Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • The Danger of False Assumptions

    Every so often it’s fun to look through an ICR document or so. It’s so nostalgic, considering that this was the sort of stuff that I found very convincing when I was young. I would like to emphasize that this is not by any means the definition of Christianity. It’s just some of the noisiest.

    Yesterday I took at look at Impact #81, Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory, and I think it deserves some comment on the methods of Biblical interpretation involved. But first, I must note that it is a bit bizarre, in that it tries to respond to theistic evolutionists on a “proof-text” basis, something that very few theistic evolutionists, if any, would find relevant. This approach to debates about the Bible is not uncommon. The only productive discussion that can be held between people with contradictory approaches to interpretation is one that deals with the methods of interpretation themselves. It is likely, however, that ICR’s Impact #81 is actually written to reassure the troops, and actually is not intended to respond to actual theistic evolutionists.

    The basic approach to interpretation taken in this article is literal, and the specific variant is proof-texting.

    The first is illustrated by the following statement: “The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days . . . ” (emphasis mine). It is this idea of the “unbiased observer” that is the problem. Biblical literalists follow a rule of interpretation that says that a text is to be taken literally unless it cannot be, and only if it cannot be taken literally should figurative explanations be considered. This is a principle stated by Tim LaHaye, amongst others and underlies a great deal of fundamentalist, conservative, and charismatic Biblical interpretation, though charismatics should know better. (See my review of LaHaye’s book, How to Study the Bible for Yourself for more information.)

    Now this is clearly a bias, and that bias is toward literal interpretation. I would suggest as an alternative that one always look at every passage of scripture and allow the nature of the passage, its setting and context, statements about it by the author, and comparison to similar literature help you to decide whether it is to be taken figuratively or literally. I’ve been told this is also a bias, and I will allow that it can be, although it is a quite neutral bias. The actual opposite bias to LaHaye’s (and the ICR’s) approach would be to assume everything is figurative and only take it literally if I can’t find a figurative interpretation.

    The simple fact is that this common rule of Biblical literalists comes close to guaranteeing that they will misinterpret the Bible. The reason is that there is a substantial portion of the Bible that is intended figuratively. Let’s consider, for example, applying this rule to the plays of Shakespeare. I could quite easily construe many of the plays as portrayals of actual history on that basis. The signs that we have a dramatization would likely not be enough to convince me that they were fictional or fictionalized. In a previous entry, I indicated that one of the strengths of the young earth position is simply that if one assumes literal interpretation, it accords with the Biblical data. But that assumption of literal interpretation is the key.

    Now let’s go forward to the ICR’s response to the day age interpretation in Genesis. The first 10 objections to the day-age interpretation are simply reiterations of the literalistic and proof-text style interpretation. They could have simply said, “If you take all this literally, you will take all this literally. Note also that the day-age interpretation is normally used by old earth creationists. Theistic evolutionists normally take a different view. (See my comparison in Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11.)

    Their entire approach to the definition of the word in Genesis 1 reads as though it was written by someone without a basic knowledge of linguistics. To allow you to compare, let me give you the basic steps for studying the meaning of such a word:

    1. You collect examples of usage. In the Bible, this often means at least looking at every usage example.
    2. You divide these up by definition and construct tentative definitions.
    3. You take note of the particular constructions, contexts, and types of literature in which the word is used.
    4. You look at the particular example, and see where it fits best, or you may even find you need to construct a new definition.

    This is generalized somewhat, but it makes the basic point. The procedure followed in the article is to see if there is a proof text available that says that a day is long enough to suit the needs of evolutionary change and the established age of the earth. Since there is no such text–why should there be?–the author concludes that the day-age theory is wrong. But the specific type of argument he is refuting is not the type of argument that the day-age proponents use. (For a discussion of the day-age theory, see Consider Christianity, Volume 1: Evidence for the Bible, pages 119ff.)

    The 11th point relies on the previous 10, that is, if a day is 24 hours in Genesis 1, it must be 24 hours in the 4th commandment. At the same time, if it is not 24 hours in Genesis 1, it would not be 24 hours in the fourth commandment, which simply refers to that passage. In a quotation or allusion, one first assumes that the meaning of the word is unchanged from the original. Out of context quotations, or intentional adjustment or paraphrasing. Thus there is nothing new here.

    Now the oddity is that we go from the beginning to the end of the article, and we find that the entire argument is simply that the days of creation are 24 hour literal days. This argument is one designed to challenge old earth creationism, though it does so very ineffectively, but not theistic evolution.

    What they are missing is the simple discussion of literary genre. What type of literature is Genesis 1? This is the question that most theistic evolutionists (and for that matter old earth creationists) answer differently than do young earth creationists. And every single argument presented in Impact #81 is totally irrelevant to this question. The young earth creationists make the assumption that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are narrative history to be taken literally. But how do they come to that conclusion?

    Well, it is simply their bias. If you assume that everything is to be taken literally, if possible, then provided one isolates oneself completely from the scientific evidence, Genesis 1 can be taken as narrative history. Otherwise, it bears practically no resemblance to it at all.

    How do we recognize a type of literature? Here are some normal clues:

    1. Labeling – we buy a book that is labeled as a novel, and we expect it to be a novel. If it is labeled “mystery” or “historical novel” those additional elements will impact how we understand the literature. This labeling is only rarely applicable in the Bible. Ancient literature was not commonly labeled as to genre.

    2. Literary characteristics – there are certain characteristics of various types of literature, such as key phrases like “once upon a time” or the presence of footnotes. One doesn’t expect reference footnotes in a novel, and one doesn’t start a scientific paper with “once upon a time.”

    3. Fantastic events – if we are dealing with a literary type that includes fantasy, we may find fantastic events that we know don’t happen every day. For example, in C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe even if we didn’t know the book was fiction from the label, we would assume it was fiction when the children go into another world through the wardrobe. In the Bible, the parable of the trees (Judges 9:8-15) is clearly a parable, even without a label, and we know it from the moment that it starts “The trees once went out to anoint a knig” (NRSV). Why? Trees don’t do that.

    Now, the first of these can’t be applied to Genesis 1, but the second and third certainly can, and they should be, and that’s precisely what the young earth creationists are never going to do, because the moment you apply these principles without the assumption that it is literal, then there is plenty of evidence that it is not. For example, the description of day and night prior to the creation of the heavenly bodies (and yes, I’m aware of the explanations), suggests that the author lacks a concern with that literal detail. The events of the sixth day, if one takes Genesis 2 seriously as well, are simply too much for one 24 hour period, no matter how much one tries to word around it.

    But there is something further that young earth creationists are not going to do, and that is comparing this literature with other similar literature, such as creation myths from the ancient near east. And there we will find both similarities and differences, but we will certainly find similar literary characteristics. (See my essay Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)

    Is it better to assume what type of literature Genesis 1 is based on our twentieth century knowledge and attitudes, or would it not be better to look at it in comparison to other literature that is contemporary to it?

    One last point, going back to the beginning. The author is not able to correctly state evolutionary theory either.

    Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario.

    Of course, long periods of time are not assumed, they are demonstrated by excellent scientific evidence. Biological evolution is not a “molecules to man” theory either. Biological evolution operates on existing life. Abiogenesis is another matter.

    Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

    Actually, as I’ve pointed out, few theistic evolutionists take Genesis 1 literally enough to care one way or the other about the day-age theory. I certainly do not, though I find it interesting as a point of interpretation. It is essential to most old earth creationists and their case is, in fact, quite good, assuming one takes Genesis 1 even that literally.

    Thus, ICR’s Impact #81 manages to fire a dud at the wrong target.

  • Christians and Defamation

    One who covers up hatred by lying,
    And one who spreads defamation is stupid.     — Proverbs 10:18
    (my translation, but try any version you like)

    I’m often interested in the portions of the Bible that some Christians think they must follow, and what portions many Christians think they can avoid. For example, right now many conservative Christians seem to think they are more bound by Leviticus 18:22 (you shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination) than they are by Leviticus 19:34 (The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you).

    But when it gets down to lying, slander, and defamation of character, it seems that the Biblical mandate is pretty clear. Christians definitely should not be engaged in slander or defamation. But how far can one go in “misunderstanding,” shall we say, and still fall within the bounds of Christian behavior?

    There is just such a defamation going on right now, defamation of the character of Dr. Erik Pianka. I’m not breaking this news. I’m going to provide you with some blog entries so you can research it for yourself. These blog entries contain both opinion on the topic, but also links to other sources of information so you can research this for yourself. I would simply note that the accusations made against Dr. Pianka are of such a nature that any reasonable person should question them, and should research very carefully before making such accusations or repeating them. This is a very clear case from the Christian biblical point of view of slander.

    Let me just list some sources:

  • Zimmer: The Sixty-Million-Year Virus

    I only do this every few weeks, but I wanted to make sure that “Threads” readers noticed this wonderful article on The Loom. (Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where I saw it first.)

    I really don’t have anything to add on this one, but I do challenge young earth/old earth creationists to produce a credible scientific explanation for this data under their models.

  • God is Creator of Everything

    In a previous post in my series on Christian view on origins, Biblical Doctrine of Creation, I listed six elements of a Biblical doctrine of creation. I need to specify this more precisely as a Biblical doctrine of creation based on the Christian Bible and on one or another Christian approach to Biblical interpretation.

    Excursus – What is Biblical?

    Very often debates on whether any particular doctrine is Biblical founder on the fact that people are using different approaches to interpretation, and thus a text that applies in one way in one person’s argument means something completely different to the other, simply because of a different approach to interpretation. Since this is so important as I start discussing a Biblical doctrine of creation, let me give a simple example.

    In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says, “Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Now I interpret this text to mean that Jesus came to bring the law to fruition, that is to give it its deeper meaning, something defined by the texts that follow indicating a new way to look at various laws. Murderous anger is now like murder, lust like adultery, and so forth. In each case Jesus discusses the motive. I see these as examples of how Jesus invites his followers to look at the law.

    Now some people will say that Matthew 5:17 means that Jesus came to put an end to the law by keeping all of it, and would not see the following instructions as examples of that, but as a separate topic. When Jesus died, according to these folks, taking the penalty of the law, he removed the law and now we live by the Spirit. Others hold that since all of the preaching of Jesus was given to the Jews, the moral instructions of this chapter only apply to Jews. Christians belong to the church age, and are under grace. Somewhere in there most Christians will have found an approach to interpreting Matthew 5:17 that resonated with them, and may feel that the alternatives are quite weird. (I might not have included your view, and I certainly oversimplified them all.)

    Those differences in interpretation illustrate what I mean when I say that everyone approaches Bible study within some kind of interpretational matrix, and that if yours matrix is different from mine, we can debate about the matrix (or paradigm), but likely we’ll just degenerate into yelling if we try to argue what is “Biblical” and what is not based on completely different interpretational matrices. In the first three chapters of his book Faith, Form, and Time, Kurt Wise builds a case for a literal reading of the Bible in general and the early chapters of Genesis in particular. Thus he believes in a literal creation week of 24 hour days, patriarchs who literally lived hundreds of years, and a worldwide flood with all creatures preserved on the ark. For him this is Biblical, and any view holding that these materials are not narrative history, but rather are of other literary genres and thus should be understood very differently, would be unbiblical. For me, on the other hand, Wise’s view is not Biblical, because he is reading genres such as liturgy, myth, and legend as narrative history, and thus makes them mean things that are inappropriate to those genres.

    Note that the doctrine of inerrancy is not at issue here. While I do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, there are theistic evolutionists who do. The issue is intent. An inerrantist can read the book of Jonah and determine that it is not historical. How is this possible? Because if he determines that the genre is “edifying story” it is not an error that the book is not historical. One doesn’t test a work of fiction based on whether the characters in it actually existed and did the things described. (For a connection of this same concept to the book of Daniel, see Dating the Book of Daniel.)

    So keep in mind as I discuss these various views that when I discuss how each view handles the Biblical materials relating to a particular doctrine, I’m considering their approach to interpretation. I’m not trying to say that all views are Biblical; I’m simply pointing out how each group relates its view to the Biblical material.

    Creator of Everything

    Major passages: Genesis 1:1-2:4a, Psalm 104:24, Hebrews 1:2, Romans 11:33-36, Isaiah 45:7.

    Most of these passages are quite self-explanatory in connection with this topic, though they are subject to different interpretations in terms of how and when God created. The key common element is that nothing is attributed in Christianity (or Judaism as I understand it) to any entity other than God. There are some points in Christian theology in which negative results have occurred in creation based on the activities of hostile entities. It is common, for example, for Christians to credit Satan with the “creation” of evil.

    The problem here is the understanding of God’s responsibility for the actions of creatures with free will. Many Christians remove God from responsibility for evil simply by attributing it to Satan. But Satan himself is a created being, again according to the Bible. (Note here that this statement is a bit loose, as the doctrine of Satan is not clearly fixed, especially in Hebrew scriptures.) In general, however, if someone makes something that causes damage, one is regarded as responsible for that damage. If I light a fire in my back yard, and then don’t control it, and it burns out of control and damages my neighbor’s yard, I cannot claim that the fire is responsible but I am not.

    That is not quite analogous to our case, however, because God is creating a creature that can choose what behavior it will engage in. Nonetheless, God created a creature who was capable of becoming evil, and thus set in motion the process of evil coming into existence. While most of the texts I listed simply speak of God creating everything, one text is more specific.

    7Forming the light,
    Creating the darkness,
    Making well-being,
    Creating disaster,
    I YHWH do {or make} all these things.

    There is some debate about the word I have translated “disaster” and the KJV translates “evil.” Some people think this alternate translation solves the problems. But this passage is actually using two words indicating the extremes in order to include everything between. No matter how light it is or how dark it is, God is the one who made it. No matter how good things get or how bad they get, God is the one who made it. God is absolutely the creator of everything. We may look for excuses (Satan did all the bad stuff), but God is not looking for such excuses. According to the Bible, he readily claims responsibility for the creation of everything.

    This doesn’t mean that I’m unaware of texts speaking of the devil. It does mean that I see the Bible as ultimately attributing all creative activity to God. For some reasons (best know to God, presumably), God created entities that were capable of evil, and gave them the freedom to exercise that option.

    In my view all of the Christian views of origins potentially fulfill this first requirement. Some Christians use the concept of the devil to avoid divine responsibility, but one can’t even make a generalization there, as many do not.

    Nonetheless, thestic evolutionists are frequently accused of not seeing God as the creator of everything, but rather of maintaining that all living things are produced by evolution, and thus not created by God. This accusation is itself unbiblical.

    It’s clear (I think) to both creationists of all varieties as well as to evolutionists that there are things in the world that come into existence on a regular basis. (I’m leaving stellar evolution for a later article discussing whether God is still creating.) For example, a new island might be formed by a volcanic eruption. I recall a visit to Crater Lake in Oregon, which was formed in only moments ago geologically speaking. Would any Christian claim that the lake and islands are not created by God?

    But the text of Isaiah gets very specific on this by calling God the creator of Israel (Isaiah 43:15). Now God clearly did not create Israel out of nothing. Rather, their ancestors were called, went through the normal processes of population growth, migration, and conquest, and eventually became the people to whom the message of 2nd Isaiah was proclaimed. Thus God is still the creator even of things that are produced through natural processes. Finally, let me mention every human baby, and in fact every form of new life, all of which is a creation of God, even though it is the result of natural processes.

    That is the first element of a Biblical doctrine of creation, and I believe that all of the views of creation we have discussed so far are consistent with it.

    For other entries in this series see Post Series.

  • AAAS on Hana and Francisco Ayala

    The AAAS web site has a wonderful profile of Hana and Francisco Ayala, along with an interview with both on video. Dr. Francisco Ayala states that ID is not science, but it is also very bad theology. He calls evolution the unifying principle of biology, and calls intelligent design “blasphemy.”

    This is worthwhile listening for anyone who is really interested in this issue. I strongly recommend listening to it. There is a written summary here.

  • Darksyde on Bill Dembski

    There’s a new post on The Daily Kos, Know Your Creationists: Bill Dembski, that readers may find interesting. It provides some background, and there are some links to some work on the math in the comments.

    I appreciate those mathematicians who have deconstructed Dembski’s math. When I first read something by him, it occurred to me that there was a major problem, in that the whole thing really depended on the probability of a process occurring when he really did not know what that process was. What is the probability of the bacterial flagellum being produced by natural processes? Unless we know the processes or we can truly eliminate all possible processes, there’s really no way to know. It could be absolutely impossible, or it could be quite a simple variation. I didn’t bother to plow through the math as I’m certainly not qualified to comment on it. There’s a simple principle however, applicable to any algorithm, that garbage in will produce garbage out. I simply (and perhaps lazily) assumed that if garbage was going out, it didn’t matter how many pages it took to describe the math, garbage was coming out.

    An excellent place to start on critiques of Dembski is the work of Howard van Till. His article E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski’s Case for Intelligent Design is excellent. You can read it as a PDF as well, which would be my own preference, and you can follow more of the exchange starting with the following links on the AAAS web site: Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion: Perspectives.

  • Good Theology, Bad Theology, and Demons

    I have frequently commented that intelligent design (ID) is bad theology. Equally often, I am challenged by someone who will point out that ID may be bad theology from my point of view, while it might be good theology from someone else’s point of view. This is a very valid objection to what I have said, though I will defend the basic point. ID could be more correctly termed “theology done badly” than “bad theology.”

    Nonetheless, since ID is being supported primarily by Christians, and evangelical Christians at that, it can be quite properly called “bad theology” as well, because it is bad theology within what is supposed to be the theological framework of most of its supporters. If you are wondering why there is a split amongst conservative Christians over ID, it is simply that many conservative Christians are saying either that this does not prove or that it is not even trying to prove anything that actually works within their theology.

    In talking to Christian groups, I frequently find people who are shocked that I don’t support ID. “How can you not believe the universe is designed?” they ask. My answer is that I don’t accept ID precisely because I believe that the universe is designed. However it is disguised, however many chapters of mathematical formulas are provided, however many pious statements are made (whenever someone is not trying to pretend this is not theology), ID does not prove, and is not attempting to prove that the universe is designed. It is, in fact, attempting to prove that some elements are more designed than others, i.e. when we deal with specified complexity as a test of design, it means that we distinguish things that could happen randomly, and things that happen by design. Right or wrong, evangelical Christians are generally very uncomfortable with things that happen randomly. They are not looking for Paley’s watch on the seashore to prove that the watch is designed, but rather to prove that everything is designed.

    Incidentally, that remains a failing of Paley’s proof for the existence of God. In traditional Christian theology the sea, the seashore, and each grain of sand is a design, and not just the watch, so again we’re distinguishing design from design. Theologians grab hold of such arguments largely because in a scientific age in which objective knowledge is king, they want to have just such scientific facts in hand. They want to replace faith with fact, but do so without giving up theology. The ID theorists envy the scientists their objective data, and their theories that explain major categories of evidence in an elegant way. They want that for themselves, but they don’t want to give up theology and go pursue science in order to do it.

    Scientists wonder why ID proponents are so slow to get down to actual research and publication related to their material if they really want ID to be accepted as scientific. Michael Behe has even suggested research, questionable as it may be, that could be done, but nobody is doing it. Why? Because these people are essentially following the processes of theology. They are rearranging the existing ideas and historical data, and constantly wondering why it is that it doesn’t become acceptable science. They can maintain this search despite scientific training because they have become theologically convinced that theological proposals must be able to be as true as, and as demonstrably true as the results of the hard sciences.

    This comes simply from a different approach. Most commonly theology, especially Christian theology, focuses on coherence rather than correspondence. (I’m bracing myself for the accusations that I am oversimplifying here. I am. I confess it. But I think that the generalization is adequately valid for my purposes and I don’t want to dig that far into epistemology.) The scientific method, on the other hand, focuses on correspondence. If a theologian finds a misbehaving fact, one that won’t fit into the system, he is first going to look for a way to tuck it into the system. A scientist in the same circumstances will try to adjust the theory, and if that fails, will hope to propose a new one and become famous. This is what the general public seems to miss about science and scientists. Discovering revolutionary new things is something scientists dream of. You don’t get famous by producing more data to support an existing theory; you have to produce something new. Theologians do try to produce something new as well, but most commonly that is a new way of arranging or looking at old data. An entirely new theology can be built without a single piece of hard data being introduced. And need I mention inventing data, something that gets scientists get caught at and get drummed out of the profession, but makes theologians founders of new religions. 🙂

    A theologian doesn’t worry about new discoveries destroying his systematic theology. He is concerned instead with people who take apart the logic, or reinterpret some foundational text, and then follow some new path through the data. Rarely, however, does such a reinterpretation result in the original author recanting his view. It will probably just start a new school of theology, or a new sub-school, or perhaps a new sub-sub school. That’s because one theologian can’t tell another one that he is unable to replicate his data, and thus the theologian’s theology must be false.

    Let me detour for a moment to comment that when a theologian deals with a field that does have objective data there will be a difference, and that theologians can make statements that can be objectively disproven. For example, a preacher approached my son when he was ill with cancer, and said that God had told him that anyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed of cancer. He laid hands on my son and prayed. My son later died of that cancer. Claim falsified. Fortunately, my son was smarter than the preacher, and didn’t let those words ruin such time as he had left at that point. But even in these cases, the theologian’s approach is not generally to alter the theory, but to explain the data within the prior theory. The recipient didn’t have enough faith (whether that was specificed in advance or not), the historical data that seems to contradict the inerrancy of the Bible can be explained in some other way, or will soon enough be contradicted by other data and God (or rather the theologian) will be vindicated.

    If I can illustrate from something closer to my own field of Biblical studies, let’s say new evidence is discovered about the destruction of Jericho, as has happened several times. The objective archeologist takes the new data and adjusts his historical charts for the city of Jericho, looking at all available evidence. The theologian, in this case a defender of the Bible, looks at that data to see how it can be handled to support the Biblical story of the destruction of Jericho by Joshua and the Israelites. Some skeptics, taking an equally theological approach look at the same data to see how well it can be used to oppose the Biblical story. Only the view that attempts to formulate the best understanding taking into account all of the data (and that admits where data is absent) is an attitude compatible with a scientific approach. (I’m avoiding here differences between historical study and hard science. My observation is that the data comes down on the side of the defenders sometimes and of the skeptics sometimes, which suggests to me that the Bible is neither 100% historical when talking about history, nor is it totally in error. Of course, any amount of error means not inerrant.)

    This takes me to the current mini-flap about an article Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents. Scientists quite properly laugh this out of scientific court. But why would ID advocates avoid it? The intelligent designer is not specified. ID is not supposed to be a religious concept. So what difference does it make if the designer is an alien, and unknown intelligence from the stars, an angel, a demon, or God Almighty?

    But that article has underlined the problem, because we clearly see that ID cannot distinguish between these various possibilities of a designer, because it is trying to demonstrate design in those little places where some external intelligence (rodents of unusual size, perhaps?) might tinker with life in an experimental lab. It’s precisely because they are not looking for design in the traditional sense that most Christians accept theologically, that this kind of thing cannot be excluded. Evangelical theologians would not be proposing angels and demons as agents of creation. But ID doesn’t really have a defense against it.

    And please, my fellow Christians, don’t laugh just because we’re talking angels and demons. If you believe in one invisible friend, who are you to laugh at more invisible friends and and some invisible enemies. I see nothing in Christian theology that suggests that we can’t have such agents involved. But again, the fact that ID can admit this shows that it is working much more like theology than science. It reminds me of a three year old foster child my parents took in when I was a teenager. Whenever something bad happened, she’d announce, “Somebody done it, but I didn’t done it!” ID has attained just that level of explanatory power. When all current explanations have failed, ID proposes that we announce: “Somebody done it!”

    Personally I don’t see much theological light in seeing demons interfering with nature. I’d have a serious practical problem if someone started suggesting exorcism as the proper response to Ebola, but then DD (demonic design) doesn’t suggest that the demons are actually in the virus, but rather that they adjusted it. I don’t tend to see “spiritual beings” as existing, but rather as more of a metaphor allowing us to use concrete language about spiritual issues. But then that’s my theology. Others will be more receptive to spiritual entities, many will be less so. That’s theology for you!

    And thus I see ID as badly done theology, because it does not fit itself into any theological system, including the one purportedly held by most of its advocates, and because it presents itself as though it was theologically demonstrating something it cannot. In my own Christian view of a creator God who is sovereign over all and designed everything, however small, including many processes that produce other things in predictable ways, it is also just plain bad theology. Your mileage may differ on how good the theology is, but it remains theology, nonetheless.

    But something else that shows up here is that it is also politics, because it shows a different face to different people. Many Christians right now are deceived into thinking that somehow these scientists who advocate ID have “proven” the existence of God and the presence of the creator. Because they believe this has been scientifically proven, they cannot see why it should not be taught as science in the classroom. Finally, they think, the existence of God has been made as certain as the principles that allow an airplane to fly! But ID has acomplished no such thing, and I would suggest that Christians should not rejoice if it had. The ID movement is perpetrating this deception as a political strategy. This makes it badly done theology used as a political strategy. The jury is still out on whether it’s an effective political strategy.

    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1, NRSV). Let’s not confuse that with science. If that type of faith embarrasses you, perhaps you should reconsider your faith choice.

  • The Danger in Uncritical Thinking

    Three posts today called my attention to the problem of uncritical thinking amongst Christians. This is a topic I bring up frequently. It’s not that I believe those who think critically will automatically agree with me. I’ve had to revise some of my own opinions after thinking critically about them at a later date. But some people seem to be sailing through the intellectual seas without any rudder at all.

    How long, gullible people, will you love being gullible?
    You scorners delight in scorn?
    And fools hate knowledge? — Proverbs 1:22

    Test everything!
    Hold onto what is good.
    Keep away from every form of evil. — 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
    (Translation by the author)

    It seems that many Christians change this latter verse into “Accept everything, as long as the authors make sufficiently pious pronouncements.” This morning the gullible seem to be out in force. Actually, they probably always are, but this morning they caught my attention, which gave me a chance to blog about two of my favorite Bible verses (the two I quoted above, in case you missed it).

    The first item I found via Dispatches from the Culture Wars via the post Catholic Art is Satanic. Ed Brayton’s post refers to an article over at WorldNetDaily titled ‘Satanic’ art in Catholic Church exposed: Documentary links clergy sex abuse with occult imagery. Sometimes “testing” doesn’t take very long. This one doesn’t pass the “snork test,” i.e. can you read it while drinking coffee and not have to clean your keyboard and monitor afterward. On the other hand, it illustrates a willingness amongst Christians to believe anything nasty about “those Catholics.” And just be aware that I did read the part about the authors being Catholic themselves, which is a good indication that often Catholics can be their own worst enemies. I bet this will be spread far and wide by non-Catholics looking for reasons why Catholics must not be real Christians.

    Then I browsed over to The Panda’s Thumb where Nick Matzke pointed to another really interesting case. Here Robert C. Newman, in an article titled Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents has now proposed a way to discover the activities not just of angels, but also of demonic agents in the world. What he seems to have failed to accomplish is to find any way to define just what it is that these agents do, or how one would scientifically determine the difference between a world in which angels and demons repeatedly made adjustments to creatures, and a world in which random mutations were selected for naturally. I do think that the folks in the intelligent design movement shouldn’t laugh at Newman’s work, however, since he has as much of a solid basis for it as they do for an “intelligent” design agent of undefined capabilities.

    Finally, thanks to Nick Matzke’s entry, I followed a trackback to Uncommon Descent (Dr. Bill Dembski’s blog), where DaveScot demonstrates elitism for us. His original comment suggested that Nick Matzke had finally found an opponent that would make him look well-versed in science. That was a cheap, and inaccruate shot in itself. But then he tries the “we’re more elite than you” form of argument by posting an update to add that Newman has a PhD from “(Ivy League) Cornell” and thus he offers his ” . . . abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.” Yes, he really did add “(Ivy League)” in parentheses before the word “Cornell” for those of us to ignorant to understand the true importance of someone with a PhD from an Ivy League school. Hmmm . . . let’s see. While he was at it, he referred to Nick Matzke’s school as “unremarkable” and to his field of geography as much more lightweight than that of chemistry or biology.

    I would suggest that it’s pretty silly for the person in the minority to try to make an argument based on the weight of degrees and on elitism. I find that generally a sign of intellectual vacuity in any case, and when one knows that one’s opponents are more numerous, with more prestigious degrees, and a much more substantial research and publication record, then it’s vacuity compounded by stupidity. Of course, he would like to think he’s merely attacking Nick Matzke, and perhaps is enjoying his cheap shot when he thinks he can get by with it. I would suggest instead working on some of that scientific research. Perhaps he can show us sometime how any amount of mathematical formulas will make garbage-in not result in garbage out.

    I would not claim the prestigious degrees of the majority as proof that they are right. I know that minorities can become majorities if they have a good case.

    (Oh, by the way, let me save you some time. I’m not a mathematician. My degrees are not in the natural sciences, not even in “lightweight” geography. I have not attained a PhD. My schools were not Ivy League, nor are they spoken of together with the University of Chicago. But my nonsense detector is in good shape.)

  • Biblical Doctrine of Creation

    In my pamphlet God the Creator I briefly answer the following question:

    What are some broad essentials of the Biblical doctrine of creation?

    In my answer I listed the following six points. I will list the points below and expand on them, below. But first, what am I trying to do here?

    One thing that Christians who accept evolution have often neglected to do is explain how our understanding of origins fits with the remainder of Christian doctrine. We may hold differing doctrines, we may hold variations on standard doctrines, or we may have our own understanding of how these elements of our belief fit in. Possibly because these explanations seem so obvious to us, we don’t take the time to explain the details. For example, for many Christians the idea of physical death prior to the fall (Genesis 3) is simply inconceivable. They’ve never entertained the thought. Old earth creationists, ruin and restoration creationists, and theistic evolutionists all share the belief that there was physical death before the fall, though ruin and restoration creationists believe such death came after the fall of Satan from heaven.

    In the next several entries I intend to talk doctrinally. My own doctrine of salvation and the fall is relatively orthodox (especially for me! :-)). I will discuss the Biblical evidence for these doctrines, and also relate the explanations of the various schools of thought as much as possible.

    (Bolded text is from the pamphlet. The remainder is my current brief commentary.)

    • God is the creator of everything (Genesis 1:1-2:4a, Psalm 104:24, Hebrews 1:2, Romans 11:33-36)

      God as an absentee landlord is not consistent with the Biblical view of God or of humanity. The Bible writers universally consider God to be continually present and active in the world he created. They also do not exempt anything from creation.An additional text on this topic is found in Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness, I make well being, and create disaster. I, YHWH, do all these things.” There has been some considerable debate about the translation of the word I have rendered “disaster.” It can also be rendered “evil.” But the point actually remains the same. In terms of the structure of the poetry here, God takes responsibility for the entire range of results in his creation. God is not afraid to take responsibility for his own work.
    • God creates by simple command so His word is certain (Psalm 33:6-9)

      This passage also reinforces the previous. All of everything was created by God, and he accomplishes his word by simple command. Many take this to mean that God cannot use mechanisms, that creation must occur instantaneously as the result of God’s command. This would, however, contradict Genesis 1 & 2 on the creation of humanity. In Genesis 1:26-27 God simply creates, as he does everything, by speaking, yet in Genesis 2:7, God forms man from the dust and then breathes life into him. The process differs in two descriptions of the same event.The key issues here is that God is absolutely in command. What exists, exists because God wills it and commands it. He can, as he does, command natural laws, and those continue to accomplish his will. Because God doesn’t need to be concerned with dividing his attention, he can be fully attentive to everything at once. One point here that a Christian evolutionist such as myself must deal with is that God was and is present in every moment of the process of evolution; we see the creator in his creation.
    • God put personal care into creation (Genesis 2:4b-25)Three major stories of creation tell different stories about God’s relationship to his creation. Genesis 1:1-2:4a tells the story of command and power; Genesis 2:4b-25 tells the story of personal involvement, and Psalm 104 tells the story of continuous care. This aspect of creation is easy for all of us to miss. We can get so involved in arguing God’s power or God’s method that we neglect to actually hear the main point of all these stories–how God relates to us.
    • Human beings were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), they were good (Genesis 1:31), and later they fell from that state (Genesis 3) This is a key element of the story for a Christian theistic evolutionist who believes in the atonement, as I do. Humanity must begin in moral innocence, have the opportunity to be in an obedient relationship to God, and then fall away from that state. This does not mean that they had to live in some sort of modern paradise, or a technologically advanced society. This state of moral innocence could occur with only the simplest of language and bone tools, for example. But an essential story of the Biblical story from the Christian perspective is humanity’s need for redemption and the sacrifice of Jesus in providing it.I’ll save my supporting arguments for their own entry when I’ll have time and space to deal with this key issue.
    • God created wisely (Psalm 104:24, Proverbs 8:22-31)The fourth creation story (Proverbs 8:22-31) connects to the third (Psalm 104) in claiming that God’s creation is wise. What this means is very interesting, but I think at a minimum it means that we can derive valuable information about God from what he has created, how he creates, and how he continues to create. God reveals himself in action.
    • God continuously cares for His creation (Psalm 104, Acts 17:26-29)Again, God didn’t start the machine and leave it running. The laws we observe are God’s will made manifest. That divine will is so consistent that it (the natural world) can be studied scientifically. Methodological naturalism is simply a stance on studying things in the best way available for their category of information.

    My next several entries in this series will deal with these elements one at a time.

  • Why not Intelligent Design?

    As reported in various newspapers and summarized on the Florida Citizens for Science web site, (Textbook Debate Still Evolving, Letter to Brevard County School Board, and Textbooks Changed under Pressure) a school board member in Brevard County wants to adopt a science textbook including two paragraphs about intelligent design. I find the introduction of these two little paragraphs into the curriculum of a public school disturbing. (Please read the articles linked, or some of my discussion will not make sense.)
    Now some will (and some have) asked, why I should feel this way. After all, I’m a Bible teacher and an advocate for increased Bible study, though not at government expense. I’m an advocate of prayer, though not state sponsored prayer. I believe that the universe is designed. So what’s my problem?

    Well, I have several problems. Primarily, though, we are talking about a science textbook, and what is introduced here is not science. The contents of science textbooks should be material that has gone through the processes of science–proposal, study through the scientific method, publication after peer review, criticism by others qualified to do the criticism, and then normally after some time of discussion, acceptance as part of the body of science.

    These paragraphs do not represent any of that. They are there because people who could not get them accepted by active scientists, experts in the relevant fields, and so chose instead the process of public relations and political pressure. They abandoned the idea of seeking facts–accurate data–and instead sought popularity. They abandoned the idea of truth, and instead sought political force. What really gets on my nerves is that these are, in general, my fellow Christians. We supposedly share a commitment to openness and honesty. Most importantly, we should share a commitment to truth and to an individual’s freedom to test it, choose it, and express it.

    Now they sell this all as an issue of free speech. Shouldn’t we allow all sides of the topic to be discussed in public schools? But that is not quite the point. The marketplace of ideas is definitely open to them. They can, and do, express this in many venues. But free speech does not imply that all speech is equal in all settings. If I write a devotional article and submit it to Scientific American, just as an example, I could hardly expect them to welcome it and publish it. That wouldn’t be because they hate religion, but because that isn’t the sort of thing they publish. My freedom to write didn’t impose upon them a duty to publish, and more importantly, it didn’t impose on them a duty to accept what I say.

    The problem clearly isn’t free speech. There are ample opportunities for our children to hear these ideas. They can find them in books and they could hear them in Sunday Schools. It’s not the fault of our public education system that people don’t make adequate use of the available facilities. Since I do not accept the validity of intelligent design theory, I would oppose it–not the expression, but the viewpoint–in church settings or religious studies classrooms. But that, at least, would be the correct venue in which it should be discussed. Nobody is cutting off anyone’s free speech here. If they were, we would hear much less about all this.

    The problem is that government authorities are refusing a state platform for them. That is their real complaint. They don’t want free speech; they want a forced audience, and the forced audience that they want is our children. Don’t let anyone convince you that adding ID theory to the classroom is a matter of free speech. It is not.

    So what about evolutionary theory taught in the classroom? I could argue the evidence for evolution, but that is not the key issue here. The key issue is that evolutionary theory has gone through the process. It has made itself open to testing and refutation. The scientists who support it have proposed and done the experiments. They have had their ideas tested now for a century and a half. Evolutionary theory is science. So is the theory of gravity, of relativity, and many of the ideas of quantum theory. Each of these is equally subject to question, and each may, in the future, be revised or replaced by something that more precisely represents the data available.

    That is what we need to teach our children in science class. Science. There is little enough time to teach real science. That is one good reason to limit what we teach to consensus science–what is agreed upon by the experts as working science. But there is a better reason. In basic education about science, we need to provide science with integrity. Not all ideas are equal, and we will, no matter what, choose some to present to our students as part of the science curriculum in middle and high school, while some will be left out. We need to make sure that what we present represents the scientific method at its best.

    The theory of evolution does that. The very element that anti-evolutionists (not creationists–I believe in God the creator and I also accept evolution), use the most in attacking evolution is one of the strongest reasons why it should be part of the curriculum: Elements of the theory are being challenged and tested on a daily basis. There is effectively no scientific disagreement on the outlines, but in the details there is an abundance of excellent science being done. The debates that anti-evolutionists cite as a weakness in fact demonstrate the great strength of evolutionary theory as science.

    If we allow a couple of paragraphs like this to enter into our science textbooks we have also opened the door to another disaster for knowledge and free exchange of ideas. We will have allowed popularity to determine the truth value of an idea or theory. I would think that my Christian brethren who have taken this position would consider the nature of their argument. Looking at polls and depending on popularity to win a debate about ideas is monstrously wrong, and should frighten any Christian. We know from our history what it is like to be in the minority, arguing for a viewpoint that we believe to be true, but is not accepted by those around us. We should treasure the free exchange of ideas. We should treasure the filter that we have in deciding the curriculum of our public (state supported) schools. When we instead try to have truth determined by popularity, we are stepping into very dangerous territory. It seems that being in the popular majority, in a country primarily of Christians, has made some of us intellectually and spiritually lazy.

    Finally, I do want to add a brief note on my theological problems with ID. These issues are not the ones that should be involved in the textbook controversy. The issues there are and should be scientific. But ID proponents are claiming the support of a broad range of people who believe in God, even theistic evolutionists. We get included when it’s convenient and excluded when our ideas are distasteful.

    I reject Intelligent Design because I believe the universe was designed by God. ID is mislabeled. It should be theistic. Further, it doesn’t prove what Christians want it to prove and what many think it proves. It proves only a level of divine intervention, not the absolute primacy of God the creator. I believe that God operates through natural processes, but I also believe God always operates everywhere. Because of that, intelligent design theory is anathema to me theologically. It’s not just God in the gaps; it is God reduced to a convenient size to be studied in a lab. I’m not surprised at the limited success ID advocates have had in producing new science. God woudn’t fit in their labs, so whatever they are studying is likely something else.