the word “tree” to refer to a family in a poem about that family. He wants us to think of the “leaf and branch” version of “tree”, rather than some other meaning (like a “tree” file system on a computer), and he might even go into detail regarding the length of the branches, the quality of the fruit, the depth of the roots, the life in the sap, etc. He may never once explicitly say that this was really describing a family, but he would expect you to get that. It was using “tree” in the most common sense, but it was not ultimately about a tree after all.
As for Paul, I don’t find any problem at all with comparing a real human Jesus to a typological figure of “Adam” who represents Mankind if, indeed, there was no literal Adam (some who accept evolution and an old earth still think there might have been a literal Adam). It would be as if Paul, having known about Jesus’ parables said something like “that man is like the Samaritan spoken of by Jesus, who cares for those in need” such that a hearer could think it was referring to a real person. This would not be exactly the same, since the good Samaritan did not symbolize anything historically, as Adam would have, but you can see how easily and naturally it would to refer back to a known figurative character in the same way we would refer to a literal individual.
Murmex, you raise a point that I hear all the time “can’t we just read the text for what it says?” But don’t you see how culturally-bound that is? What you are really saying is “why can’t we just read it the way that is the most natural, plain meaning for us today?” First, if we did that, we would run into a lot of problems if we stuck to that strictly. Remember geocentrism, for example. Second, should we not be reading it in the way that would be most natural for those who originally wrote it and read it?
Practically, this process of adjusting our thinking about Scripture to fit our understanding of the world around us happens all the time, even without us really knowing it. We grew up knowing that earth revolves around the sun, that the moon does not actually have light, that there really is not a solid firmament, etc. So, we read Scripture with that type of scientific information firmly in mind, and simply adjust our reading AWAY from the most natural “plain” reading to a way that fits that scientific knowledge. And, we have not undermined the true meaning of Scripture at all by doing that, but those 500 years ago would have screamed heresy.
The point there is that, whether you like it or not, you definitely DO allow your scientific knowledge to impact your reading of Scripture.
Nowadays, we know exactly how rainbows are formed by light refraction, and no longer just see it as a supernatural act of God, a “special creation”, in each instance. Yet, that does not undermine the Scripture, and we still feel the power of the promise every time we see one. And, ultimately, we realize that it ALL really IS a supernatural act of God.
The Creation is still a supernatural miracle of God whether it took six days or six billion years.
Ed Kratz on 07 Sep 2007 at 2:37 pm #
Very good Michael!! You always amuse me. As usual you’re changing what I said to meet your answer, that’s cool, I’m quite used to it. It’s not whether or not to share the gospel, but only if you can mess it by getting into a young earth/old earth debate, if irresistable grace is correct than you can’t mess it up. It’s just odd that if someone believes in irristable grace, they would feel they ‘messed up’ when sharing with someone when it’s entirely on the Spirit’s calling whether they accept the Lord or not.
BTW, I did pay attention in class, maybe you forgot or weren’t paying attention yourself, I disagreed with your views then as well.
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 3:06 pm #
On that evangelization issue, I am not sure how the Calvinists view evangelism, but I assume they still see a role for the Christian to play in providing the “call”, and it is a matter of obedience as much as anything else. God does the calling but, for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which is our own growth and development that happens in the process of evangelizing, God has chosen us as His vessels. And, part of that obedience to fulfill our role would seem to be making sure we preach the correct message, not some “other Gospel” as Paul would say, which would cause us to be “cursed” (not to mention what Paul would like to happen to the knife of those false presenters!).
And, if presenting a true and valid message is part of our obedient obligation, then part of that would logically be to not do anything to detract from the message, which gets us right back to the point at hand.
I am not a Calvinist, so I am not sure if that is how it looks at all, but that is how I view it.
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 3:36 pm #
Hawke, C-14 is only reliable out to a few 100k years. There is no way it can be used to even estimate the age of the earth/solar system. I’ve never heard of anybody trying to use C-14 to date anything other than very recently (relatively speaking) desceased life forms.
To really measure the age of the cosmos, you need to use isocron dating (Rb/Sr) of rocks that have been undisturbed since the formation of the solar system. Unfortunately, that rules out any terrestrial samples, except for those that arrive to earth as meteorites.
There have been hundreds of meteorites samples and they all give ages of 4.55 billion years with a very low deviation of only +- tens of millions. For another application of non-C14 radiometric dating, see my earlier post above.
-GJG
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 3:37 pm #
Oops, I said “cosmos” when I should have said “solar system”. The CMBR and Galactic redshift are used to measure the age of the cosmos (current estimates are 14.7 billion years).
-GJG
Josh on 07 Sep 2007 at 3:56 pm #
To stir the pot a bit more I have a question for both sides of the spectrum and I would be curious to understand Michael (or anyone else’s) theological and philosophical implications in there answering the question.
I am a Religious Studies major at a secular school. In the class we are doing about a month of learning about the theory of evolution before we get into anything about religion so that we can understand “where it came fromâ€.
The professor went on to explain that our brain has three basic parts, I don’t remember the scientific names but they were described as these:
1. The part that controls things we don’t “think†about, i.e. heart beat, breathing etc.
2. The part that controls and regulates our emotions.
3. The part that controls our rational reason.
And he concludes that research has shown us that “religion†originates from the emotional part of the brain. But what part of religion makes it beneficial to the survival of the human species, he asks? (following the evolutionary theory line of reasoning)
From here the professor posed this illustration (paraphrasing):
Say you got dropped in an island and there was no possible way off the island. Let’s call this island Predator Island. The only way to get off Predator Island is to be consumed by something else on the island. This is fact of the matter, there are no other options. Now would you really be able to live there? (Speaking in the mental sense, i.e. the idea is so overwhelming). No, of course not, we simply couldn’t it would be unbearable. But if you called it another name and thought of it in a different way (at least mentally), then it would be bearable for you and you would be able to live, however long that may be.
Then he says surprise! You are in Predator Island, one day you will die, some cancer, virus, etc will eat you and kill you. Then he says you see religion gives us purpose, and what person is more likely to survive (i.e. pass on their genes) the one with purpose or the one without it? So he concludes with, religion is a development within the human brain to cope with the overwhelming fatalistic reality we live in.
In essence he is saying we can’t handle the truth so we create illusions of reality that allow us to cope; we have evolved this way so that the species can continue to survive.
My question is: How would you go about confronting this type of ideology, that we don’t just use religion as an “emotional crutch� And is there evidence within the evolutionary model that would be contrary to this line of reasoning?
Just curious your thoughts.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 4:53 pm #
My initial response would be that we do not, after all, have that scenario in historical reality. I don’t think that humans perceive the world around them as a prison that is unbearable without religious belief, such that we need to create it to meet that need. I would see that as an unsupported hypothesis.
I think a much more supportable hypothesis (from an entirely secular point of view) for the same phenomenon is that Mankind, at a point along the way, reached a critical mass of intellectual development that resulted in our becoming aware of our world in abstract terms, rather than merely the immediate and practical. When this happened, there was a flood-gate of art, religion, cultural development of all types. This in turn stimulated further brain growth, and exponential growth happened.
From a religious point of view, looking at that same phenomenon, we see a major upsurge in such things in the Upper Paleolithic, so much so that it is called the Paleolithic revolution. This is mere speculation, but what immediately comes to mind is “hey, was that THE moment where God Breathed into humanity?” Again, just a little pet theory, with nothing but curiosity at stake, really.
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 5:01 pm #
Josh,
This is a very good question. Here is how I would respond: your professor may be right in one sense, people do invent religion to make them feel better. In fact, because of the image of God in man, even primitive man made sacrifices to dieties because deep down inside, he knew that he was sinful and that this sin separated him from his creator.
However, when God put on flesh and became Jesus Christ (God with us), he took all of mankind’s misguided attempts at satisfying the righteous demands of the “gods” upon Himself and provide a way for all who trust in Him to have eternal life. Did man invent religion? Sure, but this religion accomplished nothing. Man can not restore Himself to God. Only God, by His own mercy, and satisy the demands of His own righteous anger, and He did this in the person and work of His son, Jesus Christ.
The botton line: even if what your professor says is true, it changes nothing. “Religion” may be man’s vain pursuit of God, but Christianity is God’s relentless pursuit of man!
Hope that helps
-GJG
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 5:34 pm #
On a side note to my post above, even God’s sacrifice of His own son was ultimately His accommodation of Himself to contemporary forms of justice. Long before any Hebrew erected an alter to Yahwah, man was making sacrifices to the gods to attone for the guilt of sin. God, in the ultimate act of accomodating wisdom, subjected His own Son to the bloody system that, while God regulated in His law, originated with primitive pagan peoples.
How wonderful is God that he condescends to his own imperfect creatures so that, despite our sinful way, we might know Him!
-GJG
Kristian on 07 Sep 2007 at 5:43 pm #
I think it was Gordon who wrote, but the thread is way to long for me to remember.
“Now you might still object, that nothing in this data rules out a young-earth created with the “appearance of age†ex nihilo – and you are correct.”
Here you are committing the fallacy of the false alternatives and showing a completely lack of familiarity with creationist literature. Hence proving that you are to be taken as completely
untrust worthy on this issue.
Vance, there is one issue that you have not really dealt with yet that is NT parallels between the creation before the fall and the new heavens and new earth. Just like the former was without death and suffering so the latter will be without death and suffering, only permanently.
But as you have admitted your view entails that the former was not without death and suffering, then that takes away the hope for the latter.
So my question to you Vance, do you believe that the New Heaven and New Earth will be full of death and suffering ?
As far as the whole physical vs spiritual death issue, your view on that would entail that the New Heavens and New Earth wold have none of the latter but WOULD have the latter.
What an awesome gospel message !!! Praise the Lord for letting us be with him for a few measly years and then killing us of for all eternity after that.
(if anyone should have missed it the above was sarcasm).
As far as the issue of the testimonies you have collected of people that have deconverted(or not converted in the first place) because of the teaching of YECism. Well there are many many, testimonies of people that have rejected the Christian faith on account of an argument LIKE(I STRONGLY emphasize this word) this:
1. The old earth evolutionary world view is incompatible with a Christian world view.
2. The old earth evolutionary world view is correct.
Therefore:
3. The Christian world view is incorrect.
That then have come to faith in Christ by abandoning Premise 2). This includes people who have been witnessed to by OEC’s/TE’s who have given arguments similar to yours for rejecting Premise 1) but have found them utterly unconvincing.
How would you witness to such a person ? Your arguments against Premise 1) wouldn’t do a thing to that person since like I stated he would find those arguments totally unconvincing and your own view forces you to accept his Premise 2) ther by proving(to him atleast and that is the person that matters the most in this circumstance) the conclusion.
Vance, what would you tell that person ?
As far as your links/quotes to the statements on evolution by a number of denominations that doesn’t prove anything. They certainly don’t prove that an old earth evolutionary world view is compatible with the Christian world view.
In other words they don’t disprove Premise 1) above. At most they prove that the denominations you quote/link to believe incoherent things about evolution.
The very fact that many people are Christian and hold to the proposition “Evolutionism and old earthism is true” doesn’t prove that those two views are compatible at all.
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 5:59 pm #
Kristen,
“Here you are committing the fallacy of the false alternatives and showing a completely lack of familiarity with creationist literature. Hence proving that you are to be taken as completely untrust worthy on this issue.”
Let’s be careful with statements like these. We need to be respectful or, trustworthy or not, people are not going to listen to you.
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:10 pm #
Kristian,
I will take the witnessing issue first. From my experience, the only ones who are SO adamant that and old earth and evolution are irreversibly incompatible with Scripture are those militant atheists who are simply out to destroy Scripture and the entire Christian worldview. I have spoken with many, many people on this issue and have never yet a single person who argues 1 that vehemently who would ever give up number 2.
So, it would be a non-starter to begin with, and all you could do is lay out the Gospel message, explain why the issues of origins do not matter in the larger scheme and let God do the rest. It would be entirely intellectually dishonest of me to attempt to argue that number 2 is not correct and agree with them on number 1. And, dishonesty is the first thing that a seeker will spot.
As for the New Heaven and New Earth, no I don’t think that there will be suffering and death there. We don’t have very many details on what it will be like, exactly, and I definitely don’t think of these places as being some disembodied place, but in a newer and perfected version of this earth we know and the heaven we don’t yet. I have no idea how it will all play out, but as NT Wright says, to assume that it will involve just ditching this existing concept would be entirely the wrong way to look at it.
Where I think the disconnect lies is in the absolute correlation people have developed between the way the world was before the Fall and the way it will be when God puts the world to rights. I think people read too much into what the world before the Fall looked like, then lined that up with what we are told about the future. I think too much went on their than was Scripturally justified.
One little point that may, or may not, mean anything, but is worth considering. Scripture says that God made Adam outside of the Garden, then placed Adam IN the Garden. Where was Adam when he was created, but before he was moved into the Garden?
Lastly, my point in showing all of the denominations which accept evolution, at least conceptually, is to show that it was not some newfangled fringe idea. What I believe is held by a majority of Christians worldwide. That means nothing in and of itself, but it should give anyone pause before just writing it off as “obviously contrary to Christianity”.
Marvin the Martian on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:14 pm #
On a side note to my post above, even God’s sacrifice of His own son was ultimately His accommodation of Himself to contemporary forms of justice. Long before any Hebrew erected an alter to Yahwah, man was making sacrifices to the gods to attone for the guilt of sin. God, in the ultimate act of accomodating wisdom, subjected His own Son to the bloody system that, while God regulated in His law, originated with primitive pagan peoples.
How wonderful is God that he condescends to his own imperfect creatures so that, despite our sinful way, we might know Him!
Gordon,
I know your views of Scripture are hardly literal, and it is clear that you are very knowledgeable of science, perhaps you are a scientist. But your statement is so far off base biblically it is shocking.
God ordained Christs sacrifice before He made the world (whether it is old or young). 1st Peter Chapter 1 states
“And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians Chapter 2
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony[a] of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[b] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
For you to say that the Sacrifice of Christ was an accomodation to human “pagan” justice systems is beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy, and certainly has no foundation in Scripture.
I wonder, just what is your final authority on matters of faith? I can understand why you adhere to an old earth view, though I disagree with it. But your accomodation view strips all sovereignty from God regarding the mission of Christ.
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:42 pm #
Marvin, I can not speak for Gordon, but I think you are reading too much into his statement. Historically we know that people from nearly every culture have sacrificed to their gods for tens of thousands of years, and in cultures entirely removed from the Jewish sacrificial system instituted by God. There are only so many ways to look at this.
First, you could say that God instilled this method of atonement in humankind from the very first moment, and then followed up with Jesus as the last form of that type.
Second, you could say that this was the form of “dealing with their god” before God instituted such a system, and so when the time came for this interaction, God chose to use the system Mankind was using, but purified it, and made it holy.
I have no problem with either one, but I don’t think we can say either is able to be conclusively established. And, ultimately, I don’t think it matters, really.
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:52 pm #
Considering my post on natural revelation,
I think that we should not be quit so Gnostic as to say that God did not institute the sacraficial system Himself and other cultures followed. In other words, I don’t think we have to say that God accomidated to the stories and acts of the nations in either creations stories or the sacrifial systems, but it could be that the nations had other means of finding God’s will, even if they did misrepresent it.
There are many instances of this to which we could refer, but this is already going too long and it would be way off topic.
BTW: Thanks for keeping things civil. While there has been some heat, I know that you are all trying. I doubt that you could ever find a more irenic discussion on this issue than what you guys are providing. Those from the outside looking in will not look past this without having to challenge their assumptions about the way Christians treat each other.
Marvin, old friend, thanks for your contributions. (Marvin and I go WAY back to some KJV Only days)
tnahas on 07 Sep 2007 at 6:58 pm #
Marvin, amen bro! The gospel has to work in a framework that framework needs to start with sin as recorded in the Genesis account and therefore a need for a Saviour. If death existed before sin then the gospel is of no effect and there then can be many ways to God since the Saviour can’t eradicate all death just death that occurred after sin entered the world. To think that God lowered himself to man to determine how to redeem man when He was slain before the foundation of the world. (I guess maybe billions of years ago. Wow that’s a long time to wait around to redeem man!)
As for the majority of Christians, I don’t count RCC and EO or Jews among them as a former rcc/eo and Jews are still lost in their sins. BTW Christians have always been a remnant. I’m never convinced by the majority rules syndrome.
Kristian, you will find out fast that if you disagree with this blog you get warned pretty fast while the others freely get to belittle and demean you with their carefully worded responses that make YEC look foolish.
Michael, please treat us all equally not just your favs! Stop pickin on Ed too.
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 7:17 pm #
Hey, I am on your side on this one Taffy. It is not so hard to conceive of death before sin, but MAN’S death before sin. I could conceive of a universe billions of years old, but one that included evolution is much harder theologically. I think you all have hit the key question, what do we do with death before sin? I would not have an answer.
Yet the key question on the other side is real and must not be ignored. What do we do with a creation that seems to have its own voice saying I am very old.
As for evolution, maybe I am missing something major, I don’t know, but I have never even seen a reason to even consider it as a possibility. Therefore, I have never had a theological dilemma with the need to consider its possibility.
Having said that, there are those IDer out there who love and are committed to the Lord who are convinced of its truthfulness.
In the end, I am willing to go wherever God’s revelation, general, special, or both, takes me.
Having said this, my original intention stands. A young earth is not part of the Gospel.
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 7:46 pm #
Marvin,
Everything the infinite, eternal, and omnipotent God does to connect with us is an accommodation to our finite, temporal, and limited human frailties. Otherwise, we would be completely blown away by his “God-ness”. This is merely an incarnational view of revelation. How else would God do it? What does “God with us” really mean? What did it mean for God to “put on flesh” in the form of Jesus Christ? Fully God and yet fully Human? God uses our language, our traditions, or customs, our myths and legends, and even our very own bodies (in the person of Christ) as vehicles to transmit His truth to us.
Since I am a Calvinist, I have no problem believing that while God ordained the sacrafice of His own son from the foundations of the world, He did this with the knowledge that man, created in His own image, would develop sacrificial systems in ignorance of the one true God that tried in vain to attone for their inherent guilt. But the death of Christ was the perfect fulfillment of this faulty system – a system of man striving after God by his own pitiful efforts.
Of course you can disagree, but there is nothing unorthodox about taking an incarnational view of revelation. Nothing that you should be shocked about.
After you read my book (wishful thinking), I recommend a book called, “Inspiration and Incarnation” by Peter Enns (Westminster Theological Seminary). A truely awsome book about what “God with us” actually entails!
-GJG
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:12 pm #
I do recomment Peter Enns book as well. I will be blogging on it soon. While I do not take things as far as he does, I think his thinking is on track.
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:14 pm #
Sorry folks, I was under the impression that Marvin was an old friend. It turns out that he is a different person. Marvin is not associated with KJV. Neither is my friend anymore.
Marvin the Martian on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:17 pm #
This will be my parting shot on this, I promise.
I echo Michaels thoughts on the issue, and it is not an essential to salvation by any means, if it was, then I was lost up until a few years ago as I once held to OE and evolution.
For all the science folks out there, here is some food for thought: Science has proven that dead men don’t rise from the grave days later, virgins don’t have babies, the Red Sea doesn’t part, leprosy doesn’t just heal itself, men don’t walk into a fiery furnace and come out unscarred, people don’t walk on water, and on and on and on.
Our understanding of what “science” believes true about the natural world has also been proven wrong many times over the years. Yet we can’t believe that God, the inventor of science, created a mature creation in six days? Science changes, God’s word hasn’t.
Gordon J. Glover on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:57 pm #
Marvin, science can’t disprove miracles. Even the most hard-hearted atheists would have to admit this. But a miracle that really happened should still leave detectable results – unless of course the evidence was erased by a subsequent miracle. Like if there actually was a world-wide flood some 4 or 5 thousand years ago, then there should still be evidence of it – unless of course the evidence itself were erased by God.
When Christ was raised from the dead by a miracle, as was witnessed by many and recorded for all, then this fact should have verifyalbe by scientific inquiry. Why do you think the apostles ran to the tomb upon hearing that Christ had risen? (Hint: to see evidence of the miracle). Why do you think Thomas wanted to touch for himself? (Hint: to see evidence of the miracle). So science can confirm whether a miracle took place, but science can’t disprove one.
About the age of the earth, you can believe whatever you want to brother. If 6-day creation helps stregnthen you’re faith, or if you feel like embracing alternate ideas about comology or biology might draw you away from Christ – far be it from me to make a good man stumble. I would rather you be a young-earth Christian than an old-earth atheist!
But recognize that not every Christian has the luxury of such a black/white approach to God’s Word (or God’s world). Christian geneticists, like Francis Collins, or Christian Biologists, like Kenneth Miller, or Christian Cosmologists, like Hugh Ross – or any other regular Christian who must face the FACTS of God’s creation everyday and interpret them in a coherent way that makes testable predictions – your approach to Scripture is simply not an option for us.
YEC science simply doesn’t work in the real world (even the museums are lame), and it is absolutely powerless to make any testable predictions that couldn’t simply be explained by “illusions” and “appearances”. In science, a theory can explain everything without consequence really explains nothing.
So be patient with your Christian brothers and sisters in the natural sciences. Many of us are having an impact for Christ’s Kingdom right where are, even if our handling of Scripture might seems risky for you.
Peace – GJG
Vance on 07 Sep 2007 at 11:27 pm #
This was said earlier:
“If death existed before sin then the gospel is of no effect . . .”
This is exactly the dangerous type of statement my original Euagelion post was all about. There is no qualification there, not possibility for human fallibility or simple “through a glass darkly” acknowledgment. The bald statement is made, and if it convinces someone that it is absolute, and that someone is convinced (or becomes convinced) that there definitely WAS physical death before the Fall, and you have just put someone in a severe, possibly fatal crisis of faith. I definitely would not want to take on that type of responsibility.
Especially when the actual evidence from God’s Creation itself is, to my mind absolutely convincing that there was TONS of physical death for hundreds of millions of years, and long before anyone could place the fall. I mean, really, it is like 99.9999% assured, and I am not even sure I should include that little bit of wiggle room.
So, it behooves us to step back and look at this afresh and see whether we are imposing things on the text that are not there. There is the concept of spiritual, rather than physical death that I have not seen anyone really provide a solid refutation for. Here it is again:
As for the death, et al, I think we have to consider the natural order of Creation as “goodâ€, and this includes every natural process we have today. What is evil, and bad, and the result of the Fall is Sin. It is disobedience. This is what corrupts our lives, not death or disease. And what did Jesus come to give us? What “death†did Jesus come to “undoâ€? I believe it was spiritual death, separation from full communion with God. That is the only death that Adam and Eve suffered “on that dayâ€. They were kicked out of the Garden, they were separated from God. And what do we gain from accepting the redemptive gift of salvation? Eternal life, surely, but what does that mean? It can’t mean just physical eternal life since that everyone gets that, both the redeemed and unredeemed, who will spend eternity alive, but not so well. What will distinguish the redeemed from the unredeemed is not physical life, but spiritual life, an eternity in full communion with God?
While this may not satisfy everyone, and I am sure there are other questions that can be raised, I have not seen anyone show how it HAD to be physical death that Adam and Eve suffered at the Fall. I do not see any explicit statement that there was eternal life for every living creature before the fall, or even that there was eternal life for Adam and Eve before the Fall (even if one wants to assume a literal Adam and Eve).
Or, there is an alternate view, one that Michael touched on that a lot of OEC’s like, which is that there was animal and plant life and death, but Mankind was given special grace, and then lost it. That could even work with some viewpoints of evolution actually.
And, really, I don’t see how the the whole “no death before the Fall” could work anyway, since plants are as alive as anything else, and even in a vegetarian world, you would have living things dying. You can’t get around that.
And, lastly, don’t forget the Garden. Whether literal or figurative, we have a Garden, and we have OUTSIDE the Garden. Now, what was going on out there? Was it the same as in the Garden? Couldn’t be, or there would be no need to specify it. Man was created outside the Garden, then put into it. What is going on there? We know that when they were kicked BACK out into the world OUTSIDE the Garden, life was very different. There is a lot going on with this whole story that we simply aren’t being told, and that is because we simply don’t need to know. All we need to know is that there WAS a Fall of some type, and as a result Mankind is in a sinful condition of spiritual death separated from God and in need of redemption. Millions of people accept this fully without the necessity of insisting on “no physical death before the Fall”.
So, I really think this whole “no death before the Fall” is far from conclusive, very problematic to tell the truth, even without the evidence from Nature. Add that in, and I think there is NO room for a dogmatic, much less dangerous, statement that “if there is not death before the fall, then there is no Gospel.”
C Michael Patton on 07 Sep 2007 at 11:54 pm #
Vance, I agree that “if there i not death before the fall, then there is no Gospel” is a great overstatement that people need to be very careful about making. In their zealousness for their systematic theology, they may be taking the Lord’s name in vain by attributing dogmatic assertions to Him that we are unclear on.
Yet, at the same time, you must understand how this one issue does effect people’s systematic theology in more ways than just a passive easy rearrangement.
For example, if you hold to a recapitulation understanding of Christ’s atonement (which I do), we have to have the second Adam (Christ) truly represent an original. If there was no literal first Adam, then we are going to have theological problems understanding exactly what it is that Christ recapitulated.
Also, if one were to hold to an eschatology with a strong emphasis on the apokatastasis (restoration of all things – not the Origen flavor), then they would take it quite literally that on the New Earth, we can see the original intent of all of creation, including a tree which imparts physical life for “the healing of the nations.” This assumes a restoration of the first. This is fine for those who spiritualize the second tree, buts its representation cannot be spiritualized in either case. It has to mean something.
As well, if one were to adopt an evolutionary viewpoint of man, then we do seem to have issues with God’s longevity concerning the introduction of His plan of redemption.
Finally, we have the issue of death before the fall and the need to define death according to the prevailing scientific theories.
All of this because science has made its case. Yet science is as dynamic and mysterious as anything else. We have mass rebellion against modernism because of many changes with regards to science. Remember, people did not believe in a geocentric world simply because the Bible said such, but because observation at the time suggested such. Science suggested it! But science changed and advanced. Whose to say it does not change and advance again? Whose to say that the mirror of science is not dim? While I think scientists must assume a uniformitarian world to advance, philosophers and theologians dare not take this assumption too far.
All of this to say that I think we need to be careful about statements either way. I don’t think any of the evidence calls for 99.9% certainty – especially about this issue.
As well, I think you should understand how this does effect other theological assumptions, many of which are very valid assumptions.
Each side has some VERY problematic issues. Each side tries to reinterpret the evidence according to the source (Bible or nature) that they see speaking more clearly.
I really don’t know the answers, but I do know, again, humility is the key with regards to this.
Vance on 08 Sep 2007 at 2:56 am #
Michael, notice at the beginning of your post how many times you had to say “if we believe X, then we must believe Y”? I don’t want to pick those apart, but the question would be two-fold.
First, is that X really correct in the first place?
Second, is the causal link really absolute?
For example, is there really NO way to associate the real person of Jesus to the figurative type of “Adam” as a typology for Mankind? Is that “line in the sand” assurance there?
And on the restoration, you are working with concepts derived from interpretations, and by a person inclined to allegory to boot. Is such a one-for-one restoration an absolute? I agree that the New Heaven and New Earth is meant as the culmination of what God intended, but is it absolutely necessary that this involves a looking back to a previous state in an absolute sense, rather than the completion of the plan that got derailed at the Fall?
I just think that a LOT of doctrine gets developed in ways that seem logical and sensible based on existing presumptions, but those build upon each other like blocks, where any single wrong block creates errors all the way through. Not major doctrinal errors, but more often just errors in how we “visualize” or discuss things. The way we like to systematically categorize our theological constructs so neatly leave very little wiggle room for when we just happen to get a part of it wrong.
Remember, ALL of our theological constructs are, at best, mere resemblances to God’s ways. We are using fallible human minds and limited human language to attempt to describe the ways of God. That is a good thing to attempt, but we must always keep foremost in our minds that we can only get close, “through a glass dimly”, and should not put too much stock in our exact and minute constructs.
As NT Wright said, we can be sure that at least 1/4 of our theology is not quite right, but we have no idea which 1/4 it is!
With science, much more so than theology, our knowledge definitely expands, with each generation building upon and adding to the knowledge of the prior generation. The case with things like geocentrism is actually an example of this, rather than of how science can get it wrong. Science definitely may have things wrong, but once they figure out something major, it is almost never the case that they then later find out that the earlier position was correct. They just continue to find out more areas where they still have it wrong, and then correct that. Just look at the history of science overall, and you see that this is true.
The age of the earth (setting evolution aside for a minute) is one of those areas like heliocentrism where we just know that much more now, and know it as well as, or better than, dozens of things that those holding to a young earth accept as “fact”. When a dozen different scientific disciplines using separate and distinct methods of inquiry all come to the same conclusions, you have to sit up and take notice. When almost everything we have can only be here if the earth is old, and nothing is the way it would look if it was young, at some point it becomes intellectually perverse to continue in doubt.
Here is something to consider: of the scientists working in the relevant fields, less than 1/10th of 1% think the earth is young. That obviously includes the very large majority of the scientists who are Christian. And, last I heard, there was not a single one of those handful who cling to a young earth who do not also have a religious conviction that it must be young.
This is not a “majority wins” game, it is just to point out that at some point, the evidence piled up high enough for heliocentrism that the Church had to finally accept that their interpretation of Scripture was wrong, and revisit many verses and concepts. I think we are long past that point with the age of the earth, and so we need to start looking at some of these issues afresh, even if we do not make any final conclusions on anything.
Consider the text of Genesis to a theologian in the 1500’s. Here is a text that “clearly” describes the earth being created first, and every else created around it, and for that earth specifically. There was a solid firmament, and the earth was fixed and unmoving. This not only was clear from the literal reading of the text, it also had major theological implications. What would it mean if the earth was NOT the center around which it all was built? What if the sun was merely one star among the vast array? To their mind, this not only seriously challenged the validity of Scripture, it would undermine some significant theological foundations, such as Man being the purpose of God’s creation, etc.
And, there are still geocentrists out there today!
Marvin the Martian on 08 Sep 2007 at 6:49 am #
Ok Ok,
I guess I am just an intellectually dishonest person who ignores the overwhelmingly irrefutable evidence for billions of years and evolution, or willfully ignorant, the weaker brother, or whatever. Even though I used to believe in both, in spite of what the clear reading of Scripture said. It wasn’t until I was actually presented with some scientific evidence that suggested that molecules to man evolution wasn’t the set in stone settled science that it was purported to be by the public school system that I returned to believing what the plain reading of God’s Word said.
But I guess the evidence I was introduced to doesn’t count either, as I am now sure that the many brilliant scientists, who are also devout Christians, who comprise the staffs of such YEC enterprises like Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, are also intellectually dishonest folks who ignore such irrefutable evidence, and lie to me and many others who they wish to deceive regarding the irrefutable proof of evolution and billions of years. They must be lying to me then when they present all sorts of evidence that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary “theory” is more dogmatic religion than true science.
There is a fairy tale in which a frog turns into a prince by the kiss of a princess. Evolution tells the exact same story, just replace the kiss of a princess with “billions of years of random mutations”.
There are theological implications if the current secular scientific interpretation of the fossil record is accurate. At least this person admits them.
From the Answers in Genesis site:
“In 1994, Tom Ambrose, an Anglican Priest, in an article in The Church of England Newspaper, succinctly portrayed the real god of an old earth when he stated:
‘…Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Homo Sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God’s punishment for Sin? The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquakes has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumor, or simply being eaten by other creatures. From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. God made the world as it is … evolution as the instrument of change and diversity. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching.’”
C Michael Patton on 08 Sep 2007 at 7:29 am #
Vance, my simple point was for you to understand that these other theological presumptions may be correct and your interpretation wrong. The Scientific theory of evolution is not at a point where its voice is clear enough (I would say at all) to where it necessitates the reworking of all these theological presumptions that, yes, could be wrong.
You seem to keep telling people that they need to humbly consider or allow another view (which I agree with) when I don’t think you are being fair with the other side and the real and serious problems with your view. Could it be that your view is the wrong one and it is part of the 1/4 that you have wrong? While I am sure that you would say yes, your tone continues to say no.
Gordon J. Glover on 08 Sep 2007 at 7:35 am #
“…molecules to man evolution wasn’t the set in stone settled science…”
This statement is actually 50% true. That “molecules to man” took place is confirmed by many distinct lines of scientific data. However, that anybody actually knows with certainty how it all worked in the fullness of time is still a mystery. None of the proposed material mechanisms of evolutionary change are convincing, and many scientists are spending their entire lives trying to gain more clarity.
Other scientists, like Michael Behe, recognize the overwhelming case for common descent but simply throw up their hands and conclude that the reason we can’t figure this out is because God was working outside of His own system to unfold His evolutionary plan. That is surely one interpretation of the data, but I prefer to think that God fully gifted His creation with all of the necessary potential to realize His creative will in the fullness time without requiring any miraculous adjustments to the machinery of nature.
You can think of evolution like gravity. We know it happens because the evidence of it is everywhere, but nobody can explain it. We can quantify it, measure it, and use it to make preductions that are confirmed by experimentation, but what causes it? This brings up a very interesting social dynamic between Christians and Atheists.
Atheists, who require a godless worldview, and insist that science must be able to explain everything, are somewhat embarrased by this fact and they are emboldened by the culture war to not “ceede any ground” to the creationists. Therefore, they rarely admit their ignorance of evolutionary mechanisms in public. When some of them do, like Stephen Jay Gould for instance, their buddies get nervous and distance themselves from them.
On the other hand you have Christians, who start with the presupposition that God created all things and sustains them moment by moment by His hand of Providence (my Calvinism is showing). Having bought the lie of secular science that all truth must be described in scientific terms, we ignore the positive evidence for common descent, and instead focus on the inability of science to nail down the mechanisms that cause it. And then we propose alternate “scientific creation theories” based on Genesis and scan the universe for any shred of data that might support this pre-conclusion. This is what our friends at ICR and AIG are doing, and most Christians unfortunately don’t have strong enough scientific background to understand what’s going on here.
I would never say that any of those brothers are being dishonest in an evil sense, but they choose to willfully ignore the mountains of evidence for common descent and an old universe and instead focus on those pieces of the cosmological puzzle that science has yet to (and may never) account for. Like a good defense lawyer who to tries to create reasonable doubt in the jury by zeroing in on the most challenging aspects of the prosecution’s case, these creation scientists are just doing their jobs. Unfortunately, it is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that they are unintentionally placing a huge stumbling block between Christ and the scientific community. They are making my job very difficult!
-GJG
tnahas on 08 Sep 2007 at 9:43 am #
Michael,
That was point from the first post that although the OEC/Evolutionists maintain that they are irenic and not dogmatic on their position but they continue to maintain all of their beliefs as fact. For instance that although Scriptures irrefutably speaks of a real Adam but we are to believe from science that all this has been around for billions of years and its only a figurative Adam without any proof. And again any YECs out there are ignorant and confused.
Michael, civilization through the ages not only lived history but they were the first eye witnesses to it and they never believed in the one true God and then when our Lord was revealed to them in the flesh, they still disbelieved. Evidences and apologetics are for the Church. We start with Scriptures that has no record of death before the Fall with a real Adam and therefore a real need for a Saviour. Science can help us understand as can natural revelation as your other post blog suggests but God has revealed to us what we need to know. Science and natural revelation when read with the Bible can lead to eisogesis which allowed concepts like evolution to be read into Scripture.
Vance on 08 Sep 2007 at 10:15 am #
Michael, I think you seem to be misinterpreting my tone or approach here. My response is always to the same thing: that the theological claims use terms like “must” and “if/then” language that does not allow for any possibility of error. That is why I pointed that out first about your earlier post. I agree there definitely ARE theological issues to all of these questions, and I am not proposing that my suggested resolutions are by any means the only ones, much less the correct ones. But I am trying to get everyone off of their absolutist terminology and thinking, so that we can visit the theological constructs afresh and with an open mind.
The difference between science and theology is that science can analyze much less important things, since it is limited to the natural, but can describe those things with much greater precision, because WE are natural and our brains and language can handle the natural. Theology handles much more important things, and as to the basic big concepts, we can know them just as surely (or more so), but we can not describe them as precisely or pin down all the niceties with as much detail. Again, all discussion of theology is human language to describe God things. We can only get an approximation in SO many areas.
We, as humans, and especially Modern humans, like to think that we CAN describe everything in minute detail, we can pin it all down, categorize it and give it a name. We happily go through those mental exercises and develop our constructs, and forget along the way that they are just that: constructs, and dim and fuzzy ones at that. None of us have it right, and I am sure that when we can see it all clearly, we will all pull a Homer Simpson and slap our foreheads and say “DOH!”. Still, the exercise is worth it, since it DOES get us closer to God, and focuses our minds on the bigger issues and God wants us to work through this process, as long as we don’t get too enamored of our own little, faulty frameworks. We need to keep the Mystery in mind, a good dose of Eastern Orthodoxy is needed in the evangelical body every once in a while.
Why am I so absolutist regarding the science, then? Because there ARE some areas of knowledge that are NOT “seen through a glass darkly”, that are NOT part of the mystery. I could ask you how certain you are about dozens of scientific statements, and you would (I hope) give that same level of certainty. Well, take heliocentrism. What level of certainty do you have that the earth is really revolving around the sun?
I agree completely that we should only hold things, whether it is theology or science, to the degree that all the factors justify. With these theological issues regarding “death before the fall”, I don’t really see much of a problem with them. I see the issue, I understand where the position comes from, but I just don’t see it as a real problem, and don’t feel the need to develop a systematic and absolute “work-around”.
I know what the Bible tells me, which is that God created the world systematically and Man in His image, that he said the Creation was “good”, that He wanted to have full communion with Mankind in a state of spiritual life and health, but that Mankind rebelled and sinned and now we are separated from God, and in need of redemption. I am not inclined to read a whole lot more into that in absolutist terms. I can theorize, postulate, add this to that and come up with the other, etc. But ultimately I am not going to cling tightly to anything that goes beyond this basic information.
Let’s put it this way. When confronted with a person who knows, without doubt, that the earth is billions of years old and that there was death from the beginning (a point from which they would NEVER be moved), and they asked you how that could work within Christian belief, what would you say?
BTW, what is with the lack of love for the plant world?!
Y’all are willing to let them die all over the place before the Fall, and not even consider it death at all for some reason? That alone should make everyone sit back a minute and think it through.
Vance on 08 Sep 2007 at 10:36 am #
Just to add, regarding the degree to which we hold things. I have a higher certainty regarding the age of the earth than I do a theological construct regarding when “death” entered the world because there is simply much, much more reason to believe the one than the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with holding a particular scientific conclusion higher than a particular theological one, since not all theological constructs justify being held with high degrees of certainty and many scientific conclusions do.
At the same time, there are some theological points which I hold strong enough that there is simply NO degree of scientific evidence which could move me. The fact that God created everything, for example, or that Jesus came and died and rose again.
I would assume everyone is more certain that the earth revolves around the sun than they are regarding their particular view of pre-mid-post tribulation rapture, for example.
Josh on 08 Sep 2007 at 3:00 pm #
Thanks for your responce to my question guys. But you need to understand his definition of “religion”. Because our concept of God would fall under it.
So to say that “humans do create religion” would be to say that humans do create the concept of God, affirming that God is subjective rather than an objective reality. Thus we are living an illusion by believing in God. (similar to what Dawkins argues for I believe)
And I think we run into problems with this line of reasoning. I guess my question would be more along the lines of, how does one give strong argument for the objectivity of God?
Thanks for your help.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
CharlesM on 08 Sep 2007 at 5:47 pm #
Hi Josh,
Looks like I’m jumping late into a really interesting thread.
I used to help teach intro evolutionary bio lab to first years way back in my college days. A few observations are in order I think. One is that, not to toot the “creation science horn” (hehe) – there is a general bias in university science departments against a religious outlook on creation. An unbiased view in the eyes of most profs would be the one that assumes that every “religion” is but the fruit of the human mind and nothing else. As a med school prof now I find the same thing…That is not unbiased per se – but that is how it is.
As far as the question goes I think the idea for objective evidence for God is problematic. That would seem to say that God can be measured by an exterior standard – and this is not in keeping with the view of God given in scripture. In addition objective proof diminishes the significance of faith, which is by definition belief without proof.
There are still many chinks in the overall Darwinian scheme, of which Dawkins is a “triumphalist” supporter. That does not mean that evolution doesn’t make a good bit of sense as a method of explanation. The example of human language is a good example. There is no evolutionary explanation for how we got our language ability – it just seems that we are “hardwired” for it and other species are not. Dawkins shows his bias when he dismisses this sort of thing.
In my own opinion the human body absolutely must have a designer. There is simply no way otherwise!
C Meadows
Gordon J. Glover on 08 Sep 2007 at 6:00 pm #
I’m going to try and post this again, because the one wrote a few hours ago still isn’t showing up. I apologize in advance if it shows up twice.
Josh, good questions – no easy answers. I guess the difference is that Christianity is the only religion where God Himself puts on human flesh and comes down earth. Of course, Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection must be accepted on faith since there is no way to prove it per se. But since there is no way to disprove it either, it must also be rejected on FAITH. The question then becomes, which person’s faith is more credible: the one who believes on faith or the one who rejects on faith?
Now to compare these two worldviews is like comparing apples and oranges. If you start with materialistic presuppositions (accepted by faith) then you will reject any argument for God because you always find a reason to disbelieve. If you start with theistic presuppositions (also accepted by faith) then you will reject any argument against God because anything can be explained with miracles. So what you typically get with traditional apologetics are people talking past one another.
Ironically, since neither sides’ presuppositions can be logically deduced (non-trivial), and they are both just begging the question, it is impossible to judge each system from the outside. The only way to do this is to examine each sides’ presuppositions and the conclusions drawn from these presuppositions, and then see if the the entire system is internally self-consistent. So what does that look like? I’ll try and do this with as few words as possible:
To reject God is to accept materialsim, which presupposes that the universe (matter and energy) is the extent of reality. In other words, there is no reality that transcends the natural world. So anything immaterial is merely a figment of somebody’s imagination, which ultimately is nothing more than chemistry and biology.
To accept God is to reject materialism, and recognize that there is an entitiy that exists outside of time and space, upon which both time and space have their being.
Now what are some of the things that are common to the experience of all humans living with both worldviews? We all love somebody, we all get outraged at injustice, we prefer fairness over unfairness, we like nice people more than mean people, we make personal sacrifices for causes bigger than ourselves, we want to take care of animals, we want to protect the environment, the list goes on. The problem is that non of these concepts can be found on the periodic table – which is just another way saying that they are immaterial concepts that transcend physical space and time.
Now if we step into a theistic worldview, then we know that these things are real, becasue God real, and we are created in His image, and even though we corrupt His perfect standards of love, justice, mercy, fairness, niceness, compassion, etc… we can at rest assurred that these things are real and are not subject to the whims and wants of selfish creatures such as us. We also believe that Christ was God in the flesh, and that He rose from the dead on the third day, and that God has preserved His word through the ages so that everything we need know about our relationship to Him is revealed. Given our starting presupposition about God and creation, none of these things are impossible. Science is not problem because God runs it, miracles are not problem becuase God is not bound by science (since He runs it), and immaterial absolutes are not problem sine God is bothe immaterial and absolute. In other words, the thesitic world is entire self-sufficient, coherent and consistent.
Now if we step into a materialistic worldview, where does that leave us? We might still feel love for another human, but it is merely chemistry. We might get outraged when a little girl is abducted, but ultimately, who cares if some “preditor” molecules took some “innocent girl” molecules and rearranged them. And what is “innocent” anyway? Who cares? None of these things can be real or have any meaning or value becuase they are not even supposed to exist in a materialistic worldview. It’s survival of the fittest baby! Every man for himself! Get yours before someone gets you! etc…
As you can see, the materialistic worldview completely breaks down. It is not a coherent system of belief and completely contradict the human experience – which tells that that a reality exists apart from ourselves. Just pick up any of these recent books by proponents of the so called “new atheism” and you won’t find any consistent arguments. what you’ll find instead is a bunch whiny atheists complaining that god lets too many bad things happen to innocent people? But in the atheist worldivew, who decides what is bad? Who decides who is innocent? And what should we care as long as my cells keep comfortable?
The fact that atheists can’t even be consistent atheists only shows the image of God in man – no matter how fallen. As Paul says in Romans 1, all men know the truth, but supress the truth in unrighteousness. And are reduced to eating the Christian leftovers while they shake their fists at a God they supposedly don’t believe in.
Unfortunately most Christian apologetics simply tries to argue for a young earth or against evolution, and they completely ignore the more powerful ontological and presuppositional arguments in favor of haggling over the meaning of word “day” or the reliability of C-14 dating. It’s too bad really, because we could really shut guys like Dawkins up by taking them off their playing field and forcing them to fight on the ground of our choosing. But instead, we only end up demonstrating our own ignorance of the natural sciences and giving people like your proffessor the perception that atheism is more rational than Christianity – when quite the oppostie is true. So even though this post is about apologetics, it is still not too far off topic
.
Hope that helps – but I probably just confused you more. For great example of this by somebody smarter than me, read Douglas Wilson’s response to Sam Harris, “Letter from a Christian Citizen”.
-GJG
Vance on 08 Sep 2007 at 8:25 pm #
Very well said, Gordon. I have used something like one of your points when faced with the theodicy issue. When someone says there can’t be a God because no God would allow such evil in the world, I will often respond that if there was no God, he would have no concept of something being evil.
Vance on 08 Sep 2007 at 9:37 pm #
BTW, here is an article on the “death before the Fall” issue from Glenn Morton, who used to be a leading YEC scientist, but has since moved away from that (with much hostility from the YEC camp following him). I have corresponded with him in the past and we butt heads a bit since he still insists on a very literal reading of the text. Anyway, it is a fun read:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/death.htm
Here is another article on the subject from the Creationist site “Reason to Believe”, run by OEC scientist Hugh Ross:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
I just don’t really see any reason to hold to a “no death before the fall” doctrine, and I don’t really see any Biblical support for the “restorationist” approach that the new heaven and new earth were going to be a restoration of the way the earth was before the Fall. Maybe I am missing that, but I am not seeing that laid out anywhere.
C Michael Patton on 08 Sep 2007 at 10:39 pm #
Vance, do you believe what that guys says in the first article contains legitimate arguments?
I hate to be overly critical, but it showed a massive lack of theological issues and very simplistic arguments that had no hint of a fuller understanding of eschatological issues. This is the problem when these type of people try to make arguments from their presuppositions of the “possibilities” of how their proposals are true. How could he have argued the way he did without consideration of the status of the resurrected body and its immortality? I could make the very same argument he made saying that people, animals, plants, etc. will die in the eschaton. But the real issue is people, not foxes or cells. And the real issue of death has to do, theologically and physically, with two things that are interdependent: 1) Spiritual death – the breach in our relationship with God that is rectified in regeneration. 2) Physical death, the breach of our compositional unity between the body and the soul.
Now if you are a creationist with regards to the soul, then you might be able to get by with SOME of this stuff, but I believe that the traducianist arguments are the most systematically coherent and avoid the Gnostic dualism that separates the body and the soul essentially.
In other words, once again, there are some serious theological issues that you are not recognizing with regards to the issue of evolution (not so much OEC).
I think it comes down to which pill do you want to swallow. (Didn’t you use this?).
Pill 1: Believe in evolution. Once this happens you will have to reconstruct a theology of creation, nuance your understanding of redemption, reconstruct your eschatology, adopt a creationist view of the soul (which is very difficult), see the “second Adam” in a much different way, and view the necessity of the recapitulation theory of Christ and the incarnation with a new pair of sunglasses called scientific evolution. All these reconstructions essentially are reconstructions on how the Bible, in constructing a theology in all these areas, has been read for hundreds of years.
Pill 2: Do not believe in evolution. Assuming that there is evidence that I have just not seen, then you will have to deny the prevailing scientific view in favor of a mystery with regard to why it looks like evolution has taken place. You would probably have to either say that there is evidence that we don’t yet know about that will eventually overturn the theory of evolution or adopt a gap theory with a previous creation motif of some sort that does not involve the current state of humanity in relation to the first Adam. As well, you may have to deny the validity of a uniformitarian principle when applied to the past.
In the end, as a theologian who takes from the various sources of revelation (Scripture, experience, creation, emotions, and tradition), I would have to say that I will take the second pill any day. I have said before and I say again, Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ, so my faith is not threatened by the theory of evolution. Yet I just don’t see the need for its serious consideration with regards to systematic theology.
If it simply comes to the issue of YE or OE, then I would say that the pills are a little more balanced. While there are virtually no theological issues effected by the adoption of an OE view, there are some minor issues of hermeneutics that seem rather odd. Yet, comparatively speaking, they are very easy to deal with and move on. Yet I could still very easily, as a theologian, swallow the YE pill. While I very much see why people would believe in an OE, I would be hesitant on my dogmatics about even this. Why? Because it assumes a uniformatarian view of history. While I believe scientists must assume such for their current observations, they need to be very careful. Unless they are atheists, they cannot say what God has done in the past and how things have worked.
Swallowing a YE pill for OEers should not be that difficult if they simply say that we are not sure that the way things measure now is the way they have always collected information.
Swallowing a OE pill for YEers should not be that difficult if they simply say that we don’t know what happened prior to the creation man or we should not take the early chapters of Genesis too literally with regards to these issues.
In the end, the explanation given by this gentleman seems very weak to me. It also seems that he has not studied systematic theology much…I could be wrong though.
Once again, we are left with your principle. We see in a mirror dimly. I am not going to be too bent out of shape if I get to heaven and it is a YE or OE. I will be somewhat confused if evolutions were true. But as I have said before, I have yet to see anything that compels me to even consider it as a valid scientific interpretation of things, much less to consider it theologically.
Vance on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:38 am #
Michael,
As for Morton’s positions, no, I don’t find all of them compelling, I was just showing that there are many different angles on this. The point in particular that I think he is right about is on the concept of “no death before the fall” being a non-starter because even the most ardent YEC would agree that there WAS plant death before the Fall, and so it begins to unravel from there. There are a lot of his approaches I don’t go along with. As I said, he tries to get to evolution from a literal reading of Scripture, which I find odd.
Getting to your more important issues, let’s start with the latter choices first, between OE an YE creationism. I think that if you are choosing between these two, then the choice is dramatically clear for YE simply because of the scientific evidence. Every single thing about the earth screams “old”. And this is not just speculation about things in the past. If the earth was young, then everything would have to look different than it does. And, all the clear evidences of the age would have to be God having created with the “appearance of age”, which carries with it a lot of theological baggage.
If you remove any religiously based presumptions regarding how old the earth is, then absolutely no person would ever come to the conclusion, upon reviewing the evidence, that it is young.
So, really, it comes down to whether there IS a Scriptural or theological reason why it has to be young, since that is the only thing that could push in that direction, and even then it had better be a pretty strong push to get over the hump of SO much evidence. And I just don’t see much evidence at all, since I don’t see Genesis 1 and 2 being literal historical narrative. Unless you go that route, there is simply no reason to choose a young earth that I can see.
As for evolution, I did not have to reconstruct very many of those things at all, as it turns out.
The theology of Creation was still the same: God created everything and did so with a purpose, and did so with a systematic plan. He created Mankind in His image, breathed His Life into Mankind in some mysterious way that distinguished Him from the rest of creation, and put him in stewardship of the planet. He discusses the relations of Man and Woman together, and how He wanted to (and still wants) to commune with us in full fellowship. Satan works to deceive and Mankind’s selfish nature caused it to rebel against God, and disobey and sin entered the world, causing Man to lose full communion with God, and is now in need of redemption.
So, all of the THEOLOGY was the same, all that had changed for me once I saw that Genesis was better read figuratively was the literary genre it was told in, and thus whether it was necessarily a literal Adam, etc. No theological differences there.
I see nothing in the eschatology at all, since I never really perceived the New Heaven and New Earth as somehow a return to Eden, but rather God finishing the work that had gotten derailed.
I am not sure what you mean by a Creationist vision of the soul, but I don’t really have any particular view on how Man came to have a soul, but I suspect that God infused Mankind with a soul at some point in accordance with His overall plan. Not a big issue for me, really.
The transition to thinking of Jesus as a second Adam when Adam was figurative also really did not involve much angst since I understood how the ancient mind viewed these past typologies, and it really did not matter to me even if Paul DID think Adam was literal by that point, since the theology is the same either way (and that is an important point).
And recapitulation for me remains the same: God sent Jesus to put the world to rights, to overhaul and complete. I am with NT Wright on this one.
And, really, what you still don’t seem to be seeing is that the REAL theology is the same. The important, Gospel, redemption theology is not impacted. As I have stated, how do you think all of these millions of Christians who accept evolution (including the major denominations who are entirely open to it) do so without coming to a skidding halt because of these theological constructs? Do they just not consider these issues?
All that gets shaken up is some ‘ways of looking at things”, ways of talking about them, and ways of systematically labeling and categorizing them. You have spent a great deal more time analyzing all the various taxonomies of theological constructs, pondering, evaluating, and determining which must be the most correct, and so you are invested in those choices to some degree. Along the way, maybe you forgot that none of them are really entirely correct, since they are just human ways of talking about “God things”.
I refuse to hold to such things so tightly that I squeeze the true life out of them. And, ultimately, I have heard you say the same things over and over. Hold to things only to the degree that they justify being held.
There are essentials doctrines, and there are doctrines which provide ways of thinking about those essentials, ways of classifying them, intellectual pursuits of “how to get there from here”. That is fine and I find that an interesting mental exercise. But lets say X is an essential doctrine (Jesus died to redeem us), and Y is not. We both believe in X and for me that is all that matters. For too many, though, the response becomes, “well, how can you believe in X if you don’t believe in Y?” But the reality is that I DO believe in X, and as strongly as they do. Their supposition that you Y is a prerequisite belief to X is simply wrong.
With all of that in mind, I will go ahead and provide you with my version of the “second pill”, since we have never really discussed it (there has been no need to, since we both agree entirely on the important fact that was the topic of my original post and your post here, that we need not be dogmatic about these issues, for fear of damaging evangelism). But, here it is in a nutshell.
I think the evidence from nature for the evolutionary development of life on this planet over billions of years is overwhelming. This is one type of acceptance of “evolution”. In fact, it is the same type of acceptance that even the Intelligent Design scientists, like Behe and Denton, accept as well. This is just an historical statement of “what happened”, not a statement of “how it happened” (which is where the ID scientist disagrees with the mainstream of evolutionary biologists). I have studied it extensively, and feel very comfortable with this. I would say my “certainty factor” here is well into the 90% range. The other 10% or so could be filled with an Old Earth view of Progressive Creationism, like Hugh Ross describes, but I think this is less likely.
Now, that is just what happened. There are two remaining, and interrelated issues: how it happened, and the degree to which God created the process to happen naturally. This is where the “theory of evolution” comes in, as opposed to the “history of evolutionary development”. The theory describes the mechanics of how that development took place: natural selection, genetic drift, etc. At the moment, I am perfectly comfortable with the concept of God having created a process that can run entirely on its own in these ways (since it would fit his pattern in the rest of His Creation), but then at some point, at a time chosen by God, He stepped in a did “something” which “created Man in His Image” and “breathed life” into Mankind, whether that was a process or a one-off event I don’t know and don’t care.
Yet, if the ID folks are successful in establishing that it could NOT have happened entirely naturally, and that God DID have to micro-manage it, and make things happen all along the way, that is fine as well. Again, it is not a big deal to me.
Or, if they came up with an entire refutation of the Darwinian explanation of what happened, or came up with a better explanation, that would be fine as well.
I guess I am with the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Evangelical Lutherans, and all of those others in the list I set out above. We just don’t see an absolute conflict between evolution and Christian theology or Scripture, so have no more reason to disbelieve what science is describing here than where it describes things like how gravity works or how stars are formed.
Vance on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:40 am #
Yikes, I meant to say in that second paragraph that the clear choice was for an Old Earth, not YE! Sorry about that.
C Michael Patton on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:57 am #
Vance, thanks for the take. I do see where you are coming from. I am just trying to get you to see where others are coming from so that you don’t do the same thing to them that you don’t want them to do to you.
In the end, the degree of certianty about these issues will be fed by the discipline of study. This is why I encourage people to go through a serious systematic theological development program and make this the norm for the church. Informed decisions must come from all areas.
My views are heavly influenced by my biblical theology that, as you have said, I have worked on quite a bit. While I certianly don’t hold my views to be perfect, to varying degrees, I believe they are correct. This is why I, personlly, don’t think that an evolutionary view is likely. I most certainly would not put myself at 90%. I don’t think there are many things I would rate that high
.
Yet my reasons are very strong and not easily dealt with, even if you do choose to swallow the other pill
C Michael Patton on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:59 am #
I know what you meant!
Vance on 09 Sep 2007 at 10:20 am #
Yes, I want to assure you that I don’t hold to anything dogmatically in the way I was warning against. Degrees of confidence are not the same as dogmatism. I can hold something with a 99.99% degree of certainty, but still not think it is that important, and would not hold it out as an essential belief. That is where dogmatism goes, as opposed to just intellectual certainty levels.
And, even more important is the “stumbling-block” issue. The greater the danger there, the less one should be dogmatic about thing that are not essential (my original point).
As far as certainty levels, it definitely comes down to areas of study. I have studied the ANE cultures in detail, and my confidence levels are high there. I have studied the sciences in great detail, and my confidence levels are very high there. I have studied the early Church in great detail, and so much theology was involved, but I have avoided studying systematic theological issues until recently, so I am not going to cling to very many of the competing doctrinal constructs very tightly.
But I still suspect that we probably CAN know the details of the ways of nature with more detail than many of the theological issues. The essentials of our faith, as the Westminster Confession says, are made clear, but much of the rest is not as clear. We are natural beings in a natural world, and I think we are somewhat fish out of water when discussing the things of God. I think the “dimly” obtains more to theology. I think back to the Byzantines, for whom theology was a major societal hobby. The butcher and baker would dispute on the corner about the Christological issues. Ultimately much of it was “angels on the head of a pin stuff”. While levels of confidence rise with study and knowledge of the issues, is that confidence as justified in human constructs of Godly things?
But, of course, those theological issues are far more important and so are worthy of greater study, which is why I listen to you for hours on end!
I have studied Scripture forever (having spent more time in Scripture than most theologians!), but I have avoided reaching conclusions on systematic issues beyond the basics for a long time, since I have always felt that attempting to define things that tightly was a bit like herding cats. But knowledge of what people out there are thinking I find fascinating. Before finding RMM, I began the Covenant Seminary series of lectures, of course starting with Old Testament History, New Testament History and Church History! 
The Psalms class was good as well.
BTW, since confidence one way or the other does follow education, you might want to consider this overview of evolution from a Christian scientist so that you can more confidently reject it!
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
Ken Blatchford on 09 Sep 2007 at 8:37 pm #
The ideas on the start of this thread are what I have had to contend with from my fighting fundie’ friends. It seems that if you don’t hold to their interpretation of a 6 Day creation then you are supporting Darwinism. This automatically makes you a compromising-evolutionist supporting Christian. With the formula of evening-morning meaning a twenty-four hour cycle each day is supported by this hermeneutic to explain the basis to this “infallible” doctrine. 6000 years, take it or leave it.
The idea of even angels were formed from the Gen. 1:1 suggests to them that there are no other places in God’s economy of the universe for anything other than this interpretation of beginnings. I personally find it especially difficult to reconcile the age of the universe and the diversity of life that would have had to live in the short span of time the young earthers insist on. This is why I don’t hold to the young-earth position. Although I am not trained in the theology of hermeneutics I do believe that there is room for error on their part of using the 24 hour “day” they insist upon.
To be accused of being a Darwinist for trying to understand God’s methods of how He does things is in opposition to what true science only looks at. It takes the evidence and then makes its conjectures. Truth will stand one way or the other. We may not know the mechanisms for all of what God has done in creating the universe but astrophysics has done a fair job of explaining some of it. It will show a longer period of time than 6000 years for the age of the cosmos.
We know evolution side of sciene is a fairy tale for adults, having the frog change into a prince given “x” number of years but the age of the cosmos has direct and verifiable evidence as to what can be measured in terms of time.
To explain this to a young-earther as being anything other than what can fit into the six thousand year earth is met with very ugly and accusatory blasting that makes one feel he has committed blasphemy.
It concerns me on the level of evangelizing a thinking person. If someone is truly seeking truth(an unbeliever) it must be discouraging to deal with such dogmatism in Genesis then having saving grace explained to you from New Testament by a young-earther.
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 6:21 am #
Actually Ken, most scientists would agree that the evidence for common descent is far more conclusive than the case for the Big Bang theory. In other words, even though our best understanding of the earth’s biological history is like looking at a billboard up close through a drinking straw, there are far more missing puzzle pieces to the cosmological puzzle than there are to the biological puzzle. Even the age of the cosmos (13.7 billion years) depends on some very big assumptions about dark matter and dark energy; two things that have yet to be directly observed or accounted for.
The problem is that while there is nothing too offense about Big Bang theory, common descent seems – on the surface – gross and contrary to sound doctrine. So we are much more prone to dismiss it as a “fair tale for adults”. Moreover, some evolution’s most vocal defenders are miserable atheists, who would probably still believe it even if there were mountains of evidence against it (which there is not).
It sounds like you have invested a good bit of time studying astrophisics and the amazing story of cosmic evolution. I would also invite you to spend an equal amount of time reading some good books about evolution written from a Christian perspective. I spend two chapters discussing the fossil record and molecular genetics in my book, “Beyond the Firmament”. But if you really want to dig into the scientific details from the really smart guys, try “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, “Comming to Peace with Science” by David Faulk or “Perspective of an Evolving Creation” edited by Keith Miller. Each of these have their strengths and weakness, but they are all good places to start.
-GJG
Hawke on 10 Sep 2007 at 10:09 am #
GJG,
I understand (fairly well) the methods of
Ar-Ar
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Re-Os
Lu-Hf
Actually, my post was in concordance to the Gage R&R calculations (in which I performed on these methods mathematically). But again, the meteorite data comes from rock formation, some samples where from Chondrites and other variations. The repeatability variation is about 8.48% (according to my studies so far), and a Gage R&R variation of 39.79% which is not enough for a definitive conclusion (based upon a Sigma distribution width of 5.15). In fact, the range I found (mathematically so far) was 3.45-4.97 Billion years for Chondrites, and 4.22-4.88 billion years with meteriorites (i.e. Allende, Guarena, Shaw, Olivenza, Saint Severin, Indarch, etc). Based upon Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6 and Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To “Scientific” Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
One also has to figure in what is called maximum uncertainty levels (for the +/- % and the scaling and of the data collection devices, in which I do not have all the data collected).
My point was that some of the accuracy (from my sources) is not up to NIST compliancy for laboratory standards, but maybe at best guest scenarios. While being at 39.79% It is acceptable in some instances 10-30%. Typically the norms are 5% and below. Even when comparing a Gage study isolating each method of isotopic ratio plotting, the variances seemed below what I would call as definitive that everyone could conclude as repeatable for Gage purposes. (Not so much as saying C-14 is used for the dating of the earth, but that it is comparable to C-14 as far as accuracy). While some have suggested the figure of 4.55 Billion +/- 1% I would find that acceptable (dependant on the sample size and methodology employed).
Carry on…
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 11:10 am #
Hawke, my apologies. I must have misunderstood your post (wouldn’t be the first time for me). I thought you were relating C-14 dating to methods for determining the age of the earth. It’s clear now that you know too much about radioisotopes to have made that connection.
Keep up the good work!
-GJG
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 12:07 pm #
Gordon, you raise a good point. The theory of evolution, as a scientific explanation for the observed evidence, is as solidly supported as just about any theory in science, and yet it is virtually the only one that people seem to have a major problem with. As it turns out, the only reason for this problem ends up being the seeming conflict with religious beliefs. While those who oppose it DO come up with scientific reasoning, it is clear that these are ultimately apologetic.
The reason I say that is that, as far as I have ever been able to discover, there are not working scientists in the relevant fields who disagree with the basic tenets of evolution who do not ALSO have a religious reason for doing so.
And this would be very odd if the concepts of evolutionary development from common ancestors was just unsupported by the evidence. Given the intensely competitive nature of science and the inherent desire to overturn accepted thinking for better explanations (and thus become famous!), there should be at least a significant percentage of secular scientists in those relevant fields who would be up in arms. The idea of blackballing, etc, does not explain enough of it, since there has been a long history of scientists bucking the system when they see current concepts just don’t work.
There are many disputes over the details of the mechanics, and these are often “quote-mined” to sound as if the speakers actually doubt evolution itself, but that is just good science at work.
C Michael Patton on 10 Sep 2007 at 12:17 pm #
Thanks for the references Gorden.
“The Language of God†by Francis Collins
“Finding Darwin’s God†by Kenneth Miller
“Comming to Peace with Science†by David Faulk “Perspective of an Evolving Creation†edited by Keith Miller
Seeing as how I missed the boat on the evidences for evolution in all my science classes, I would like to–no, I guess I need to–get more familiar with some of this. To tell you the truth, there are not many more subjects that I dislike more than Creation/Evolution (too much passion on both sides). But I suppose that I should read up more.
Vance, is there any that you would ad to this list?
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 12:51 pm #
I have read the Collins book and the Kenneth Miler book and they are both worth reading (I do not have that Keith Miller book, so I ordered it and am very excited to get it). “Finding Darwin’s God” is a very good read and it explains the science very well, but you may not find his theology very palatable in many areas.
Another I found very useful is called “Random Designer”, by an evangelical professor at Olivet Nazarene University:
http://www.amazon.com/Random-Designer-Created-Connect-Creator/dp/0975390406
As for just the evidence regarding evolution itself, that link I gave in an earlier post is a good primer:
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 2:47 pm #
Michael,
What I have found, in general, is that the really smart scientists are not very convincing theologians. And the very good theologians are not very convincing scientists. In fact, in some of the references I gave, I got the feeling that they were quickly running through the biblical case just to get to the scientific case, where they are most comfortable operating. Even though the science is impeccable, they typically do a poor job in handling Scripture – although some better than others. “Perspectives…” is probably the best of the one’s I gave you, especially if you tend toward Reformed theology like I do.
Except for “Perspectives…”, which is hundreds of pages and gets very technical, I rarely recommend these books to my really conservative friends becasue, even though the scientific case is well articulated, must of us don’t really care about that. What we really care about is how do you square it with the Bible, or if we don’t have to square it with the Bible, how does that impact those doctrines that our foundational to our faith (inspiration, biblical inerrancy, the fall/redemption model etc…) To put it bluntly, I think most of these books fall short of making the complete case and are really only convincing for folks who approach the issue with a VERY open mind toward science.
So now I will use your Blog to shamelessly plug my own book: “Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation”.
Rather than bombard the reader with the scientific case right away, I make every attempt to meet them exactly where they are, and walk with through the journey, sharing with them the same thoughts and reservations that I had when traveling this same path. Part I of the book is a primer on the basic principles of epistemology, what we can reasonably know and how we can reasonably know anything with certainty. I try and disarm the skeptical reader by showing that science is really a very limited enterprise, and its only descriptive power lies in the material realm. It is completely useless when trying to address questions of ultimate meaning and purpose. The goal here is to “take the edge” off of science, and encourage the reader to adjust thier spiritual expectations when reading scientific literature – and to know when science is being abused by atheists to promote religious agendas (and also by fellow Christians). I also demonstrate how science itself is worthless without the principle of the uniformity of nature. An idea that has no rational basis from within a godless universe, but is to be expected in a universe created and sustained by God, who governs the material real with order and precision as part of His covenant faithfullness. The conclusion here is that while science operates with the “atheist premise” it is actually rooted in a theology of creation, and can be trusted, as long as we ask it the appropriate questions.
Part II looks at the nature of Speaical Revelation – specifally the incarnational prinicple of Scripture (fully a product of God, yet fully a prduct of man). Again, the goal here is deal sensitively with the very real concerns of conservative Christians in a way that preserves, and even enhances, our doctrine of Biblical infallibility. Thus the Bible, like science, can be trusted – as long as we ask it the appropreate questions. Once we have made these very practical adjustments in our expectations of both Natural and Special revelation, only then can we fully appreciate the scientific case.
The second half of BTF does exactly this (Part III – Big Bang/Old Earth; Part IV – Common descent). But rather than try and speculate on exactly how all of this happeneded and get lost in those details, I simply state what we do know, and what we don’t know. I show that creation science is really only the “science” of zeroing in on what we don’t know and capitalizing on the most challenging aspects of scientific theories specifically to reject them in their entirety. Creation science rarely deals with the positive evidence up front. However, if we fully grasp the significance of what is known and can be clearly demonstrated, then we really have very few options at interpreting the rest of the unknown data. In fact, if we interpret it according to the creation science model, then the pieces of the puzzle that we do know with a high degree of certainty point to a very theologically unacceptable picture of God. So we need think carefully about how we respond to the scientific case – ideas have consequences. In the end, I recognize that there are still difficulties. But we should expect this, since we are finite and fallen, and God is infinite and perfect. We seem to tolerate spiritual mysteries in other areas of theology (calvinism, eschatology, the trinity, etc…) So why not add creation to this list?
All of that is to say that if you want to really dig deep into both the scientific and hermaneutical cases, you really need to take 6 months and study a whole stack of literature. But if you don’t have time for that, and you are willing to get the “gist” from one who is an expert in nothing (myself), then I would actually start with my book – since I wrote it specifically as an introductory text.
Thanks for the free advertising
-GJG
Hawke on 10 Sep 2007 at 2:56 pm #
Gordon,
Thanks for the Kudos, I hope I didn’t come across negatively to you or the scientists. I appreciate your work with the new book.
I always cherished Science and mathematics, but reading from the likes of Dawkins, his dogmatism left a bad taste in my mouth. I really haven’t taken a stance either way on OEC or YEC, but I do believe that the majority of Scientists would agree with OEC.
Maybe I have my hands in both cookie jars trying to figure out (intellectually) which camp to enlist. I always try to place a well formed exegetical Christian theology (though I fail at times) when it comes to investigating secular views of nature. I am not sure at this point, on how much of the naturalistic view I could fully understand towards creation and the age of the universe. I read from both Ham and Ross and find both arguments well placed, but often times I disagree with their interpretation of scripture and the cultural view of scripture during the actual writings. I also agree that the study of literary forms is necessary. I enjoy Robert Stein’s view of literary forms within the Bible.
I am not so sure about the Big Bang theory and Norm Geisler’s (SURGE in “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist†book) procurement for this use of the Big Bang theory to argue for a creator. Maybe I misunderstood his arguments. Although I do believe, he was trying to be honest with his data, whereas some may not relate to both sides of the argument. I think that is why I like C. Michael Patton so much, is because he seems more even-handed in his discussions. Although, CMP would most likely bump me on the noggin for not being a 5-Pointer, and being an Amillennialist. LOL Although some state that DTS is a 4-point supporter?
Wayne Grudem seems to have an even-handed discussion between the two views (OEC/YEC) through scripture interpretation. So I guess the question is, do we focus on correct interpretation (authorial intent), or do we look first at the scientific data, and then let it interpret scripture? (As some [not all] may imply indirectly). I think this was covered already, the fact that when using the forms of literary genre, one should not place too much emphasis on taking the verse literal (as a scientific description).
Hawke on 10 Sep 2007 at 2:58 pm #
Gordon,
Oh a friendly suggestion…. Since you were having problems with some posts, I recommend typing a reply in word or wordpad, then pasting into the blog. It saved me plenty of countless hours retyping.
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 3:08 pm #
I am going to have to get your book, too, Gordon!
BTW, I just came across this great quote by Galileo. How did I not read it before?
“It would be a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe.”
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 3:57 pm #
Thanks Hawke – no offense taken. I get the sense that you are not satisfied with either the YEC or OEC approach. If so, then I think you might be on to something becuase they are really just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called “concordanism” – the view that somehow the Bible, although written in prescientific times to a non-scientific audience, is supposed to contain information about the “heavens and the earth” as understood by modern 21st century christians. Of course, science is always changing its mind, so this view either shackles science from being able to adapt to new discoveries (YEC), or it forces us to continually reinterpret the Bible (OEC).
What I think is so powerful about the incarnational view Scripture, sometimes referred to the principle of accommodation, is that we can accept a contemporary understanding of scientific questions without having to reinterpret the bible everytime science changes. If we understand that the only possible intersection of science (always changing) and the Bible (timeless) is ancient Near-Easter science (the “science” of the day), then we are free to understand the Bible quite literally (the firmament is solid, the heavens are a vault, the waters above the heavens, the moon is greater than the stars, a mustard seed is the smallest seed, the heart controls our thoughts and emotions, etc…) just the age that committed it to writing would have understood it, and yet not get too wrapped up in trying to try and use this ancient “science” to solve contemporary problems. It’s actually quite liberating.
Theologically, I’m post-mil and Reformed (with strong emergent/missional leanings), even though reformed Christians irritate the heck out of me! I also tend to reject the idea that we can “systematize” doctrine. I actually think once we try and stuff God into a “system” we take all of rich mystery out of God’s Word, which often get’s me in trouble with my reformed brothers.
-GJG
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 4:31 pm #
Gordon, I would nuance that even a bit more (although I agree entirely with your point). I would say that we go one step further and not even worry about whether the ANE cultures would have read it entirely literally, even given their current understanding of science. The analysis of most ANE scholars I have come across is that that they would have considered it real history, but with much figurative language, like the use of the literary construct of the “day” motif.
So, it would be a combination: they DID believe that there was a solid firmament, for example (they would believe that was a literal truth), but the entire point of the text was not really to tell strict literal history. It was telling about what happened in the past using figurative, symbolic and typological language, while many of the details that are given along the way (firmament, moon being a light, all being created FOR the earth particularly, etc) were literally how they thought of these things.
Does that make sense?
By the way, one example of how they read things as figurative constructs is the way the ANE cultures would often hold to two or more literary constructs of the same events. Stories that were mutually exclusive regarding the factual details, but were both considered “true” in a sense that we have a hard time getting our heads around today. If we get away from our own biases long enough, we can see the two creation stories in this light and they make a LOT more sense. Rather than having to jump through complex exegetical hoops to make them harmonize, it is much simpler to recognize that they DO conflict on a factual basis, but they are in complete harmonization when viewed as figurative literary presentations of true past events.
Speaking of avoiding convoluted exegesis, consider all the problems with Cain, etc, that could be avoided!
Marvin the Martian on 10 Sep 2007 at 4:34 pm #
I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the micro-evolution aka adaption amongst the various kinds, or species. No creationist, young earth or or old has a problem with this. It is the macro-evolutionary theory which purports the molecules-to-man, common descent idea that creationists have the most difficulty with. And I would disagree with those who say that the evidence for such macro evolution is “irrefutable”, or 99.999999% or whatever. I would agree if you were make such statements about adaptation via natural selection within the created kinds. But those aren’t the claims being made.
The evidence for macro evolution is specious at best. I have done plenty of my own research on this. While there may by unanimous agreement amongst the secular scientific community that macro evolution is true, that is born out of necessity due to their uniformitarian and naturalistic starting points. Because of his thoery, Darwin predicted that there would be countless examples of “transitional forms” found in the fossil record. Nearly two hundred years since the publishing of his book, the fossil record isn’t repleat with the transitional forms that he expected. It is rather lacking in that regard, with very few fossils that could even be possible candidates, and even those candidates are hotly debated as to whether they are transitional. This has led to these neo-Darwinian theories like punctuated equilibrium, which was first posited by palentologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould (both athiests by the way). The theory is born out of the LACK of evidence for gradual change within the fossil record. But because of their godless worldview, evolution has to be true, so they came up with a new thoery to explain the observed evidence. In my opinion, secular science has already so heavily invested itself in evolution, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. It isn’t too dis-similar to the Ptolemaic view of astronomy which was geo-centric. With the deferents, epicycles and retrograde motions, it was the scientific paradigm for millenia. But as technology progressed and more and stellar observations were collected, the charts of epicycles and retrograde motions became non-sensical. It just didn’t enter the mind to change the theory, they just squished the evidence to fit the theory. I see similar behavior when it comes to macro-evolution. There are more holes in the theory than swiss cheese. But because the vast majority of science has already accepted evolution a priori, scientists (lead by fallible men don’t forget) adopt new explanations for the lack of physical evidence for evolution.
At least Eldredge and Gould admit that the fossil record doesn’t show these gradual changes over millions of years. Rather species remain static.
From wikipedia,
“In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr’s theory of geographic speciation, Michael Lerner’s theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”
But since they have already accepted evolution to be true, they devise a naturalistic theory to explain the evidence. A theory mind you for which by its very nature, you will never find compelling physical evidence for. Remember, the theory was born out of a lack of evidence, not because of the preponderance of it.
I have heard calls for humility on the side of Young earthers, saying we are fallible and that we certainly can interpret the Bible fallibly. When will there be calls for humility on the side of science? There isn’t the irrefutable evidence that has been touted. There are many divergent theories to explain the stasis observed in the fossil record. These 99.99999% claims smacks of science propoganda more than factual assertion.
One last morsel of food for thought. Assume for the sake of argument that the literal reading of Genesis is accurate. Would a doctor traveling back in time on the 7th day to do an exam on Adam think that he was but a day old? Would not the doctor think that Adam was a robust man at least 20-30 years of age? That is what all his scientific and doctoral training would have told him. God created a mature man, why is it so difficult to believe that God also created a mature creation, especially considering that is what He said he did?
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 4:53 pm #
Vance, I would agree with that. Just consider the difference between Genesis 1 and 2. I would think, that if the goal is a literal understanding of Genesis as science and history, then you would need to reconcile 1 and 2 before tying to reconsile all of Gen with natural history. Just one example…
-GJG
Marvin the Martian on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:06 pm #
Vance, I would agree with that. Just consider the difference between Genesis 1 and 2. I would think, that if the goal is a literal understanding of Genesis as science and history, then you would need to reconcile 1 and 2 before tying to reconsile all of Gen with natural history. Just one example…
Nearly every commentary I have read on this says that this follows the typical Hebrew literary style of the day, chapter 1 is the overview, and chapter 2 focuses on the specifics of the creation of Man since we are special in God’s Creation.
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:12 pm #
Marvin, a few points:
1. macro-evolution is not just held by those scientists who have a naturalistic worldview. In fact, the large majority of scientists in the relevant fields who are Christian also accept macro-evolution as entirely compelling and well-established.
2. I can give you a TON of transitional fossils, if you like. One problem lies in the fact of what people want to define as “transitional”. Evolutionary theory does not propose any species would ever be merely “a transition” between two others, since every species is entirely itself. “Transitional” merely means one that shows the development between any two other species in that “line”. Hominids, ironically enough, are some of the best examples of transitionals. We have many examples of species that are so transitional between “ape-like” species and modern man, that Creationist experts have disagreed over which they were!
3. PE, as presented, has been improperly “quote-mined” by creationists for years. It is merely a refinement of evolutionary theory to fit the evidence as we see it. That is just good science. And it is a very good explanation for the data, so good job, guys!
4. As for Adam, if God DID create specially, and He chose to create Adam as a mature man, that would well and good. But would God create Adam with scars from injuries that never occurred? Would He imbue Adam with memories of a life he never lived for the benefit of the psychologist? Would God create an Adam that looked and acted in dozens of ways as a man who HAS lived 30 years in ways that would not be required?
In short, when talking about the planet, and the universe, if it IS young after all, then God did much more than just create it all “in maturity”, such that it would be fully formed for His purposes. It would mean that God created it with uncountable “scars” and evidences of past existence that never happened. He would have “planted” things in the earth that would speak of ages past that never happened. He would have created fossils of animals that never lived, and laid down annual varves in lake beds that show yearly transitions that never happened. He would have caused things to have aged in dozens of ways beyond the life they had actually lived. And all unnecessarily for the purposes of life on this planet. All of this is much harder to swallow theologically than much of the concerns that young earth creationists present.
tnahas on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:14 pm #
Marvin,
The problem is that once you are convinced of evolution (macro-evolution) then Bible takes a back seat
and the stage of truth is now skewed so reason and tradition (at least the tradition of some enominations) are now at the front of their stage. Evolution is not reconcilable with Scripture, the death question, the sin question, the redemption question and the restoration question. Marvin, you cannot convince someone based on commentaries. In their case, you have to rearrange their stage of truth.
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:44 pm #
OK Marvin, let’s talk science. First of all, there is no such thing as macroevolution per se. According to the theory, all evolutionary change proceeds in microevolutionary steps, summed over very large periods of time. Macroevolution is just something that anti-evolutionists invented so they can still accept the obvious (microevolution). But make no mistake, microevoluion+time (and God’s providence) = speciation – according to the theory.
Secondly, transitional forms are so frequently found in the proper layers, that it rarely makes news outside of the scientific community. In fact, the ape-to-human record is one of the best, with the dinosaur-to-bird, reptile-to-mammal, and hippo-to-whale transitions being some of the most well documented. The theory of PE that you refer to mainly concerns the precambrian explosion of multicelluar life and your understanding of what Gould and Eldredge said is inaccurrate. Since Phillip Johnson and others have this same misunderstanding, I can only assume you have been reading them. Try reading Gould and Eldredge if you really want to know what PE is all about.
The only glaring “holes” in evolutionary theory have to do with the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc… These are speculative at best, but the evidence for common descent IS overwhelming weather you want to acknowledge it or not. This doesn’t mean that it is absolute truth. But in science, a theory is accepted to be true if it can make testable predictions confirmed by evidence – which evolution has been doing for 150 years. If there were any solid evidence to refute evolution, then scientists would come up with another theory and call it something else. That’s what they do.
I’m afraid your accusations against the scientific community are unfair. The only thing in science that is accepted a-priori is the continuous operation of the laws of nature. And this is very reasonable assumption since you couldn’t even have science without it. Evolution is simply the best explanation of the facts of natural history to date (like the geological and geographical distribution of plants and animals in the fossil record, and the similarities and differences in morphology and molecular genetics between the species) in terms of the continous operation of the laws of nature (aka the patterns of God’s providence).
And finally, evolution was not borne by a lack of evidence. That is absurd. It was formulated based on a very imcomplete fossil record, field observations of the geographical diversity of the species, and basic principles of taxonomy. The true test was over the next 150 years, as more and more fossils were discovered that fit the theory perfectly, and then the science of moloecular genetics, which could have overturned Darwin’s ideas once and for all on so many levels (since evolution was formulated in complete ignorance of DNA and the mechanism of heredity), enabled scientists to trace genetic markers through the differnet taxonomic groups, confirming the theory with a greater precision than we can measure most physical constants!
And when you travel back in time and talk to Adam, ask him about his childhood memories, and if he begins to tell you all about his mother and father, try and catch God while He’s still walking in the Garden and ask why he would go to create false history. And why He would go to such great lengths to create a universe that obviously looks one way, but then require us to believe an alternate reality for which there is no evidence. But if Adam can’t remember anything past one day, then ask God why he would go to such great lengths to create 14 billion years of coherent natural history, leave clues of it scattered throughout the universe, but not top of the charade with 30 easy years of apparent memories for Adam.
Are either of these views of God acceptable to you?
Like you, I like thought experiements. So now let me ask you one: If your same doctor came and visited my elderly grandfather, he would estimate his age to be approximately 85 years, give or take two or three. Unfortunately, even the best medical science could only nail is down to a range of about 5 years or so. We just can’t know for sure – that’s the nature of science! But if the old man took out a birth cirtificate that claimed he was only 20 minutes old, would you then believe him or the doctor? That is about how far off YEC estimates are when it comes to the age of the earth!
Marvin the Martian on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:52 pm #
PE, as presented, has been improperly “quote-mined†by creationists for years. It is merely a refinement of evolutionary theory to fit the evidence as we see it. That is just good science. And it is a very good explanation for the data
Nice spin. Although it should say “it is merely a refinement of the theory to fit the evidence we expected to find but didn’t”. BTW, I was quoting wiki-pedia, not some creationist web site. Your explanation doesn’t change the fact that PE is born out of a lack of evidence, not the preponderance of it. A theory that is born out of a lack of physical evidence isn’t a theory, it is mere conjecture.
All of this is much harder to swallow theologically than much of the concerns that young earth creationists present.
Except for YEC, the Flood accounts for the fossil record and the “countless scars”.
and laid down annual varves in lake beds that show yearly transitions that never happened.
This is a perfect example of the assumptions made by science today. This assumes that because stuff occurs today at x rate, that it must have always occured at x rate. Is it so difficult to believe that a global catastrophic flood could account for massive sediment laying (and the creation of the fossil record for that matter) in relatively short periods of time, giving the appearance of age (especially with the assumption that deposit rate has been uniform and constant through the ages?
We have many examples of species that are so transitional between “ape-like†species and modern man, that Creationist experts have disagreed over which they were!
Secular experts disagree even more so. What is your point exactly? If it is that there is no consensus over whether some pile of bones found in Africa is more like an ape or a man, then I concede.
I am tired of being made to feel like I am a dolt and am willfully ignoring science that is as settled as 2 + 2 = 4. I ask a simpley question. Why is it so hard to admit that science just might have things wrong? Frankly, the arrogance displayed in support of “settled science” is quite unnerving.
I admit that I don’t know. I am not a scientist. I admit that I might be wrong, I have been on both sides of this, first as a theistic evolutionist, now as a YEC. I admit that in the end, I choose to accept the Word of God over the word of science. Just please stop making me feel as though I ignore settled science, to fit my faith, when it really isn’t settled.
tnahas on 10 Sep 2007 at 5:56 pm #
“The only glaring “holes†in evolutionary theory have to do with the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc… These are speculative at best, but the evidence for common descent IS overwhelming weather you want to acknowledge it or not.” (GJG)
versus
“God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good…”
“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. …”
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1:21, 25, 27
As for me and my house, I’ll stick to Scripture! Thanks
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 6:08 pm #
Marvin, Science is ALWAYS tentative! Evolution is no different. As soon as data is discovered that doesn’t fit the predictions of the thoery, it dies a slow death, just like steady-state cosmology of the early 20th century, or the geocentric universe of the middle ages, or Lararmkian (sp?) genetics or whatever. But as we speak today, and as has been the case over the past 150 years, the theory of evolution still works.
So you can’t really blame scientists, or get too upset at them for using it. Creation science, on the other hand, is completely useless to them. None of the predictions are borne out by the evidence, and you have to keep throwing miracles at your problems to make them go away. I’m sorry, my friend, that you don’t like this, but this IS how science works.
Vance on 10 Sep 2007 at 6:15 pm #
tnahas, I will stick to the Scriptures as well. I just don’t think they say what you think they say. I believe in Scripture every bit as much as you do, and it is that type of dialogue (”I am the one that really trusts what God says, while you trust what Man says”), which brings these discussions to the level they usually end up at.
To my mind, evolution is entirely consistent with Scripture, so rather than address it as a “trust Scripture or not” question, the only way to properly discuss it is to take each other as they present themselves and discuss the issues. If you believe Scripture says something differently, then debate that point, without simply resorting to “you just don’t believe what it says”.
Marvin, a lack of a particular type of evidence IS DATA. That is then fed into the mix and theories are fine tuned. That is good science.
And, no, the flood does not explain any of that. If a global flood had occurred, everything would look entirely different than it does. We can discuss that fully if you like.
The definition of a transitional fossil would be something that has features of an earlier and a later species, and is located in time and geography between the two. The point of the transitional hominids is very simple. Creationist scientists make the point very adamantly that every seeming “hominid” fossil is really either human or ape. Which means it would be clear which it was, but they can’t agree! Some say it is an ape, some say it is a human, which is exactly what a transitional would look like. Secular scientists may disagree over exactly how old, or which branch of the tree, etc, but none would say it was either wholly ape or wholly man.
And, of course science isn’t settled and isn’t always right. But Creationists like to treat the theory of evolution as if it is like “String Theory”, or concepts of abiogenesis, which are very speculative. Evolution is not like that, and is dramatically well-supported. Even the intelligent design scientists, much touted by creationists, agree entirely with the idea of evolutionary development over billions of years. They just insist that it could not have happened entirely naturally.
This is not just pie-in-the-sky theorizing to fit a worldview and an agenda. It is that type of characterization that gives the creationist movement such a bad name. They don’t approach the subject fairly or reasonably, but too often with more zeal than argument.
Steve Martin on 10 Sep 2007 at 8:02 pm #
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever participated in a discussion that is 137 comments long. (Maybe I’m
just new at this). No time to even read all the comments, let alone digest and respond to them.
Anyways, Michael, you’ve obviously hit a nerve.
On trying to catching up with the science required for the understanding of origins, even at
a very high level, i agree with Gordon; it’s right near impossible. And the books
by Evangelical scienctists recommended above are the ones I’d choose too. I’d also add
David Wilcox’s “God and Evolution: A Faith Based Understanding”. He talks a little bit more
about human evolution than the others. But I wouldn’t try to read all of them – choose one of
the falk, colling, collins, wilcox books and then follow it up with “Perspectives” – and if you
have only time for one chapter of this, choose Chapter 5 by Loren Haarsma’s titled “Does
Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles and Scientific practice”. For the intro
books Collins’ book is by
far the most popular so you might choose that simply because it’s the one you may have
to discuss most frequently. I prefer Falk’s because he capture’s the gut wrenching conflict
of growing up as an Evangelical interested in Science. Collins grew up an atheist & the
science / faith relationship was much different for him.
I also agree with Gordon’s comment that you just can’t find an accessible book that deals
thoroughly with the science, theology, and biblical interpretation. I highly recommend
anything by John Polkinghorne and also George Murphy’s “The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross”
but these are definitely NOT starter books. So I too am looking forward to Gordon’s
book. From what I’ve seen its going to fill a huge gaping hole – and its pretty good to boot!
(Disclaimer: I am not related to Gordon in any way, only met him over the internet a
few months back, and am getting no compensation for any kudo’s).
Gordon J. Glover on 10 Sep 2007 at 9:28 pm #
Thanks Steve. Dr. Loren Haarsma told me a few weeks ago that he has co-authored a book with his wife Deborah (also a scientist at Calvin College) called, “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution” in which his table of contents is almost identical to the one I chose. So I am very much looking forward to His book as well – due out sometime this month.
Also Steve, you must have a bunch of friends up there in Canada because my book hit #7 on the Amazon.ca “Hot New Releases” list in the general Christian catagory earlier today.
This will probably be my last post on this thread, as I start a new project tomorrow that will consume most of time for the next two weeks. It’s been great, I always enjoy the dialogue. Steve and Vance will have to cover for me.
Great Blog Michael – thanks for being patient with us!
-GJG
C Michael Patton on 11 Sep 2007 at 12:15 am #
You all ever heard of Walt Brown? What are your thoughts about him?
BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT » Blog Archive » Paley’s Casio on 11 Sep 2007 at 8:06 am #
[...] past week, I’ve been having this great discussion about creation/evolution over on the “Parchment and Pen” blog. I would encourage anyone who visits this site to head over there when you’re [...]
Vance on 11 Sep 2007 at 9:41 am #
Michael, Walter Brown would not be the place to go for science. He is not a scientist and his claims are pretty outlandish and unsupportable. Even Answers in Genesis had to (probably reluctantly) conclude that his “hydroplate” theory was just not workable. He is not a scientist (he was an engineer), and his approach is pure apologetics. He starts with his presumptive answers then goes in seek of evidence for that. When he can not find it, he develops concepts for how it could have worked which gets ripped apart pretty thoroughly (which is why even AiG had to back away from it).
What I find most frustrating with him is that he plays the sophist every bit as badly as Dawkins on the atheist side. He picks and chooses the evidence he wants, ignoring the rest, he takes quotes out of context to make it sound entirely different than the speaker intended.
There are worse Creationists, like Hovind, but if you want a reasoned argument and good science (even if I don’t agree with him on every point), I would check out Hugh Ross. On the ID side, Michael Denton may thrash evolution, but I don’t mind that coming from a real scientist. Here is his latest:
http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Destiny-Biology-Purpose-Universe/dp/0743237625/ref=sr_1_2/002-9561545-9979252?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189521539&sr=1-2
His previous book “Evolution: a Theory in Crisis” got a lot of press from Creationists, but contained some problems, so his latest book provides a better argument against Darwinian evolution.
Gordon J. Glover on 11 Sep 2007 at 9:44 am #
Some of you might be interested in my latest post, “Paley’s Casio” on my blog. Check it out at http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/
-GJG
Vance on 11 Sep 2007 at 10:31 am #
Gordon, I really liked that story! I wanted to comment there, but for some reason, Wordpress would not let me log in. I think the analogy gives a good summary of the positions.
Gordon J. Glover on 11 Sep 2007 at 11:30 am #
Thanks Vance. Try and register first before logging in, it should work. I would love some comments over there.
Marvin the Martian on 11 Sep 2007 at 4:17 pm #
He starts with his presumptive answers then goes in seek of evidence for that. When he can not find it, he develops concepts for how it could have worked
This sounds remarkably similar to what happened with Darwinian evolution leading to punctuated equilibrium. Funny how the evoltionary side is called “good science” but the creationist side is called “outlandish”.
On the ID side, Michael Denton may thrash evolution, but I don’t mind that coming from a real scientist.
Are the many Creationist scientists like the folks at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research not also “real scientists?” Are their doctoral degrees in biology, chemistry, astrophysics, astronomy, etc not equally “real”. Does their denial of billions of years and evolution negate their being called “real scientists”? I would argue that this type of veiled condescension is also a contributing factor to why the debate gets as heated as it does, not just the Creationists taking the “I am the one that really trusts what God says, while you trust what Man saysâ€.
And, no, the flood does not explain any of that. If a global flood had occurred, everything would look entirely different than it does.
How do you KNOW this? I am assuming that you have eyewitnessed a massive global flood and it’s catastrophic results firsthand? How do you KNOW that the evidence we see i.e. the millions of fossils the world over, which require rapid burial in muddy conditions so the water can replace the minerals in the bones, isn’t a result of the Flood? How many mudslides would there have to have been in your world view to account for the vast fossil record we do have? I would posit that if the Flood wasn’t mentioned in the Bible, then it probably would be taught in science as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the fossil record.
But science speaks with such certainty on these issues. Perhaps the Word of God to Job in chapter 38 should be considered:
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.”
Vance on 11 Sep 2007 at 5:32 pm #
No, real science does not just start with presumptive answers, since none of the current answers are sacrosanct and can be changed if they just don’t fit the evidence. Evolutionary development fits the evidence perfectly, but absolute gradualism did not (even Gould accepts that gradualism is still the norm, just doesn’t provide the full answer). So, gradualism had to be reconsidered, it was NOT sacrosanct, it was not clung to in spite of the evidence. They were willing to see whether a different explanation was available, and the current time, PE is just that, the best explanation to explain the data. That is good science.
The evidence for evolutionary development over billions of years was just as strong, it was merely the mechanics that needed some tweaking. And the ID folks agree with this, but they insist that it needs even more tweaking, so much so that God is needed since it couldn’t not have happened entirely naturally. Yet even they accept the basic premise of the development in the first place.
What too many Creation scientists do is very different. They start with absolutes from which they will NOT budge no matter what the evidence says. They start with a young earth and special, immediate creation based on a particular reading of Scripture and then go out and look for evidence that supports that conclusion. This is the opposite of science.
As for who is a real scientist, I was referring to Brown in particular, not all Creation scientists. He is not a scientist, and definitely not one who specializes in anything in these areas. Over at AiG and ICR they definitely have people who are real scientists, but even then they are only real scientists when they are doing real science. Just as an atheist scientist is no longer doing science when they start spouting philosophical naturalism, a creation scientists is not longer doing science if they start with a presumption from which they will not budge if the evidence points the other way.
We do not need to be present to view the history to be able to see that a global flood did not occur. The evidence is all over the place which shows things that would not be there if a global flood had taken place, and, at the same time, things that WOULD be there if it had are not there. This is as supported by the evidence as a hundred things you accept from science without question. And, absent your conclusion that a global flood occurred based on your particular reading of Genesis, you would not have any problem with this either.
I am perfectly open to all of the Creationist concepts and proposals and I have read them all in great detail for a VERY long time. I just find them utterly without any validity, and the end result is that the only people who accept them are those with religious beliefs that presuppose those conclusions. You would think that at least a small percentage of secular scientists would cry foul against the prevailing conclusions from the evidence if they were really better answers out there. At least a few percentage would be willing to buck the system and point out the errors of the general scientific community. But that is not what is happening. The last I saw, less than 1/10th of 1% of scientists in the relevant fields accept these Creationist propositions like flood geology. That means that very large majority of Christian scientists reject them as well. So, it is not a worldview issue.
We can get into all the data if you like in great detail, but this is not the best place to do that.
Over at Christian Forums, there is a great forum for these very issues. It is open to non-Christians as well, and the science is discussed thoroughly and reasonably, for the most part. You can find it here:
http://foru.ms/f70
tnahas on 11 Sep 2007 at 5:45 pm #
Funny enough how a blog on “How not to be dogmatic” has become just that.
Funny too that only real scientists and those that discuss science “thoroughly and reasonably” are only evolutionist yet Scripture has no record of evolution being the instrument that God used.
Because God was the instrument and all the glory belongs to Him. There is a multitude of Scripture references to Him as the sole creator and all of the OT and NT writers agree.
Soli Deo gloria.
(sorry Vance bro, I saw enough of your posts at bible.org, same stuff different day)
C Michael Patton on 11 Sep 2007 at 5:49 pm #
Well, I do have to agree with you on that. It seems that this type of apologetic has a way to make the dividing lines clearer than they really are.
All I can do is say it again. Humility is the key. It will keep you from being humiliated later
Vance on 11 Sep 2007 at 6:33 pm #
tnahas, degree of confidence is not dogmatism. I have reviewed the evidence to be confident up to a certain level of confidence, that is all. And this level of confidence is always tentative, able to change given the degree of evidence. That is why I would never make dogmatic theological statements based on these issues and why I call for others not to do the same.
I never said that a young earth creationist should abandon their scientific conclusions that the earth is young. And if they want to debate those scientific conclusions, that is fine, even though that is not my primary goal. My goal is that neither side of this debate should allow their conclusions regarding the timing and nature of God’s creative work to be PRESENTED dogmatically in the manners I describe in my article. If you want to believe in a young earth with 100% confidence, that is absolutely fine, and I would not expect you to discuss it with any less confidence than that. But, to go that extra step and say that if your conclusion is not correct, Scripture is worthless, or say that EITHER an old earth is correct or Scripture is correct, but not both, etc, is where we must not go, since that is putting our conclusions, however strongly held, at the level of Christian Essentials, where it does not belong.
I will go on record and say that, no matter how confident I am of the scientific issues, I could be wrong. But regardless of whether I am right or wrong, Scripture is true, the Gospel is true and all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are all fully valid.
Are you willing to say the same? If so, then you are not taking a dogmatic stance.
We can both be equally confident in our scientific conclusions, and there is no reason to back off of that level of confidence unless the evidence requires it (and I don’t, and neither should you). But that should not allow us to draw dogmatic lines in the sand over issues that are, ultimately, non-essential.
Let me put it this way. Let’s say you were confronted with a “Flat-earther” who insisted that the Bible describes the world as flat, and that there was good science to back this up. He began to assert that if you did not accept a flat earth, then you were not trusting Scripture, you did not trust God, you were placing man’s science ahead of God’s word. And lets say you saw that he was gathering a following and influencing a lot of young people with that belief. First and foremost I would assume you would want him to avoid such dogmatic statements such that if the world was not flat, you might as well throw Scripture away, etc.
But if he then really wanted to discuss the science involved, and insisted that the evidence was clear that the world was literally flat (a disc), and lets say you chose to discuss the issue. Now, I know that you are 99.99% sure that the earth is not a flat disc. So, how would you present your position? Would you act as if there are two reasonable positions here and discuss it as if there was equal and supportable evidence on both sides, etc? Or would you say, no, that is simply not what all the evidence indicates, let me show you why . . .?
I think you would be perfectly justified in taking the latter approach.
Vance on 11 Sep 2007 at 6:58 pm #
Oh, and I provided the names of two ANTI-evolutionists who I think really DO discuss the matter reasonably and thoroughly, even if I disagree with their conclusions in many areas.
Don on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:14 am #
At the risk of inflaming the situation, I don’t think that this issue should be thought of in terms of individuals getting hung up on the issue and so not coming to Christ. You can argue that there are many who would not, and are not, have come to Christ until this issue was dealt with. The question should also not be isolated from wider questions of hermeneutics and the relationship between Christianity and the wider culture, especially modernism and post-modernism. I would like to make the following points:
1. Most, perhaps all, Christians are not fully consistent in their thinking. They hold together positions which are in reality contradictory. That we do this however does mean such issues are not important. They lead to other errors and even if we do not see it, others do and walk away.
2. At the level of society in general and the history of the gospel in the West over the past 150 years or so, evolutionary thought has established a huge barrier to people coming to faith in Christ. It is one of the principal reasons Christianity at the public debate level has little or no credibility in the eyes of the world. We can believe it at a private level, or for its benefits, but can make no public claim to it being true. This applies to both modernism and post-modernism which share the same foundation at this point.
3. It is easily demonstrable that interpretations of Genesis 1 have been largely guided by priority being given to the truth of evolution, and that such an approach to scripture has not stopped there but has influenced all the central doctrines of Christianity for those (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) who have committed themselves to this approach. This battle is still raging in all sorts of areas that on the surface have nothing to do with Genesis 1.
4. It is wrong to claim that there is no contradiction between Christianity and evolution. Evolution, as a theory, does not need God, indeed it rejects his presence. It is why for people like Gould and Hawkins, despite the massive problems, know that evolution is true, because there is no alternative. It is an apriori position. The fact that some want to marry the two as if there is no problem only shows just how good we are at holding contradictory positions together.
5. No, no particular view of Genesis 1 is needed for salvation, neither is it an issue for everyone, nor should it be raised with everyone. However, as an in house issue, it has very wide ramifications and should not be ignored.
6. One of the useful insights of post-modernism, and there are some, is that even science is done from a particular perspective which limits its truth claims. Secular science is not and can not be neutral. Change the perspective and it is amazing how the evidence can be read in another way. This is why the Bible must take precedence because it alone has the true perspective because it comes from the only one who really is neutral, because only he knows everything and only he was there when it happened because he did it.
7. Finally, someone above said that the scientific evidence fits a developmental scheme perfectly. I am sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Go home and do your homework!
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:19 am #
I am with you on number six.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:49 am #
Amen Don!
Hawke on 12 Sep 2007 at 7:16 am #
GJG wrote:
“Thanks Hawke – no offense taken. I get the sense that you are not satisfied with either the YEC or OEC approach. If so, then I think you might be on to something because they are really just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called “concordanism†– the view that somehow the Bible, although written in pre-scientific times to a non-scientific audience, is supposed to contain information about the “heavens and the earth†as understood by modern 21st century Christians.â€
Actually, I am not fully satisfied that either camp fully grasps the culture of the time of the writing (not that I do either). Some may want to think that everything the Bible applies to us today, in which I would say, no it does not. Some may say the message was hidden until a certain era, I would not necessarily agree with that either. I do not believe that Genesis was intended to be taken as a scientific-over-analyzed view of how God created the heavens and earth and various life forms. I take the Genesis account serious, but I do not push or over-extend an Occidentalized view of the scripture in that sense. When the Bible is silent or there exists some vague concepts, I believe that we should leave them as such. I am not stating that anyone here is pushing the Bible to speak outside itself, but that I am skeptical when some say that they have a special revelation (or hidden meaning-Gnosis) on the interpretation (in other forums of course, not the folks here).
I do not believe that Genesis was intended to be a detailed report, but a simple synopsis. My view is that the ANE culture at that time would not have fully understood what we do now, and they would not necessarily think that people (Gentiles-non Hebrew) would have been reading their writings today (although God would). By that, I mean that I do not believe that God would have allowed oral tradition/scripture to be overly-confusing to the people at the time of Genesis even before the actual penning of the account. I think that it was written in relevancy to the people of the time. Do some of the teachings apply to us; of course, they do in many ways. I think one really needs to be familiar with the setting in which the text was written to fully understand the writings in general. Some writings do will not warrant the use of literary forms or study of genre, but some will.
I think some here forget that Scientists have what they call peer-review. There is an overwhelming amount of confusion about evolution on the internet. I do not believe that a theory is necessarily able to be proven emphatically, but it does have facts involved to support the theory. I think the science community is careful on its findings, however like most things today the hyper-liberal view seems to be the most published (e.g. Dawkins). I have heard many scientists comment that they were appalled by Dawkins behavior. I do not think he does science any favors when he touts his loud atheism. As the motto goes, “no one will care how much you know, until they know how much you care.†This is not limited to science but to anti-Christians as well (e.g. Christ-mythers, such as Gerald Massey, Godfrey Higgins, or Freke and Gandy).
Hopefully that came across with humility?
CJG your book looks interesting, and I will have to purchase a copy. Thanks for the discussion about evolution and OEC.
Dennis
Gordon J. Glover on 12 Sep 2007 at 7:35 am #
I’m with you on number eight.
I know I should be working right now, but I can’t resist the urge to respond to our brother Don. His view of the natural sciences (point#4 above) is very common among Christians, and is one of the main reasons this debate continues.
Let me ask some rhetorical question to try and illustrate my point: According to your view of science, what would you think about the science of meteorology – that is, trying to explain the weather without referece to the creator of heaven and earth – who, as Jeremiah tells us, causes the clouds to ascend from the ends of the earth and sends rain and lighting? Are all meteorologists atheists, or is it possilbe to accept the the theological truth that God is sovereign over all things (including the atmosphere), and yet still attempt to explain it all in terms of natural forces?
And what about medicine? We know from the Psalmist that it is God who “heals our deseases” – so what of these doctors who rely soley on natural cause and effect to treat our physical ailments? Is it possible to believe the theological truth that God is sovereign over our health, and yet still attempt to explain it all in terms of natural forces?
Why then, is there such a “controversy” when christian biologists, who believe the theological truth that God created us from the dust of the earth and fearfully and wonderfully knit us together in our mothers wombs, also attempt to follow the forensic trail of clues as to how God accomplished this? And why would you charge them with ignoring the Creator and Sustainer of the universe just becasue they seek to explain the available evidence in terms of natural forces? While at the same time, giving a pass to doctors and meteorologists for doing exactly the same thing?
-GJG
Hawke on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:18 am #
Response to Don on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:14 am
Post # 152: (my response-or lack of, below each point)
“1. Most, perhaps all, Christians are not fully consistent in their thinking. They hold together positions which are in reality contradictory. That we do this however does mean such issues are not important. They lead to other errors and even if we do not see it, others do and walk away.”
My Response: I would agree with this for the most part, and this is not just limited to Christians either. To err is human, and to find someone that is and has been 100% consistent in his or her thinking for his or her entire life would be most likely nil. I do believe that is why one must look at all sides (one’s that are valid through logic of course). Self-evaluation is one of the hardest disciplines, thank God for TTP!
“2. At the level of society in general and the history of the gospel in the West over the past 150 years or so, evolutionary thought has established a huge barrier to people coming to faith in Christ. It is one of the principal reasons Christianity at the public debate level has little or no credibility in the eyes of the world. We can believe it at a private level, or for its benefits, but can make no public claim to it being true. This applies to both modernism and post-modernism which share the same foundation at this point.”
My Response: The Scopes Monkey trial is still debated today, what could have been said to better represent both sides. I think the issue of people not coming to the faith in Christ goes beyond the scope of evolutionary thought. For those Calvinists (In which I agree) no one comes to the LORD unless he allows him or her through Christ. Why people leave Christianity is of course one of the major research projects for many such as Barna. Are people influenced by what they hear, I would say yes. I think that discernment comes with age and listening to numerous faceted viewpoints. Emotions are difficult to control especially when coming to Christianity or Science for that matter. I do believe peer-review works on both sides of the fence to keep things accountable. To that effect, I do not think that Dawkins comments about/against Christianity are even considered by Christian theologian/scholars; they merely dust off their sandals and keep going.
“3. It is easily demonstrable that interpretations of Genesis 1 have been largely guided by priority being given to the truth of evolution, and that such an approach to scripture has not stopped there but has influenced all the central doctrines of Christianity for those (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) who have committed themselves to this approach. This battle is still raging in all sorts of areas that on the surface have nothing to do with Genesis 1.”
My Response: That could be. In fact, some of the approaches could have (although not necessarily) been merely a knee-jerk response to certain individuals or groups (Luther, Calvin, early forms of Protestants in general, not to exclude Arius and Athanasius). Some will divide over the most simplistic non-essential ideals, after all emotions are valid, but not necessarily a defacto standard to finding truth.
“4. It is wrong to claim that there is no contradiction between Christianity and evolution. Evolution, as a theory, does not need God, indeed it rejects his presence. It is why for people like Gould and Hawkins, despite the massive problems, know that evolution is true, because there is no alternative. It is an apriori position. The fact that some want to marry the two as if there is no problem only shows just how good we are at holding contradictory positions together.”
My Response: I would agree with your claim as to some that state “to not allow a divine foot in the door†as the saying goes. But is that really the majority view of all scientists? I would say no. Dawkins philosophy could be based upon an apriori position, but all science is based upon philosophy, and surely Christianity makes use of philosophy, therefore we cannot throw out philosophy. But I say Dawkins, while being a highly regarded evolutionist, which not all scientists agree with his philosophy against Christianity. On the internet there seems to be this rumor of a qualifying statement that must be made before becoming a scientist (e.g. whether it’s for a meteorologist accepting a global warming concept to insure future funding or not). I have no idea if such a thing exists for them or any other pre-agreements that need to be made before becoming a certified scientist in order to receive funding, I cannot really say. As far as there being no alternative for Dawkins other than evolution, that might be true philosophically speaking. To know that God does not exist one would have to be omniscient, and omnipresent. One could perceive a conclusion based upon a deductive argument but of course, the omniscient and omnipresent claims must also be validities. This is why some state there are no real-atheists. Surely, one can prove a negative, or else a positive could never be fully reached (e.g. Dawkins is not a Christian).
“5. No, no particular view of Genesis 1 is needed for salvation, neither is it an issue for everyone, nor should it be raised with everyone. However, as an in house issue, it has very wide ramifications and should not be ignored.”
My Response: Ken Ham seems very adamant about this very thing. Historically, I imagine it could hold some merit, but does it really matter–the age of the earth? I think that some do push evolution as an option against a theistic view (not solely a Christian worldview mind you) and some uniformed atheists will lay claim to this as their crutch so to speak. Is it really a huge issue? Is the age of the earth a sine qua non that one must uphold as an essential? Scripture is not that specific in this area IMO. If it is, I really need to update my index page on my website. Is the one seeking the truth really being honest with the data, not allowing an apriori or presuppositions, I believe that is the question. Although, not necessarily saying that presuppositions are invalid in and of themselves.
“6. One of the useful insights of post-modernism, and there are some, is that even science is done from a particular perspective which limits its truth claims. Secular science is not and can not be neutral. Change the perspective and it is amazing how the evidence can be read in another way. This is why the Bible must take precedence because it alone has the true perspective because it comes from the only one who really is neutral, because only he knows everything and only he was there when it happened because he did it.
My Response: I agree that Science is based upon a philosophy that may not be fully neutral in all aspects. Modernism is similar to the positivist view of science, in which one seeks to understand the world well enough so one might predict and control it (laws of cause and effect). Post-Modernism is similar to a Post-positivist view in which would simply reject a positivist’s philosophy on grounds that no one can see the world perfectly (or that could be vice-versa). I do often wonder if the secular scientists would view the Bible as a possibility. For Christian Scientists, they should put the Bible first, but I have a feeling that some of them may not put forth such an emphasis. I think this is where I was commenting earlier on the issue of YEC/OEC in how I am stuck somewhere in the middle. Maybe it’s that soft-skeptic in me coming out again.
“7. Finally, someone above said that the scientific evidence fits a developmental scheme perfectly. I am sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Go home and do your homework!”
My Response: Hmmm, I must have missed that comment. I think we all could use a sensitivity training class (esp. those in the apologetics field). I am not sure about perfectly because I have no concept of any human (other than Christ) thought, theory, or actions being perfect–both camps/sides considered. No need for a response, just my thoughts spoken aloud.
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:00 am #
Don, I agree with Hawke, but I would add a few more thoughts.
I agree that Christians are often inconsistent in their thinking, but that holds true of both sides of this issue equally, so I am not sure it is really relevant.
The theory of evolution is not what causes people to abandon their faith, it is the belief that evolution contradicts Scripture. If they cling tightly to a reading of Scripture that requires such a contradiction, but then come to see that the evidence is very strong for it, that will cause a crisis of faith. While the Creationist resolution of this is to then insist that evolution IS wrong, and thus allow themselves to continue to cling to their particular reading of Scripture, I think this is a very dangerous approach. Not so much on an individual level, but at the level of presenting it dogmatically, as something that MUST be true. This then creates a stumbling-block for those who DO accept evolution.
As for why we read Scripture differently, I am living proof that it is not always how you describe it. I came to my reading of Genesis at a time when I still did not accept evolution. I got a degree in ancient history and it became pretty clear to me that the strict fundamentalist reading of Genesis was just wrong. I realized then that Genesis 1 and 2 did not actually say anything about the mechanics or timing of how God created, so I could then go and consider the science without any presuppositions. And, without any presuppositions, the evidence is pretty dramatic.
I think the concept of how perspective changes conclusions in science is massively overstated. The scientific community is SO diverse and full of different perspectives that, while that is a good sound-bite, I don’t think it holds up under scrutiny on major issues. The age of the earth and evolution are perfect examples. These concepts are accepted by scientists of all different worldviews and approaches. The very large majority of scientists who are Christians accept them, and you could never say that their worldview was causing them to lean in the wrong direction.
It is very true that every scientist comes with their own biases and philosophies and those will necessarily spill over into how they go about their work. Complete objectivity is impossible. But it is not an absolute constant among scientists, either, there are degrees of subjectivity, and thus the danger of error from that subjectivity. Who are the two groups who are most strongly allow their presuppositions to influence their scientific conclusions, the way they view the evidence? The militant atheistic scientists who WANT the evidence to damage Christianity and the Creation scientists who WANT the evidence to support their presuppositions. I will say that at least the creation scientists are more honest about this since they admit that they are starting with these presuppositions, and will not be budged from them no matter what the evidence says. But that does not change the fact that they are not being objective. Most scientists fall in between these two extremes, and are able to be more objective.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:45 pm #
Vance,
At every step of the way, you continually refer to the evidence. As you would know the evidence of evolution would never stand up in court since there would not be a finding of fact based on a theory even if it is the most probable theory. It is a theory since no one has put the earth in a lab and determined how fast it ages over time or any animal etc etc. The Christian faith is a supernatural event that takes place when the Holy Spirit regenerates us and then any “evidence” has to be measured against that faith.
Now the Christian faith fundamentally built upon the resurrection of our Lord can be proven in court of law based on eye witness accounts etc. But you still would need to be regenerated even to belive evidence in court!!
As for the “facts” of evolution its only a theory even if it a plausible one. As you also know the sciences books get rewritten every five years or so while Scripture has remined in tact even after the Dead Sea scrolls were found.
(trying to get the last word but you keep replying lollllll!)
Gordon J. Glover on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:20 pm #
Actually, the evidence for evolution did stand up in court. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The chief witness for the defense was Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Christian biologists who wrote the book, “Finding Darwin’s God”.
Your view of what constitutes evidence is strange. I’m assuming that it is just your opinion since it is quite contrary to what actually happens in court rooms everyday. Perhaps you should read up stuff before making such definitive statements. Eyewitness accounts are probably the LEAST reliable evidence. Time after time, it has been proven that eyewitness accounts are subject to so many factors, that they are rarely solely relied upon as evidence. In fact, any lawyer would much rather build his case on forensic evidence than eyewitness testimony.
For instance, if a rape victim – who suffered intense trauma and strees – “identified” her victim, that would be a good place to start. But if her eyewitness testimony is coroborated by DNA evidence, then it’s an open and shut case (unless you live LA and the killer is OJ). On the other hand, if the DNA evidence exonerates the accused, then the eyewitness testimony means nothing. So for you to dismiss the forensic evidence of evolution, because there were no eyewitness, but then claim that a miraculous event with only eyewitness accounts (which I also accept by faith) would stand up court is, well – strange to say the least (but you are entitled to your opinions).
If you wake up tomorrow morning, and it’s 25 degrees and there is snow outside your window, that IS legitamate evidence that it snowed overnight. You don’t have actually watch it fall from the sky to know this beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what does the DNA evidence say about evolution? Watch this video, which was part of Dr. Miller’s testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover and decide for yourself! Then ask yourself if any this makes sense apart from an evolutionary interpretation of the data? I look forward to your comments after you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
-GJG
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:30 pm #
tnahas,
I think you are misunderstanding how science works. There is not a ladder of truth, in which hypothesis is at the bottom, then theory, then fact at the top. Scientific theories are never proven, since they are not the same as facts. Facts are just data, things that happen, things we see, or evidence we have of things we don’t see. That data can be proven to exist or not. A theory is just an explanation of the data that we see before us. A theory is never something that is proven, it is just held with a degree of certainty depending on the evidence and how well it explains the evidence. And, most theories get “falsified”, which means it is shown that it does not work, at which point it is either abandoned, or adjusted to fit, if that can be done without still being falsified. That is science and it works pretty well.
Some theories are SO well supported by the evidence, and explain the evidence so well, it rises to a very high degree of confidence. Like “germ theory” or the “theory of gravity”. These have never been proven, since you can’t really prove a theory.
What you really want to say is that it is a weak theory, not that it is a theory that has not been proven (which makes no sense). You would say that there are too many things about the theory that are left unexplained or you think just don’t work. I would disagree, but that is fine, the point is that it has not yet been falsfied. And that is important, since people have been trying to falsify it for 150 years, but have not been able to. It is still the best explanation for the data that we have. Until there is a viable alternative, it will remain the current explanation of the data. And, even if the Darwinian model is shown to be unworkable, as the ID scientists say, you are still left with the data that has to be explained. And, nothing that the creationists have come up with has been able to stand up to scrutiny. Even the ID scientists, like Behe and Denton and Ross, would say that it is a simple fact that the universe and this planet is billions of years old. They are entirely convinced of that, even if they are completely anti-evolution. So, we have to have an explanation for how all of the species developed over all that time, in a seemingly progressive manner.
Still, I have no problem at all, though, with anyone wanting to argue whether it is a weak theory or a strong one, although I have an opinion on that. I am much more concerned with how those opinions impact Christianity. If it is something that we all may be wrong about, then we had best be careful about making dogmatic theological statements which could present a stumbling-block.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:17 pm #
Gordon,
Thanks for the law class, but my point is that you say evolution has forensic evidence which I say is foolishness since it is only theoretical. DNA is not but juries can fickle like OJ as you pointed out.
The eye witness accounts of the gospel records are forensic evidence because the witnesses agree but an unbeliever, like a bad jury, would still argue against the evidence since they believe the gospel writers concocted their stories.
Suffice to say that I can’t reconcile evolution with YEC or OEC and beside none of the questions posited earlier like sin, death, redemption, restoration and the whole framework of Scripture has been answered by evolutions nor ever will be.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:19 pm #
oops “evolution” (last line)
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:57 pm #
Actually, the evidence for evolutionary development is anything but theoretical. The evidence is hard, physical evidence. All that is theoretical is the explanation, and even that is not just blind theory, it is based ON the evidence, and has been tested in many, many ways. For example, we have seen new species evolve.
I would urge you to read this fairly short essay, written by a Christian for Christians, regarding the evidence we are talking about. If you read that all the way through, and say the same things you have said above, I will be very surprised. But you can prove me wrong! I am not saying it will convince you, but at least it will let you know what the claimed evidence is in the first place.
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
Gordon J. Glover on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:31 pm #
I’m not a lawyer, and am not qualified to give “law classes” but this is common knowledge that I am sharing with you.
DNA evidence that identifies a rapist with a very hight degree (ie: beyond a reasonable doubt) can be ignored by juries, just like the forensic evidence that corroborates the story of evoluion is ignored by so many. All I want you to acknowledge is that this evidence exists. I wanted to know what you thought about the youtube video. How would you respond to such evidence? Do you let “OJ walk” so to speak?
Eyewitness accounts are indeed evidence, but they are almost always considered LESS RELIABLE than scientific evidence. Rarely to cases stand or fall on eyewitness accounts. Have you ever head the phrase, “He said/she said”? Scientific evidence is much more difficult to refute than personal testimony. But I never said personal testimony wasn’t valid.
And lastly, evolution, as a tentative explanation of the facts of natural history (ie: a scientific theory isn’t supposed to answer theological questions. If that is your expectation of the natural sciences, you will disappointed every time. Just like the Medieval Christians who couldn’t reconcile man’s speical status as the epitome of God’s creation with the heliocentric universe, which downgraded earth to a mere planet traveling around the sun. The reality revealed by science does not always fit our theological expectations, but such is the nature of science. Moreover, if natural revelation was sufficient to answer theological questions, then God would not have provided us His Word, which IS timeless truth for all generations (as opposed to the shifting sands of scientific theories).
Let science answer the scientific questions, and let the Scriptures answer the theological questions. Sometimes the line between the two can be blurry, and there is where we must exercise humility.
Marvin the Martian on 12 Sep 2007 at 5:46 pm #
For example, we have seen new species evolve.
Please give examples of this.
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 5:57 pm #
Well, even AiG has finally accepted that we have observed the formation of new species (it is part of their “arguments we used to use, but don’t think are true anymore” type list).
Here are some examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Marvin the Martian on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:28 pm #
Your mischaracterization of AiG’s position not withstanding, new species evolving (which is just another way of describing micro evolution within created kinds) is a long way from being evidence that such macro evolutionary changes occur, i.e. dinosaurs evolving into birds. This is the kind of conflation of evidence that frustrates me. Speciation is not denied by YE. It isn’t a concession made by AiG either, in fact AiG doesn’t “finally concede that new species form”, rather they believe it is necessary to explain how we have so many species given that only two of every kind of animal was brought to the Ark.
It takes a quantum leap of faith to say that because we can observe new species forming within the created kinds, then that means that birds must have come from dinosaurs. That is essentially what science is doing today.
Gordon J. Glover on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:47 pm #
Ironically, the rate of evolutionary change required by young-earth/global flood creationists to account for the current diversity of earth’s biosphere in only a few thousand years (since the animals stepped off the Ark) far exceeds the rates of evolution required by evolutionary theory – even the so called “rapid” periods of evolutionary change proposed by Gould’s PE theory.
I’m still waiting for tnahas or Marvin to comment on the Youtube video. When confronted with this kind of evidence, how do you explain this in terms of a 6000 year old creation? Did you even bother to watch it?
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:53 pm #
Well, creationists used to tell me all the time that speciation had never been observed, until it had, then they changed it to “within kinds”, I am not sure whether AiG in particular made those assertions, but I do know that all of the things on that list are arguments that Creationists have been using for the last three decades, and many still do.
As for the micro/macro distinction, what is the exact nature of the problem that prevents the mechanics for micro-evolution to eventually reach “macro” results?
And what, exactly, is a “kind”?
Oh, and that list also points out that Creationists really shouldn’t be using the whole micro/macro distinction anymore.
Or the “evolution is just a theory” argument.
I am going to let you guys in on a great resource for both sides of this debate. It provides a list of just about every argument that a creationist has ever come up with on this subject, and what the response is. I have found this very useful for simplifying these debates dramatically. Most of the arguments that creationists use have been responded to, so it makes most sense for creationists just to go to this list and find out what the response is, and then provide a counter argument to THAT response. Saves a lot of time that way.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
So, all you do is go and find the creationist point, and you will see what the response is IN ADVANCE, so you can frame your question even better or even shortcut the response! Pretty useful for everyone.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 8:46 pm #
Vance and Gordon,
I am so glad you were not able to convince me of any possibility that evolution was used by God to carry out creation. As we continue talk over, around and pass each other, none of my scriptural references were ever addressed which is the starting place and final resting place of any Christian and none of the issues concerning (I’ll repeat them for the fifth time, I think) sin, death, redemption and restoration and the total framework of the gospel and the rest of Scripture.
Please no philisophical or science goobleygook, just the plain answer to Romans 5, Gen 1, Rev 21 and 22, Col 1, Eph 1, Psalms etc etc etc .
May God bless your journey and this is my sign off here.
Thanks for the non-dogmatic discussion, it was inspiring!
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:18 pm #
But we did address those issues very early in the discussion. I thought we had moved on to the science involved, and I am pretty sure it was a creationist who brought it up by asserting that the science just didn’t work. It will not do to bring the science itself into the discussion and then cry foul when it is discussed. Did you actually read that article I linked to? If so, what parts of the science in particular do you think are incorrect?
As for the Scripture and theology, we can go over that again, I suppose. You may not agree with the alternate views either, but it would be wrong to act as if the matter is just ignored.
As for Adam, sin and death, there are at least two different views here, possibly more. First, almost all OEC’s, and some TE’s still think Adam was literal, that he was either a representative (just as Christ is a representative for us on the cross), or he was the literal ancestor of the Israelites and that he was the first in that line who broke a covenant with God, thus sinning. Others view Adam as figurative (”Adam” means “Mankind” in Hebrew, so this linguistically could work pretty easily), and that he was a type or symbol for what happened to Mankind as a whole, the Fall. There is no absolute problem associating a single person Jesus with a figurative single type of Adam, representing the whole of Mankind. Also, there was the whole analysis of spiritual death being very possibly what is referred to, not physical death, which to my mind fits much better Scripturally and theologically.
As for the texts as science and history, most ANE scholars recognize that people at the time of the ancient Israelites would not have read such texts as strict literal historical narrative, but as a figurative and symbolic telling of past REAL events. True history, just in a different literary genre. Also, regardless of that, such presentations would necessarily have to be presented in the language of the science of the day and, since the text is not making any strict science claims, when properly read, this would not be an error. The solid firmament, geocentric presentation, the moon as a second source of light, etc. Only a literal reading makes those errors.
The restoration issue is not really a problem for me, either since I don’t see any Scripture (and, again, this was all discussed before) which require that the New Heaven and Earth be a full restoration of the pre-Fall universe. I do think that it will definitely be the completion of what God intended, which got seriously derailed at the time of the Fall.
These may not be satisfactory answers for you, and they definitely do not have all the answers, any more than a young earth approach does (no death before the fall just doesn’t work, as far as I can see), but it would be a misrepresentation to say that we just ignored these issues.
The problem is when we REQUIRE absolute answers to things that were not meant to be given to us absolutely.
Gordon J. Glover on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:35 pm #
tnahas, some links that might interest you…
http://www.fixedearth.com/
http://www.geocentricity.com/
Just in case you don’t actually visit these links, I’ll post some highlights:
“…the reformers such as Luther, clearly saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible.â€
“Here [in Joshua 10:13] the Moderator of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: ‘And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay … .’ That wording would be no more ‘confusing’ to the reader than anything in Job chapters 38 through 41.â€
“There are those who would claim that the language used is phenomenological, that it was not meant to convey the truth of the matter. They like to equate Joshua 10:13 with verses like Isaiah 55:12 where the trees are said to ‘clap their hands.’ The problem with that is that everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah 55:12 is a literary device; but there is not a clue to tell those before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally.â€
“After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the ‘rising of the sun,’ then how can He be taken literally in writing of the ‘rising of the Son?’â€
“In other words, either God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar.â€
“The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God’s or man’s? This is brought home again and again by humanists, such as the twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell and astronomer Ivan King, who point to the church’s abandonment of geocentricity as having ‘freed’ man from the ancient God-centered outlook on life to the modern man-centered outlook.â€
“How can one ever determine which is the truth? Only by going outside the universe and taking a look around can one ascertain the truth of the matter. Without that ability to ‘look around outside,’ physics cannot resolve the debate. However, since God does know what is beyond the universe, should His word not be taken as the final authority? It is the testimony of God as found in the Bible which constitutes the foundation of modern geocentricity. May it ever be so!â€
I think in order to be consistent in your position, you need to forget about AiG and ICR (they are liberal) join these groups! But if you do not feel that these statements accurately reflect your understanding of the cosmos, then on what authority do you reject them? Be careful how you answer this – if you choose to answer it at all.
Hawke on 13 Sep 2007 at 6:41 am #
With all these links to talk origins (which I read occasionally) I thought I would throw in another link similar to the AIG mindset (not that I totally agree with them).
http://www.trueorigin.org/
I concur that the testimony is strong for Christ’s resurrection, in which I think we all would agree.
Interesting discussion indeed…
tnahas on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:08 am #
Hawke,
Thanks for the link. (maybe the other guys might read it too!!)
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:33 am #
Oh, I have definitely been all over True Origin as well as AiG. I probably have read more Creationist writing than any Creationist has. What I have found is that the best way to understand a side’s position, you need to read their own writing, not filtered and spun by those who are like-minded with you.
My experience over the years, and this may not apply to anyone here, is that those of the TE, OEC or EC persuasion have tended to read both sides pretty thoroughly, whereas the YEC has most often (with a few rare exceptions) read up on this stuff mostly from YEC sources. Again, that is just my general experience.
Getting most of your information about an old earth or evolution from a Creationist source is like trying to learn about Christianity from an atheist.
Steve Martin on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:48 am #
On the comment that YEC is actually a “liberal” interpretation of scripture, Robert Schadewald Author of “Worlds of Their Own : Insights into PseudoScience from Creationism to The End Times†has referred to Young Earth Creationists, Geocentrists, and Flat-earthers as the “liberals, moderates, and fundamentalists of the biblical literalistsâ€. I would extend it even further into the OEC and EC camp as well, as many of them also believe they are interpreting the scripture “literallyâ€. One of the Evolutionary Creationists that would take the literalist mantel is Dick Fischer of “Genesis Proclaimed†(www.genesisproclaimed.org). He chastises YEC for not being literal enough (See his paper “Young Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake†at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Fischer.pdf).
Jim on 12 Aug 2008 at 8:47 am #
Aren’t you guy’s all Kent Hovind fans? Just kidding.
I am not a scientist, and I just got through teaching Genesis in Sunday school, we spent allot of time on the first 11 chapters, I received my conclusion from scriptures out side of Genesis, here they are …
Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding”
We know actually very little of what God has done and how He did it even when we read scripture and dig up the earth, I know that God is omnipotent and omniscient, He can create in any way He chooses 6 Days or 4 billion years. He has the knowledge and power to do that. Theories are fun, God created us to explore, But I doubt that we will ever truly know until we sit before him and he tells us all the intricate details. until then I’ll obey Hebrew 11:1, 3 and 6. v.3 “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible”
I find it interesting that creationist are constantly accused of “not giving in” or not making concessions. I have yet to see an evolutionist statement saying, “oops, we were wrong about that one, sorry” when it is obvious that they are wrong, cover up, or imagine quite a bit of stuff that contradict there “therories”
I found this website interesting scienceagainstevolution.org
By the way, many of us “Fundamentalist” do believe in micro evolution without being “kjv only” people. we do not talk about it enough, we are taught to believe that “all evolution is wrong” which is sad because adaptation and variation is obvious and saying that makes look like idiots. I also get tired of being told that we “Fundalmentalist” do not think, as a Pastor it is my job to think and do research, our faith is based upon fact, and when Science and God’s word seem to contradict it isn’t always because one isn’t true, the interpretation of the the thing is what is in question.
Well, I doubt that I added anything profound here, but it is important, Paul used creation to witness to the Athenians in Acts 17. I use the Job passage and the Hebrews passage when I share my faith and come across this issue and admit that I nor anyone else REALLY knows the intricate details of Gods creation, but you will stand before Him one day and give an account, are you ready?
gary on 16 Aug 2008 at 11:09 pm #
At the risk of saying something too late, after all it took me a long time to read through all this blog as “after the fact” I would like to clarify only one point though much else could be said in response to this blog.
I would point out that those who find serious difficulty in the supposed different creation accounts or differences between Gen 1 & 2 needed only to do a bit of homework on the hermeneutical level. Simply using the grammatical-historical method would have helped the debate, buit a simple “plain reading” of the text should still have alerted us to the point of the two chapters.
Notice how Gen 1 speaks of God and Gen 2 of “the Lord God”, God as elohim vs yhwh elohim. YHWH is the covenantal name of God for Isral and speaks of His relationship with His creation, that personal relationship. Whereas elohim is the God as Creator.
So Gen 1 speaks to God as Creator, whereas
Gen 2 speaks of his relationship to “mankind”. made in His image etc.
They are not as so many blogists and liberals have intoned, “different creation accounts”.
Well maybe I will say a second thing,
People who sprout evidence of Science ought to take up a course on the Philosophy of Science! Science has indeed evolved in it’s attempt to solve the glaring difficulties it has – through a method of hypothesus – to theory, to the approach of paradigms and so on. See Hempel and Popper and others. Yet they have still been unable to account for the uniformity of nature that is part of the bedrock that Science builds on.
Secular Scientists continually steal unacknowledged, the presuppositions of Science from the Christian Worldview – notions that the materialist Worldview just cannot supply.
If we read up a bit more on this then the nonsense Dawkins sprouts would have not fear for the average Christian.
Finally in this vein, there are no such things as brute facts, they are all interpreted, and that interpretation is within a particular framework. so appealing to evidence and the weight of probability is wide of the mark as
even the notion of probaility can only be accounted for within a Christian Worldview of the Bible.
Those that like the philosopher Moreland need to think that one through in relation to his philosophical schema. That is not to say he isn’t helpful – just that this needs addressing
in Christ
Gary