Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Intelligent Design and Answer All Questions

    Through this week’s Christian Carnival I found two posts on science and religion that interested me. One I agree with completely, and I just want to underline a couple of points. The other, not so much, though it is still a good article.

    The first is An intelligently designed universe from Sun and Shield. Now since I scan Sun and Shield fairly often, I should have caught this one, but I didn’t.

    Here’s the key quote:

    I don’t believe that it is possible to prove that Intelligent Design occurred. (see here for discussion) I am also not persuaded that it is appropriate to teach about God’s design in the science classes of the public schools. However, it is certainly also not appropriate to teach that science proves that there is no God, or that there is no purpose in the universe, or that humans are only animals. Science has proved no such things, and can’t, as they are outside the scope of science.

    I agree entirely. I also think Martin has specified the question correctly. The issue is not whether the universe is designed. Theists generally and Christians in particular are bound to believe that God designed the universe. The question is the detection of design, and I would add, the detection of more design one place than another. My problem with Paley’s watch is not that the watch is not designed, but rather that the rocks, the grains of sand, and even the water are all where they are ultimately as products of design–ultimately. Distinguishing that sort of design is not a function of science.

    In addition, conclusions about what is beyond the scope of science are also not scientific. “I know X about the physical world,” is within the bounds of science. “I know the physical world is all there is,” steps outside those bounds. This doesn’t mean the person who says that is wrong. It merely means that their assertion is not scientific, any more than my assertion that God designed everything is scientific. Neither implies a measurable change in the nature of the physical universe.

    The other article is Science’s Overlooked Problem. Here’s a quote:

    Yet I have been a firm believer that science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life, purpose, or even God (despite rather poor attempts).

    Now Justin goes on to quote Huston Smith on the failure of science to answer the why questions. I don’t think this is a failure of science, however, but rather a failure of people who expect science to answer such questions. Science is well designed to study physical stuff. That it fails to comment successfully on other matters is simply a matter of its design. The problem occurs not because of the limitation, but because of the failure of some people to recognize that limitation. Thus they try to answer non-scientific questions using science with predictable results.

    In any case, I think it’s worthwhile reading Justin’s post and the Huston Smith quotes, because one way or another you’re going to need to think about that, either by recognizing the limits of science or by finding a way in which science can address those questions successfully. My observation thus far is that science is ill-equipped for the task.

  • Information from Minnesota Newspaper on Cheri Yecke Challenged

    The blog of Florida Citizens for Science (of which I am a board member) is reporting that “Dr. Cheri Pierson Yecke, K-12 chancellor for Florida’s Department of Education, has apparently hired a company called ReputationDefender to search the Internet for information about her and, on her behalf, challenge items she disputes.”

    You can find more on the particular item in dispute here. Dr. Wesley Elsberry, who originally posted the information, continues to look for confirmation, and in the meantime has posted a note immediately following the quotation, indicating this information is disputed. That seems to be a very responsible way to handle the information.

    What is the importance of this issue? As a public official, Dr. Cheri Yecke should be held accountable for her statements about public policy. If a correct quote is disputed, that is a significant matter for such a person. On the other hand, if this quote were proven to be incorrect, it is important that the record be corrected and indicate Dr. Yecke’s actual position and record.

    My own position is that consensus science should be taught in the public school classroom, and the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is well confirmed.

  • Condescension on Creationism

    A recent comment by seeker accuses me of condescension:

    It would be hard for us to have a conversation on this, because your condescension is so thick it would be like climbing uphill through dirty axle grease.

    What interests me is that if a moderate or liberal remains quiet or speaks tolerantly of another position, he or she is regarded as wishy-washy, a typical liberal who won’t take a stand. On the other hand, if a liberal is so gauche as to take a stand on something, he is condescending. This sort of accusation often comes from people who have made a habit of being condescending, usually in a moral of spiritual sense. This is no exception.

    Seeker refers me, amongst other posts, to this one, in which he accuses the vast majority of the scientific community of being deluded. He even titles the post Mass Delusion. There must be some special gift of chutzpah given to someone who can write such a piece, and then accuse someone else of being condescending.

    In fact, Seeker invited me to critique a post he had written, and in that post there were a number of accusations raised against those of us who are Christians and also evolutionists. Apparently the only option he wishes to leave us is to acknowledge the great wisdom of his post and become convinced creationists. But unfortunately he fails to provide any reason to do that.

    If it’s condescension to point out where one disagrees with another, then I’m guilty. If it’s condescension to require that someone provide some sort of evidence, then I’m quite guilty. My liberal tolerance allows me to say that I’m fine with having a variety of views on origins in the Christian community. At the same time, simple honesty calls me to point out that I believe that creationists, whether of the young earth, old earth, or intelligent design varieties are wrong. The extent to which they are wrong differs. At the same time, I have no problem with them telling me that they believe that I’m wrong. We can both take those comments for what they’re worth.

    Now for just a couple of points of non-response in seeker’s comment:

    1. One of seeker’s original accusations was that I was using “evolutionary thinking” rather than “scientific thinking.” I called him on it, and how does he respond?

    Perhaps you can do a little self-examination, and, using your impressive intellect, postulate on what ideas might be evolutionary thinking rather than scientific? Are the two synonymous in your opinion? Then what do you think a creatoinist would say?

    So I am supposed to provide my own accusation and then defend myself against it. That’s not how it works. You tell me how my thinking is not scientific, using examples from things I have actually written, and then I’ll be glad to defend myself. Otherwise your accusation is simply yet another unsubstantiated claim.

    2. Seeker states: “Creationists HAVE proposed full orbed models for origins.” Great! Point out where these models are, what they predict, and how this is being scientifically tested.

    3. And then,

    – you appear to assume evolution to be fact, which to me is intellectual suicide
    – you fail to recognize or separate the philosophy of Darwinism from the scientific model

    On what possible basis would you suggest that I assume evolution to be fact? At what point did I say that, imply that, or give any reasonable person a reason to suppose it? No, it’s just a standard creationist attack line to see if an opponent will fold to a bluff. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain the data. None of the potential explanations by creationists have anything like the explanatory power and the confirmation by numerous lines of evidence from various branches of science. This “philosophy of Darwinism” is a figment of some people’s imagination. There are those who draw unjustified philosophical conclusions from the theory of evolution, but calling them “Darwinists” is a slur on Charles Darwin and his tremendous scientific accomplishments.

    4. Finally, in an attempt to appear prophetic, seeker announces that I will not accept any of his arguments.

    I’m sure you’ll find none of this satisfactory, and find all kinds of supposed faults with my answer. Why am I sure? Because I’ve argued with evolutionary believers before, and you sound like one of the faithful.

    I presume this is because he knows they are so weak. Or, NO! It couldn’t possibly be! Is he being condescending?

  • A Singular Lack of Imagination in ID

    A post today dealing with junk DNA led me to some thinking about just how the nature of a designer might impact the nature of the things designed. It seems to me that no matter where we are looking for design, whether in the form of alien artifacts on a distant planet (in our imaginations) or for the footprints of God in living creatures, what we end up searching for is signs of human-like design, i.e. at a minimum we are looking for something that is designed the way we might design it.

    Casey Luskin at (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) Evolution News & Views says:

    Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism’s widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic “junk” is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that “Intelligent agents typically create functional things,” and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, “From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk’.” [4] Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years . . .

    But this really avoids the issue. Let’s consider some analogies, starting with architecture. What is the purpose of decorative elements on a building. I live in a very simple building, with almost nothing about its design that could be called decorative. I work in a similar building. But I know of numerous houses that are clearly designed (I not only know the nature of the designer, I know him personally) that nonetheless have wasted space, and elements of their design that are just there because they looked good to someone.

    I’ve heard this home designer explain to a client that doing something in a certain way will cost extra in materials and may not be the most efficient use of space, but if they like that appearance, it can be done that way. In general those clients decide to make the house look the way they want to, even if they could get more square footage of usable floor space at less cost by eliminating some of the odd shapes. The point here is that there is “junk” in the design, and it would be very difficult to determine why if we didn’t know something about the designers (and clients) and why they might want a certain design.

    Now let’s consider a horse. Horse ancestors in the wild are not “designed” for humans to ride them. Human beings thought of how to tame them, to breed them for particular characteristics, and train them for particular activities. A horse in the wild might be mistaken as something that had a human-oriented purpose (though without humans it would be unlikely that an imaginary alien would figure it out), and a “designed” horse, that is one that was bred for particular characteristics but which had then been released into the wild might be assumed to have no human intervention.

    My point is that our “instincts” on these issues all have a strong element of our understanding of how various humans think and what the possibilities are for human designers. I’m wondering if we would necessarily recognize something designed by a completely alien culture. How much would it overlap? Would it be possible, for example, to have an alien science that was totally centered around biology and solved various problems through manipulation of living things? Science fiction writers have certainly imagined such civilizations. The question I have is how long it would take us, with our assumptions and “instincts” to recognize such a cultures products as designed.

    From the theological point of view, I would suggest that we make excessive assumptions about the desires of the creator. Very commonly people assume that human beings are the only intelligent creation. But we have only our lack of knowledge of anyone else to make us assume that. There is plenty of room for other creatures out there. There are those who argue that the Bible is addressed to us and doesn’t mention those other creatures, yet to whom precisely do they expect that a divine revelation would be addressed, except, well, to the folks to whom it is addressed? In other words, we do not know the answer to that question. We don’t know if human life, or life on earth in general, is the one and only form of life the creator might have created.

    This is one of the possibilities that biological evolution opens up for theologians. The observations that stand behind the theory of evolution let us know that there is a tremendous freedom and a certain level of disorder behind our observed order. This suggests to a number of people, including me, that God is less interested in a fixed order and more interested in the freedom of creation–a creative creation–than we might normally have imagined.

    Due to our fears and uncertainties, we tend to try to take control of our environment and fix things in place. Then we try to make God in our image by assuming that he is going to do the same thing. We try to conserve our resources when we create something, though even at that we expend resources on decoration. Just look at any church building if you doubt me. But is there any reason to assume that God as creator would behave in the same way? Can we assume that an alien culture would share our insecurities?

    I have previously stated it this way:

    We put a low value on freedom of choice, on autonomy, and on creativity. We prefer comfort and safety. Many, many people will give up their own decisions and their own stewardship in exchange for the feeling that they are safe. But it appears that in the way that God has arranged the universe, physical safety is much lower on the priority list. Spiritual safety is much more assured than is physical safety. (Not Ashamed of the Gospel, p. 55)

    All of these questions suggest that we need to know the nature of a designer before we can discuss just what that designer would design.

    Again, to quote myself:

    When we deal with the creation, we’re in a similar position with God. We can look at the way the universe functions and we can see certain things about what is necessary to live in the universe. We can try to imagine the attributes of God that are reflected in his natural universe. These would include the law of cause and effect, and the apparent desire for creatures that have a range of freedom of action. Simple application of the law of cause and effect could make moral creatures of us, though we might choose rather different value systems.

    But if God has a greater purpose for this world, this universe, and for our individual lives, the universe itself is not going to inform us. For that we would need special revelation if we are to know at all. (Source: When People Speak for God, p. 21

    Now I’m somewhat unorthodox in much of my theology, but on this I believe I’m quite thoroughly orthodox. We will not comprehend God’s purposes purely from natural things. We require God’s self-revelation. I think it is logical to derive from that the idea that the purpose of some elements of creation may look like one thing to us without special revelation, and may look quite different in the light of God’s revelation in scripture.

    Intelligent design may claim to detect design without any comment on the designer, but it looks to me as though through a foundational lack of imagination, it is stuck looking at totally natural design, and thus providing nothing new that could ultimate explain the existence of anything.

  • Evolutionary vs. Scientific Thinking

    In a comment to my earlier post Why Talk About Evolution in Church, seeker said:

    You might enjoy criticizing my article Is creationism a barrier to faith.

    But I also think your assessment of creation science is too steeped in evolutionary, rather than scientific thinking.

    Well, you asked for it, so here it is.

    What seeker fails to do for me is provide a definition of what he means by “evolutionary” and “scientific” as adjectives describing “thinking.” I have this dream, far too wispy and insubstantial to be called a hope, that someday I will discuss with an anti-evolutionist who will give me credit for having read the Biblical materials, read a substantial amount of material on so-called creation “science” and thus address the position I actually hold, rather than some position they imagine me to hold.

    I’m going to comment on the post he suggests, but first I’d like to ask creationists for this definition. I grew up on young earth creationism books. I was taught it in school. It was the official position of the denomination of which my parents and I were members (I’ve since changed). Then I started to look at the scientific merits of young earth creationism, studying books from the other side. The people who first suggested this activity to me were theologians and Bible scholars. My uncle Don F. Neufeld, associate editor of the Adventist Review at the time, commented that he could tell that SDA geologists who led a field trip he’d been on realized that they could not explain all the formations in a young earth framework. He suggested I examine some other viewpoints for myself, and he was not the only one to do so.

    My starting point was not books written against creationism, but rather standard books on geology and paleontology, especially such simple materials as road side geology guides. Besides being a great deal of fun, this was quite informative, and convinced me that my uncle’s suggestion–something he never said publicly so far as I know–had been a good one.

    What I saw and still see in creationist literature is this: They pick at unanswered questions in evolutionary theory, call them “flaws,” and assume that the alternative must be creationism. What is their science? They start with the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate source of information on everything, continue by imposing a particular interpretation on it, and then force all science to conform to that particular interpretation. I have yet to see any piece of creationist work that does not follow that general pattern. Even when they try their best to present “creation science” from the ground up, one can read between the lines easily enough back to the same pattern.

    The best of the young earth creationist books, in my view, is Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time. Wise admits outright that the foundation of his thought is the literal reading of the Genesis accounts as history, and thus he must make the effort to create a scientific model. At the same time Wise finds it necessary to admit to many difficulties with the theory of creationism he proposes, and many gaps that need to be filled.

    So here is what I would be looking for from a creationist who wants me to take seriously the accusation that I am “steeped in evolutionary rather than scientific thinking.” First, propose an actual complete model of origins based on creationism (young earth or old earth, but make it consistent). If you include a world-wide flood it must be a part of your model. You cannot separate the two elements as Morris and Parker tried to do in What is Creation Science?. Second, give specific predictions about what should be found in the lab or the field, and show how such predictions are supported.

    This whole picking at the pieces of evolutionary theory on the assumption that if evolution loses you win is pretty silly. For a theory to win in actual science it has to be confirmed by making predictions and having those predictions turn out to be valid when tested. Then, of course, evolutionary scientists get to pick at the holes in your model, crowing about every question that is unanswered.

    And this is an incredibly important point: Unanswered questions are not a weakness in a scientific theory–they are the strength. They provide opportunities for study, for adjustment of the theory to new evidence, or for new theories to emerge. They are the sea on which the voyage of discovery can continue. There are always unanswered questions, thus there is always new research designed to answer those questions.

    But now to the specifics of seeker’s post which he said I might wish to criticize. There are several points on which I would like to comment:

    A CBS Poll published Oct 23, 2005 shows that most Americans believe in, *gasp*, special creation. Buahahaha! Silly evolutionists – either Americans are a bunch of boobs, or you are… hmmmm.

    It was interesting to me to find this in the first paragraph I read from someone who suggested my thinking was not scientific. I’m guessing that the number of scientifically illiterate people who disagree with their theories falls very low in the concern of scientists who are studying those theories. I would not call Americans “a bunch of boobs,” but I would question the average person’s scientific literacy. I regard my scientific knowledge as fairly weak, and I work hard to improve it, yet most people I encounter in daily life think I am quite scientifically literate. I don’t take that as a compliment to me–I have a lot of work to do. I take it as a negative reflection on science education in general. And after seeing my son’s 10th grade science text, I’m not surprised.

    What’s even more interesting, however, is the huge amount of people who believe one can believe in both God and evolution – 90%. So if all those people can believe in evolution and God, why do we push creationism? Why not just leave it alone instead of creating a barrier to faith, by adding something else they must believe along with the gospel?

    My position is not that we should ignore the issue of creation vs. evolution because a large number of people think you can believe in God and evolution. Rather, I think we should openly discuss the issue because it is a non-essential of the faith, but more importantly it is an issue that should be settled scientifically. I don’t want evolution enshrined in doctrinal statements any more than creation. A barrier to faith is created when we require a particular view of scientific data in order for someone to be Christian, something seeker certainly does in this post.

    Skipping over seeker’s point 1, let me comment on point #2:

    2. We must teach and show Christians that faith is about all of life, not just one’s “personal relationship w/ God.”

    Just so. But this does not make the theologian better equipped than the scientists to study scientific questions.

    3. Teaching a simplistic view of Christian thought causes many to leave or easily dismiss Christianity.

    On this point I would simply suggest that teaching something so unscientific as creationism is what is most likely to suggest simplistic thinking.

    4. Evolution is not a harmless idea, but a philosophy with grave implications for individuals and society.

    I’ll respond to this point in more detail.

    Evolution is science, not philosophy. Without doubt people will produce philosophical conclusions from observations of the physical world. This is no surprise. We do that from observed reality all the time. But the theory of evolution is science, not philosophy.

    First, in the realm of individual faith, many people are duped by atheism, missing the riches of a relationship with God – God’s love, forgiveness, and hope.

    And here we have the amazing bait and switch. Without a word of support, atheism pops into the discussion. The theory of evolution is a systematic explanation of the facts as we have them. Those facts can be, and are, read by people of any faith or no faith at all. That is how science should work.

    Evolution provides the atheistic world view with a key pillar to rest on – an explanation of our origins without God.

    Here, seeker (and Dawkins, IMV) gives too much credit to evolution. The theory of evolution itself doesn’t explain origins without God. That is supplied by the reader/observer. The ToE says what is. Whether God is to be found somewhere in there is another question. I believe it is equally valid to say that gravity provides an explanation for why objects fall (amongst many other behaviors) without God, and thus makes atheism possible. After all people once believed that God personally guided the planets in their tracks through the heavens.

    In fact, noted atheist and ardent evolutionist Richard Dawkins summed it up well when he said

    Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

    One of the chief ways we can keep people from the error of atheism is to tear away this pillar of falsehood so that they might come to see Christ and be saved, healed, and transformed.

    Of course, the problem here is simply that the “pillar” is not a pillar of falsehood–it is a well established theory dealing with the facts. Until creationists can deal equally well with the facts, they are placing a barrier to the faith.

    Let’s compare this to the problem of suffering (or evil). Very few people deny suffering, yet this provides an important argument for atheists. How can Christians believe in a good God who is also all-powerful, but who allows suffering. Something is wrong here. By seeker’s logic, I should deny that suffering exists, because it provides an opportunity for atheists.

    I would suggest instead that the best evidence is that if God created he did so through evolutionary means, and we’re stuck with that. Right along with that suffering we Christians have to deal with huge extinction events and millions of years of suffering for living creatures on this planet. Denying it so that our theology can hold up will, in the long run, be no more successful than denying human suffering would be.

    Second, many individuals reject Christianity because they believe that science and faith are at odds, and that evolution has disproved the Genesis account of the creation of man. We need to show that modern science was birthed out of Christian thought and reason, and that science (and archeology) overwhelming support scripture, and vice versa. All truth is connected. Science has not proved evolution, nor has it disproved creationism.

    If “faith” is defined as accepting a literal reading of Genesis, then science and faith are at odds. I do not believe that they are, simply because I don’t believe that Genesis is science, nor is it history. Something that is not science cannot conflict with something that is. I have no need to reconcile Genesis and science because Genesis makes no statement that can be regarded as scientific. (For purposes of discussion, I would accept any statement that makes a specific prediction about the natural world that can be tested experimentally, potentially falsified, but found to be true. There are a number of statements about the natural world in Genesis that do conflict with scientific data, if it is to be read scientifically.

    Third, regarding society, the idea that we are evolving into something better always leads to social Darwinism, i.e. eugenics. Eugenics, which begins with the goals of improving the gene pool via birth control, selective breeding, and genetic engineering, may inevitably lead to the evils of selective abortion and killing of the weak and “genetically damaged”, government control of who can have children, and forced genetic modification “for the good of society.” And sometimes it leads to genocide.

    Well, there’s a statement that starts out bad and deteriorates in a hurry. First, evolutionary theory doesn’t state that we are evolving into something better. Popular versions often express it that way, but that is not evolutionary theory. “Better” is not a term that can be defined broadly and objectively in science in any case. A creature can become better suited to an environmental niche, but then a change in the environment can suddenly make the “better” creature “worse.” As with almost any topic, the problem with the word “better” is that one must define better for what.

    Second, just because something happens naturally doesn’t mean we should enshrine it in law, morals, or philosophy. One could equally well argue that no medical should be provided, and that eugenics is positively excluded based on evolutionary theory. After all, the universe has a mechanism for inheritance, adaptation, and the creation of variety (without any implication of purpose), so who are we to interfere through neonatal care or through planned genetic culling?

    Lastly, there are many theological implications of evolution which are at odds with Christian theology. These differences can not be ignored if you want a coherent, integrated system of truth and thinking. Most people who believe in God and evolution probably have an unbiblical view of God in order to make a harmony of these two.

    In other words, evolution disagrees with one’s theology so one discards evolution no matter what the evidence.

    I disagree with that position. But further, I think that if one better defines one’s theological positions in consideration of new scientific discoveries one often improves one’s understanding of theology as well as science. It is not we overturn all theology; rather, we sharpen, refine, and clarify theology. Do I believe some different things about God because I now accept the theory of evolution? Yes. Did those cause me to reject essential doctrines? No. Of course, let me note that the issue here hinges on what one defines as essential.

    Further, I should point out that if I became convinced that I was wrong on an essential doctrine I would find it essential that I change, since following what I believe to be right is an essential of personal integrity, a most essential doctrine.

    For my list of elements of a Biblical doctrine of creation, see God the Creator.

    One further note here–I favorably comment on Kurt Wise and his book Faith, Form, and Time, at least in the sense that Wise is very honest about his presuppositions. But there is an extreme danger in Wise’s position, I believe, because he knows and has stated that his view goes against the best scientific evidence, yet he believes that he must believe what he does because of the way he reads Genesis. That is a position that must, at least, put extreme stress on one’s personal integrity.

    Evolutionary theological implications which differ from Christian theology include:

    I appreciate that seeker provides a list. Often I’m told that evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith and that if I don’t agree, I must know nothing of Christianity. Lists are helpful.

    Man’s Origins – an accident of chance, not created with a purpose

    Evolution is not actually a random process. Selection operates according to rules. Just as an object falls according to natural laws, so living things inherit characters and evolve according to laws. It is not the task of science to provide purpose. Science observes what is.

    For some reason creationists think that unless God interrupted all natural processes in order to create the first human being in a completely different way, human beings cannot be special and cannot have a purpose.

    How is it that being formed from the dirt–and God could have used agents to make that form–is somehow more dignified than evolving from a single celled creature?

    Man’s Nature – just a higher animal, not made in the image of God

    You may conclude that from evolution; I do not.

    Value of Human Life – same as any animal, not made special with immortal soul

    First, I would not expect science to comment on immortal souls, except to say that they have not been observed in the field or tested in the laboratory. Second, my religious faith teaches me to value human life. I cannot see even the slightest reason why the process by which human life came to be. An eternal God is no less involved in the process of millions of years than he is in the act of a moment.

    Man’s Purpose – to preserve our genes, not know, love, and serve God

    Again, science doesn’t determine purpose. Science observes what is. If “what is” constitutes the sum of our purpose, then we’re pretty pitiful. But I know of nobody who lives according to such a narrow definition of purpose.

    Morality – a human construct, not a divine law with penalties and blessings

    If God is necessary to morals, it would not matter how God brought human beings into existence. It would only matter that he did.

    In conclusion, what I don’t see in this post is any suggestion of a reason why my thinking is not scientific. I’d really enjoy seeing a creationist–especially a young earth creationist–point out to me how “evolutionary thinking” differs from “scientific thinking.” Thus far, I fail to see any scientific thinking happening in the YEC camp.

  • The Importance of Literary Genre

    Yesterday I wrote about the importance of teaching and preaching on the doctrine of creation and also the “how” of creation in our churches. It’s important for us to understand what we believe about this. My personal view is that theology and Bible study tells us about God’s relationship to us and the natural sciences tell us about what is and how it came to be in terms of natural processes. But whether you agree with me on this or not, I suggest that now is not the time to be silent and hope the argument will go away.

    The key element I mentioned in that post is literary genre, and I did so because it is a critical starting point in Biblical interpretation. One can read the Bible as literature and even treat one type of literature as another when doing so. As an example, one could read Job either as history or as literature. In terms of spiritual application, there would be only a small amount of difference. But if one is looking for propositional truths, it is important to understand first what the intention of the author was in whatever passage you’re studying.

    The gospels make a good illustration for this point. Many debates about historicity simply shoot past one another because each speaker is making different assumptions about what type of literature the gospels represent, and what one can expect from that. At one extreme, the gospels are seen as pretty much pure theology, with any possible historical facts one may glean as incidental. At the other extreme one can view the gospels as pure history, describing the life of Jesus accurately, with theology being derived from the events and not the written presentation. I happen to think gospels are their own literary genre, with a number of variants when one includes non-canonical gospels, and that the historical value is considerable, though not the primary focus. But if one reads the gospels as histories, one might expect information that is not present, such as careful chronology. The various attempts to reconcile the chronology and create a life of Jesus from the four gospels demonstrate the difficulty.

    As modern readers, we are used to having the major literary genres identified for us. When I want a science fiction novel, I go buy a book that is identified as such. I don’t have to read it to identify it. The title page or the jacket blurbs generally tell me what I need to know. In ancient times there are no such blurbs. In many cases, I believe we could easily identify modern types of fiction if they were presented to us. We would probably have some difficulty with historical fiction or with fictionalized biography, for example, but generally we’d get a pretty good idea. Why? Because we have read quite a number of examples of each genre.

    And this brings up the common problem in determining the genre of Biblical documents. If we don’t specifically try to shift our viewpoint, we will likely try to force Biblical documents into modern categories, and do so by looking at their characteristics in comparison to what we read most. This will not result in an accurate picture. I experienced this personally in starting to study Biblical languages. As I moved further and further into ancient literature I found that there were other categories and styles than I was used to in my reading. The Bible felt more at home in that environment than when I tried to read it from a modern point of view.

    So one obvious way to learn to recognize Biblical genres is to read a variety of ancient literature. That will expand your viewpoint and give you more points of comparison to more types of literature. I would suggest this process to anyone who is interested in understanding the Bible better. You are going to need to read a variety of things. For protestants, adding the apocrypha to your reading will help a great deal. There are other collections of ancient literature, however, that are also very helpful in getting perspective.

    Let’s just consider one indicator that we commonly use in recognizing genre. Let’s call it the “wicked witch” indicator. By this I mean that we recognize a story as some literary form other than narrative history or a true/true-to-life story because things just don’t work the way the story says they do. If I start a story, “Once upon the time there was a wicked witch who lived in a broken down shack far out in the woods . . .” you will not be under any illusions that I am telling a modern, true-to-life story. (Apologies to any witches who read this. I’m willing to bet you don’t live in broken down shacks far out in the woods.)

    Now consider the following from the Bible: “The trees went out to anoint a king over themselves . . .” — Judges 9:8

    We know immediately that we are not going to read narrative history. Why? Trees do not behave that way. What follows is known as the parable of the trees.

    Now one more example, this time from the apocrypha: “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana.” — Judith 1:1 (NRSV)

    I suspect this one is nearly as easy to identify as the parable of the trees. Why? Because even based solely on the Biblical text, surely available to the author of Judith, we know that:

    • Nebuchadnezzar did not rule over the Assyrians
    • Nebuchadnezzar (first or second) did not rule in Nineveh
    • Arphaxad comes from Biblical genealogies, not from the Median kings

    So here we have historical data that is clearly created using available names and countries. All of these are real, but they’re combined in impossible ways. It’s very likely, based on this, that the author of Judith had no intention of his book being taken as actual history. His readers with no more than the various historical books of Hebrew scripture, could have seen what he is doing.

    Notice that we have twice identified a piece of literature as not being historical because in some sense things just don’t work in the way described.

    To be continued . . .

  • Why Talk about Evolution in Church?

    Watching recent commentary on the Answers in Genesis creation museum, that huge waste of $27 million designed to proved that dinosaurs lived with human beings and even were preserved on the ark has led me to believe that education on this subject in church and Sunday School is even more important than I thought.

    I do not believe the Museum glorifies God. It presents one rather lousy interpretation of Genesis, one that is at war with the facts, and in the long term will turn more people away from Christ by making Christians look as though they have no interest in honesty and integrity in science.

    There are two major problems that I see in terms of public education about science. The first is the quality of science education in public schools, which is not good, and the quality of the public’s knowledge about science in general, however acquired. Many people who claim to reject evolution, for example, reject a caricature of what is actually taught by professional scientists in the relevant fields. Often that rejection comes about because of conclusions drawn from evolution which are not part of the science at all. I’ve written about this before.

    A good, basic education based on the best scientific research available is essential. This is why I have regularly opposed the teaching of ID. My assessment of the scientific value of intelligent design (ID)–it has no value at all–is not the important thing here. The bottom line is that ID has not gone through the kind of rigorous research and testing required for a new scientific theory to be accepted as consensus science, which should be a prerequisite to its presence in high school science textbooks.

    But more importantly, I know that a very large number of Christians do accept the theory of evolution and are also very serious about their Christian faith. The problem is that very often they are quite vague both on what evolutionary theory is (see above), and on how it relates to their faith. The standard response to such a discussion is simply that they don’t take the Bible all that literally, but that leaves open the door for groups such as AiG to come in and claim that they represent the real “Bible believers.”

    It is not simply a matter of taking the language of Genesis less literally. One needs to carefully examine it to discover just what type of literature it is, and then interpret as one would normally interpret that type of literature. It is not just that AiG is taking Genesis literally; they are taking it as a form of narrative history. It’s not. Their interpretation is fundamentally flawed, and has created the huge clash they present between the findings of modern science and what they teach from the Bible. The clash is not necessary, however, if one simply deals with Genesis as what it is. (For introductory material, see my essays Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship and The Two Flood Stories. I link to many other essays from those posts.)

    When I try to talk to people in churches about creation and evolution, however, most are quite resistant, even when they accept evolutionary theory. It’s easier to be quiet and just hope that the extremists will go away. But many in the church need to know not only that pastors and teachers can accept the theory of evolution and still be Christians. They need to know how they do it. Too often I hear, “I don’t see the problem.” Well, having grown up young earth creationists–and I literally mean from the earliest memory I have of thinking of creation I was educated YEC–and having accepted evolutionary theory later in life, I do see the problem. Doctrines are stated in terms that seem to support the literal, narrative history view.

    Again, some have suggested to me that they don’t want to waste their time on such a non-spiritual issue. But here I agree with the young earth folks. Creation is an important spiritual issue. (For my view of a Biblical doctrine of creation, see the pamphlet God the Creator.) But even further Bible study is falling off in our churches today and people are losing Biblical literacy. Genesis provides an excellent workshop for teaching methods of Bible study and ways of discerning the literary genre of various passages. It can provide the foundation for a much more effective Bible study discipline for church members. Their Bible study will become much more enlightening when they understand how to handle various literary genres. What information can you get from them? What are they intended to convey? What value might they have other than conveying propositional truths?

    I think that we, as Christians, would do well to talk about this more, to preach it and to teach it in our Sunday School classes. And in spite of my own strongly held views, I do suggest that this happen no matter what your position. I no more want theistic evolution to become a Christian doctrine than I want young or old earth creationism to become enshrined in doctrinal statements. I think that we should use doctrinal statements to describe God’s relationship to us, and allow scientific study to determine how things work in the physical universe. I would be and have been perfectly willing to share Sunday School classes and even the platform with advocates for young earth creationism.

    But the discussion needs to get out in the open, especially in those mainline churches who tend to hope that such arguments will go away. If we in mainline churches are embarrassed by the creation museum, we need to get more vocal about how we understand science, our faith, and their relationship.

    Expect me to continue to be vocal on this issue for a long time to come.

  • Reactions to Behe’s New Book

    I haven’t read it yet, it’s on my list, but not very high on my list. I already linked to a couple of reactions, but here are plenty more, courtesy of Science After Sunclipse.

    I’ve noticed a trend in that many reviewers seem to think that Behe’s writing style has deteriorated considerably. Since the one positive thing about Darwin’s Black Box was the style, that would be sad. If one has to read such stuff, at least there ought to be some fun in it.

  • Dino-fied Children’s Bible?

    OK, this is just too funny. I have to link to it: Daniel in the Dino’s Den. No comment is actually necessary. HT: Dispatches.

  • Taking [Part of] the Bible Literally

    It appears that some young earth creationists take Genesis very literally, but are perhaps a bit less literal in their understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The Australian Creation Ministries International is suing the American Answers in Genesis over a number of issues.

    For those who might not know, here is the passage from 1 Corinthians:

    1Do some of you dare, when you have a dispute with another, to have it judged by the unrighteous and not by the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you then unworthy of judging even the smallest issue? 3Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention the issues of ordinary life. 4So if you have a lawsuit regarding ordinary matters, will you then seat as judges those who are disdained in the church? 5This is shameful! Is there not one among you who is wise, who can judge between brothers? 6Must one of you Christians go to the law against another and before unbelievers at that? 7You’re already defeated when you have to go to the law at all. Why would you not rather be injured? Why would you not rather be defrauded? — 1 Corinthians 6:1-7

    Now I understand how to apply time and circumstances to that passage, but then I’m one of those near-heathen liberals who doesn’t accept the literal creation story. I wonder how literalists justify such behavior? Well, here is where they do it, though I think if I got that much liberty to play around, I could find a way to get past the literal interpretation of Genesis as well.

    HT: The Panda’s Thumb