Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Defining my Position on ID and Creation

    A couple of questions have arisen about my position on these issues, and though I’ve stated all these things before, they have generally been in longer presentations. So I’m going to try to state my position.

    I see three easily demarcated positions on design:

    1. The universe is designed as a fully functional system, and the origin and diversification of life can be explained by natural processes within that universe. A theist in this sense believes God created the universe, but is not required to interfere.
    2. The universe was established in such a way that a particular result would occur through apparently natural processes. This is an approximation of “front-loading” which some equate to intelligent design.
    3. The origin or life and/or its diversification cannot be explained by solely natural processes. The designer (God, despite claims to the contrary) interferes at particular points. This is the ID position, and is the one I was addressing in my post The Common Thread in Modern Creationism yesterday.

    The second option might be divided between those who think God’s interference can be detected, and those who don’t, but I don’t think that is of great consequence for my purposes here.

    When I say that I believe the universe is designed, I mean in the sense of #1. God ordained the universe to exist, including the natural processes of variation by whatever means and natural selection, and that is an adequate explanation. I do not mean that variation and natural selection explain everything, but other elements to the explanation will also be natural. My statement that the universe is designed is in no sense a scientific statement. I’m not a biologist. I am not professionally involved in any of the natural sciences. I’m a Bible teacher. That statement is theological and faith based.

    I do not exclude the possibility of option #2, but I have no expectation that God’s action will ever be detected, and I see no difference between completely indetectible (even in principle) interference and no interference at all. Certainly one can never actually know in an objective sense.

    I think there is a strong desire to find this interference, either through front-loading or through ongoing interference because there is a desire in Christian theology to believe that the existence not just of life, but of intelligence, and specifically human intelligence was foreordained. I do not believe that must be the case. Should intelligence appear on another plant in an arthropod form, I would regard that creature to equally bear the image of God.

    I believe the universe is bigger, less predictable, and more risky than we in the theological world have ever believed. On this topic I would commend to your attention the book God after Darwin by John Haught.

  • The Problem with Public School Bible Classes

    I have noted before that while Bible classes taught from an academic perspective have been ruled constitutional, I still think they are very bad ideas. Including the Bible as it applies in literature and history classes is appropriate, though it should be proportional to its importance to the field, and should be taught in a way that is neutral.

    While problems may arise in such classes about the way in the which the Bible is taught, there is at least a good basis for setting the boundaries–the standards of the field in question.

    Chris Heard at Higgaion tells of a community college teacher who has been fired because his teaching of Genesis 1-11 offended some of his students. You see, he taught what would be regarded as the academic mainstream view of these passages, and thus didn’t take them as narrative history, which his students would have preferred. Now this was in a western civilization course.

    Imagine what would happen if the course was a High School Bible course, and someone taught critical views of these passages? That is what many, many academically trained teachers would do, and it would certainly be a violation of church and state separation to have teachers required to teach a particular sectarian view of the passages. Remember that it is not even the majority Christian view that these passages should be read as narrative history. (No, I will not be impressed by arguments that involve saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, and thus don’t count for the “majority.”) Such a class taught to high school students would result in an uproar in the Christian community. At the same time, they will try, as they have through the truly National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.

    The best way to teach young people the Bible is for the individual churches to provide their own instruction. I would suggest that instruction be broad and include an overview of how other people understand the texts. The young people can be introduced to more academic views in civilization and literature classes.

    If the Bible is to be taught in public schools, the approach must be academic and critical, and must include all those views to the left of fundamentalism. Most of the parents aren’t even aware of such views, and will be shocked at what happens in those classes. Their hope is to get NCBCPS curriculum accepted and put it in the hands of underqualified teachers who will accept it as it is.

  • The Common Thread in Modern Creationism

    It’s hard for me to work with the terms “creationist,” “creationism,” and “evolutionist,” because if I’m completely honest I consider myself to be a creationist who accepts the theory of evolution. The two do not clash in my mind in any way. The term “evolutionist” seems to suggest that I accept evolution as some sort of philosophy of everything, which I do not. I accept gravity, but do not call myself a gravitationist. I accept creation, but to call myself a creationist would invite confusion with the likes of [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag], a fate diligently to be avoided.

    When I teach comparative literature, which is much closer to my own field of study than biological evolution, I always remind students that in order to produce valid comparisons, one must consider both the similarities and the differences. If one ignores differences, one can make very dissimilar things appear almost identical. The reverse is also true.

    Thus I do have some problem with those who call intelligent design merely “warmed over creationism,” if by creationism. There are differences as well as similarities, though most of the differences appears in the presentation, not in the substance, and one of the major differences is that ID tries to say so much less than either young or [tag]old earth creationism[/tag].

    But there is a common thread between all of these varieties of creationism, including ID, and it was illustrated by Dembski’s comments on the flagellum at the University of Oklahoma, discussed here by Dr. Philipp Klebba, here at ERV, and also at The Panda’s Thumb.

    The key point in which I am interested was made in the Panda’s Thumb article:

    Klebba’s relentless questions forced Dembski to admit that

    … [N]o amount of detail would ever convince him of evolution. No matter how much evidence you had, he wanted ‘evidence + 1’. I shit you not, Dembski retreated to the YES [sic/YEC] fossil defense– For every fossil you find, you create two more gaps. Dembski modified this to for every step in the evolutionary process science discovers, it creates two more half-steps to explain. He even pulled a classic-quack move, and made a plea to quantum mechanics.

    And here is my major point. The common thread through the three varieties of creationism is that they are all looking for the break in the natural processes of variation and natural selection such that God must intervene in the natural processes in some way. Whether that intervention is at the biochemical level or whether it deals specifically with speciation events, there needs to be a gap showing where God is “necessary” to the universe.

    In contrast, as a “creationist” who accepts the theory of evolution, I believe that the entire universe is designed. That universal design is the biggest problem there is for IDC, because IDC requires places that are less and more designed so they can detect the differences. IDC doesn’t try to demonstrate that the universe is designed, as many people, especially Christians, believe it does. Rather, it is attempting to prove a variation in God’s involvement.

    Of course Dembski will not admit an evolutionary pathway no matter how many steps you discover. Why? Because that would mean totally abandoning everything he has worked for. If all the animals truly are equal, and none are more equal than others, then what is there for Dembski and his ilk to detect? The field is different, but the method is the same as the constant attack on new fossil discoveries by the young earth crowd. One new specimen, in their propaganda, simply means two new gaps that must be filled. And of course they have no similar requirement to fulfill.

    When the United States set out to send a man to the moon, there were those who believed it couldn’t be done. Their task was very easy–just say “no!” The folks who went to the moon, and those who made that trip possible had a much harder task. They had to actually produce the appropriate hardware and make the trip.

    Scientists are faced with a similar situation with IDC. They must fill in every gap, while the ID crowd stands by and announces that they can’t. Every time they fill one in, someone mentions how many more there are to fill in. But the only people who are actually doing anything are the working scientists who are filling those gaps, and of course making two more in the process. Because that is what scientists do. They make discoveries, but almost always a discovery simply opens up a whole new array of things we don’t know. That is the strength of science, and it is also what IDC tries to present as its weakness.

    I understand the desire to find God’s fingerprint in nature, a desire shared by all these branches of creation. But that search involves finding holes in God’s creation, places where it didn’t quite work. No matter how much you change the field of study, the method is still going to look very similar, as [tag]Bill Dembski[/tag] showed at the University of Oklahoma.

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/24/07

    Here are a few links related to the creation-evolution controversy that I saw over the weekend, with only short comments.

    • Besides consorting with prostitutes and lying about it, Senator [tag]David Vitter[/Tag] of Louisiana appears to have taken up the cause of federal funding for creationists. Now we not only get to have our public school science curriculum corrupted, we get to pay those who corrupt it.
    • Some followers of convicted felon and creationist [tag]Kent Hovind[/tag] would like to prevent his videos from appearing on YouTube.
    • Case Luskin appears unable to comprehend that just because some materialists are evolutionists does not mean that all evolutionists are materialists. I know logic is tough, Casey, but give it a try. (HT: The Panda’s Thumb.)

    I’ve got a couple more, but I want to comment on them a bit more extensively.

  • White Supremacists and the Jena 6

    MSNBC is reporting that there is a [tag]white supremacist[/tag] web site reporting phone numbers and addresses for families of the [tag]Jena 6[/tag]:

    CNN first reported Friday about the Web site, which features a swastika, frequent use of racial slurs, a mailing address in Roanoke, Va., and phone numbers purportedly for some of the teens’ families “in case anyone wants to deliver justice.” That page is dated Thursday.

    It pretty much had to happen, and I’m surprised I haven’t heard anything before. I’m fairly certain there has been some activity. I’ve noted a number of times that for me tolerance and diversity are values, not absolutes, and thus I am quite willing to be intolerant toward intolerance. White supremacists fall into the category of persons for which I have no respect. They’re disgusting. They enjoy being disgusting. The FBI is investigating them, and hopefully if they have crossed the line to incitement something substantial will be done about it.

    The existence of such white supremacist groups should remind us, however, that there is a broader fringe in society that is racist, but not so extreme. The important thing here should not be a battle between extremes, but rather the search by all people of good will for a just way to handle the situation. I’m not asking that nothing happen to those accused. I’m asking that they be treated in an even-handed manner.

    But more importantly, their community, and numerous similar communities need to look at their underlying attitudes, and take action earlier. One of the critical actions would be for churches to look toward more integration. It has been said, though I forget by whom, that 11 AM on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in our area. When you start from that point, other bad things will grow out of it.

  • Danger in Silence

    There’s an excellent, thoughtful post on An Evangelical Dialog on Evolution, titled When the Acceptance of Biological Evolution has Personal or Professional Repercussions.

    I think this strikes closer home to those who are evangelicals in the United States, because their institutions are more likely to be subject to fundamentalist pressure on the issue of [tag]evolution[/tag]. Let’s face it, United Methodist schools like Emory, SMU, or Duke are not likely to be subject to this kind of pressure from the right–pressure from the left is more likely there.

    But I do think that silence on controversial issues is dangerous. It allows people to assume that you believe something you don’t, and can deny cover and fellowship to someone who might be forced to take a stand on things about which you are keeping silent.

    I must add the balancing point, however. There are so many controversial issues, and so many outrages committed in the world that to comment on all of them is quite impossible. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution can each keep a Christian writer busy full time simply answering angry comments, leaving little time for anything else.

    On balance, however, I suggest that speaking up is most often appropriate, even if it is only to let people know where you stand without getting fully involved in debate.

  • Can a Liberal Learn from Mark Driscoll?

    I’m using the dreaded “L” word for myself again, because if I was put up against [tag]Mark Driscoll[/tag] I would certainly come out as liberal, no matter how moderate I think I am. Regular readers of this blog know that I disagree with him on a substantial range of issues.

    There’s a profile of Driscoll available on the Christianity Today web site (HT: Adrian Warnock). There’s some interesting things here, including most of the stuff on which I differ. Occasionally I stir people up through what I write on this blog, but in real life, I put much of my effort into reconciliation. I try to be a peacemaker in church. I’m not a [tag]Calvinist[/tag] by any stretch. Even good [tag]Arminian[/tag]s suspect me of heresy in the pelagian direction. I’m [tag]egalitarian[/tag], not [tag]complementarian[/tag], and if the bad guy is threatening the playground, I’m going to call 911 before mixing it up with them myself.

    Yet there are a number of things one can learn here. Driscoll really believes what he is teaching, and I think the evidence is good that he cares about his church and the people of his community. He’s willing to meet them culturally, something that other church people ranging from right to left are not willing to do. To many of us church is our culture, and others have to leave the “world’s culture” and become part of the “church’s culture.” But we have no particular reason to assume that the church’s culture as we practice it is actually better than the world’s culture. Driscoll seems to have caught on to the fact that from the point of view of the church, especially the mainline church, reaching the person down the street is just as much cross-cultural ministry in many cases as is going overseas.

    Nonetheless, I deplore Driscoll’s position on women in leadership and in ministry. I believe it would be quite possible for the church to articulate and practice a strong theology of family and of leadership without wedding itself to the single model of the dominant male. At the same time, egalitarians sometimes behave as though men don’t need to learn any leadership and even foster the “let women take care of spiritual things” attitude. We need to learn to respond to those attitudes.

    Too often what we practice is not the empowerment of all people to use the gifts God has given them and to follow God’s call on their lives, but it is rather a “let those who will do it go ahead.” We’re afraid to challenge men in spiritual leadership because we might sound too much like Driscoll. I am willing to confess to weakness when it’s there, but in this case, I’m not myself confessing to this practice. I have regularly preached that men need to be ready to get up on Sunday morning and lead their families to church. They need to be actively involved in both church life and in the moral life of their family and community.

    A family can only be properly led when both father and mother take up their appropriate gifts. But this does not allow looking down on supposedly “feminized” men either. That male leadership can involve the man cleaning the house, doing the dishes, changing diapers and helping get the children dressed. It might involve a husband getting the children to Wednesday night activities because the wife is working or out of town on a business trip.

    In other words this is another part of modern culture that we could meet with the gospel, rather than try to change into a first century image that exists largely in our own minds.

    I would suggest reading the Christianity Today article asking yourself this: “How can I make my spiritual life connect more with the age? What are the essentials of my spiritual and ethical beliefs, and what are just my church culture?” All of us could do with such a checkup.

  • How to Get it RIGHT!

    Start up your sense of humor and then go read this!

    HT: Kouya Chronicle.

  • Afternoon Links (9/21/07)

    Just a couple of things that caught my eye:

    Enjoy!

  • Christian Carnival #190 Posted

    . . . at The Minor Prophet. Go and enjoy! (I apologize for being late linking to this one.)