Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Some Creation-Evolution Reading

    I have been writing for a number of entries about Christian views on origins. Since in some of these entries I was describing someone else’s view, I thought it would be a good idea to call attention to some good reading from advocates of each of the views. For more detail see Energion.com Classified Directory Page – Creation vs Evolution.

    What I’m interested in in selecting this material is those resources that are accessible to a non-expert who is a serious student, that they are clear and generally complete, and that they represent their own position and that of others honestly. In this debate there’s a great deal of misrepresentation that takes place. This falls into two categories, with those in the young and even old earth creationist camps tending to question the sincerity of their opponent’s beliefs, and making what I would regard as spiritual judgments of them. This can even occur between young earth and old earth advocates. Belief in evolution is equated with atheism, and it doesn’t matter how much one confesses to belief in God, in Jesus, and other key doctrines, disagreement on this one topic is considered sufficient to effectively exclude one from Christianity entirely. On the other hand, there is a tendency by advocates of evolution to regard all opponents, young earth, old earth, and intelligent design, as either stupid or deranged.

    I prefer those materials from creationists that do not pass spiritual judgment on evolutionists. Those materials are few and far between. I think it is appropriate for creationists to question my doctrinal views, for example. I don’t believe in inerrancy, and it is quite valid to point this out and relate it to my approach to understanding scripture. But don’t call me an atheist, not because it’s an insult (in my view it isn’t), but because it’s simply not true. So I have no problem with literature that is doctrinally hard-hitting.

    From the other side I believe that false claims of credentials, misuse of credentials, and misrepresentation of opponents’ arguments are definitely fair game. But even if one regards certain arguments as stupid or ignorant, the people themselves may be quite intelligent and quite skilled in their own field.

    Obviously, I have no power or authority to enforce such standards, but I do my best to point out where material I reference follows them and where it does not.

    One general resource to look into is the book Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Note that I have not read this book, but I have read items by all of the authors, and I believe they represent their own position well.

    Young Earth Creationism

    Probably the major web resource on this topic is the Institute for Creation Research. In addition, if you read just one book on this topic, I recommend Faith, Form and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise (link is to my review). The reason I recommend this book is that its author has impeccable credentials, and spends most of his time on the data and very little time making negative remarks about his opponents’ character. The ICR material is more typical of the way this issue is often debated.

    Old Earth Creationism

    On the web, the key site here is Reasons to Believe, Dr. Hugh Ross’s ministry. Many people involved in the creation-evolution debate are actually old earth creationists, though young earth creationists tend sometimes to dismiss them. For information on old earth creationism, works by Dr. Hugh Ross (from the scientific perspective) or Gleason Archer (Biblical scholar) are generally good. Ross’s book A Matter of Days is a good place to start.

    Ruin and Restoration Creationism

    This is one of the hardest views to get substantial information about. A good overview is The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse.

    Theistic Evolution

    Here your best online resource is the material from the American Scientific Affiliation. I recommend two books as must read information, Finding Darwin’s God by Dr. Kenneth Miller, and The Fourth Day by Howard van Till.

    Intelligent Design

    If you are unacquainted with this area, probably start with Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe. It’s still kind of the starting point, especially for those of us who are not professional scientists.

    Atheistic Evolution

    There are those who might believe I don’t recognize this category, and in one way I don’t. I think that science done by a Christian believer and science done by an atheist should produce the same results, because both study the natural world. Disagreement centers on what else there may be. An excellent summary of the atheistic position is Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker. I found the book tremendously helpful in spite of the kind of gratuitous insults to my own position. Dawkins would probably prefer the debate to be entirely between atheistic evolution and young earth creationism. He might as well get used to disappointment. I’m even going to go right on buying and enjoying his books. So there! 🙂

    General Information

    For general information on evolution, I recommend Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. I’m definitely not an expert, and not even a well-informed amateur when it comes to biology, so this book was very hard reading for me. I read it with a dictionary within arm’s reach, and I had to go to the encyclopedia several times and also do a couple of web searches to learn about species that Mayr references as examples without any comment. But the experience was entirely worth the effort. This isn’t a book of polemics. It simply explains how evolution works and the basic evidence for it.

    Note

    When I continue this series I’m going to go into the key elements of a Christian doctrine of creation and relate them to these various views. I outline what I believe these elements are in the Participatory Study Series pamphlet God the Creator.

  • Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11

    Now that I’ve given admittedly brief summaries of the major views on origins held by Christians, I’d like to summarize all these views and how those who hold them understand the first 11 chapters of Genesis, element by element. But first, just in case you’re just joining this topic, let me link to the prior entries:

    In addition, I present an overall summary in my pamphlet God the Creator, from the Participatory Study Series.

    In the following table I will present the key elements of the story of the first chapters of Genesis and then briefly discuss how each of the views treats that element of the story. The elements include passages and ideas. Briefly, here is the list:

    1. The starting point
    2. The days of Genesis 1
    3. The narrative of Genesis 1
    4. The creation of human beings
    5. The fall
    6. Genealogies of chapters 5 & 11
    7. The flood
    8. The Tower of Babel

    I want to make sure it is very clear that in a summary table like this, and even in the expanded discussions presented in my previous entries, it is impossible to represent all the variants in each of these general views. The best way to understand a viewpoint in more detail is to read something written by an advocate of that view.

    YEC OEC RRC TE
    Starting point Describes the creation of the universe Describes the creation of the universe Describes a recreation Describes creation within the ancient understanding of cosmology
    Days Each day is a literal 24 hour period Each day represents a long period of time Each day is a literal 24 hour period The days are part of a formal structure presenting the figurative story
    Narrative The narrative is an accurate, chronological narrative of events on each day The narrative is a general, simplified description of events over a period of time The narrative is an accurate, chronological narrative of events on each day The narrative is a figurative description of God’s relationship to the creation process
    First Human God literally formed the first man of the dust of the ground Forming from the dust may be figurative, but God directly intervened in the creation of human beings God literally formed the man, Adam from the dust, but that might not be the first human/humanlike creature Forming man from dust indicates a personal care and relationship to God, and long-term relationship to the earth; God uses normal evolutionary processes in forming the first human being
    The Fall God used a literal tree as a test of obedience. The first couple ate from it. The tree may be literal or it may figuratively represent some other test of obedience God used a literal tree as a test of obedience. The first couple ate from it. The fall, or eating from the tree, figuratively states a change in a close, but simple relationship to God into a spiritual separation
    Note: There are significant variations in each of the camp concerning the fall and precisely how literally each element is to be taken. Some young earth creationists see symbolism in the story of the fall; old earth creationists can take it quite literally.
    Genealogies The genealogies are literal and complete, including all patriarchal ages The genealogies are (probably) literal, but definitely incomplete The genealogies are literal. Whether they are complete or not is a matter for disagreement The genealogies and neither literal nor complete, though it’s possible some of the individuals named are historical.
    Flood The flood is literal and universal The flood is literal, but is local, though widespread The flood may be either local or universal, but is literal The flood was local, and may simply be based on the memories of many large floods experienced by early humanity
    Tower of Babel The Tower of Babel story is literally true, and explains why languages are different The Tower of Babel is literally true, though may be dated much before the time proposed by the young earth advocates The Tower of Babel story is literally true, and explains why languages are different The Tower of Babel story represents the social interaction between those establishing towns and cities and those continuing a nomadic existence; the evolution of language is much more complex.

  • The Bible and Theistic Evolution

    Previously I’ve discussed young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and ruin and restoration creationism.  That brings us to theistic evolution, or I could say theistic evolutionary creationism.

    Though theistic evolutionists may have varying beliefs regard to the nature of God, in general, they see God as the source of all existence in one way or another.  Evolution is simply a process which diversifies life in the universe, as much a product of God’s activity as any other natural process such as gravity or a chemical reaction.  In Christianity, theistic evolutionists can be found in most of the major theological streams.  There are people who believe in Biblical inerrancy and nonetheless are theistic evolutionists.

    Also, there is generally no difference between the scientific understanding of theistic and non-theistic evolutionists.  They will generally see very different philosophical frameworks for the events that they study, but the events themselves, and the properly scientific framework for them are the same.  In terms of science, all three of the other views I have discussed involved some debate over what may be regarded as natural processes, and some expectation of an identifiable intervention by God in the natural world.  While a theistic evolutionist can believe that God can intervene (I do, for example), in general he or she will not regard such intervention as a proper subject for scientific study, because it will not be repeatable.

    To the Biblical literalist, there is nothing about theistic evolution that would commend itself.  It is not compatible with a literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.  This is one area of debate that can become unnecessarily heated.  When a literalist tells a non-literalist that he is “abandoning the Bible” in accepting evolution, what he really means is that the evolutionist is abandoning a literal reading of the Bible.  For many Biblical literalists, the literal reading is the only possible one, and thus the two are equivalent, but it is important to note that for many, many Biblical scholars, there is no such bias.

    Old earth creationists read Genesis less literally than do young earth creationists.  In particular, they interpret the days of Genesis 1 as symbolic of substantially longer time periods, and take the descriptions of the individual days as much more general looks at what happened over that period of time.  While this approach does not take the passages literally, it does take them as historical in some sense.  The old earth creationist does not take the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 as complete literal history, but they do take the individuals as historical people, and simply assume that there are significant gaps in the lists.

    For the theistic evolutionist, Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken literally at all.  There may be historical events behind some of the stories, but the purpose of those chapters is not to convey literal history.  What they do is present God’s activity and his relationship to the universe in terms that would have been comprehensible to the people who first heard and then read them.  It may be possible that people described in the genealogies were historical people, but that is not the primary question.  The line of connections drawn between the first human being and Abraham, and then from Abraham to the chosen people is the key factor, irrespective of historical details.

    This understanding is anathema to Biblical literalists, and makes many Biblical moderates uncomfortable, but it is really an application of a very sound Biblical principle:  Take what is intended literally as literal and what is intended figuratively as figurative.  In this case, one needs to look at the principles, i.e. the message that was encapsulated in these stories that goes beyond the common background material.  If one studies the cosmology of the ancient near east and the literature written about it, one will find that it is very compatible with the language of the Bible.  The stories and the events are substantially different, because the Bible is teaching monotheism, and the one God it teaches is very different from the pagan gods.  But the Bible does not try to change the basic idea of the earth that is round like a dinner plate, floating on the sea beneath with the vault of heaven stretched above it.  (See my articles Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship, The Two Genesis Flood Stories, and Psalm 104:  God, Creator and Sustainer.

    Understanding the part of the message that is timeless is really quite simple.  Remove the common elements, and what is newly introduced is the important part, or more precisely they constitute the message that God intends to convey.  This is why one can truly believe in Biblical inerrancy (I don’t, read my statement), and yet accept this figurative view, because according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, what must be understood to be inerrant is the message that the Bible intends to convey, and also allows that the message can be presented through the cultural background of those who write.

    A Christian theistic evolutionist (and theistic evolutionists are by no means all Christians) does not seek scientific knowledge in the Bible.  He will seek God’s message and an understanding of how God works with people and interacts with the created universe in a spiritual sense.

    This rather extreme difference in the way the camps understand the scriptures is one of the elements that makes creation-evolution debates so very heated.  To a convinced young earth creationist, even an old earth creationist has stepped outside of the scriptural foundations of the faith.  It is not just a matter of disagreement on a minor point of doctrine.  It is a fundamental difference in the foundation of the faith.

    But if the various members of the camps would recognize just where the disagreement lies, that it is in how they understand scripture, it might be easier at least to debate the same thing.  For those who regard the Bible as authoritative, the difference between the camps can be as simple as the answer to the two questions:  1)  Must I always take the Bible literally, and 2) How can I tell?

     

  • Ruin and Restoration Creationism

    In two previous entries I’ve discussed young earth creationism and old earth creationism. Continuing with this series on how various groups of Christians understand origins, I will now discuss the ruin and restoration theory.

    I have previously mentioned this theory in the pmaphlet God the Creator and in my review of the book The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse. I discuss some of the translation issues involved in my translation and notes on the creation story.

    The ruin and restoration theory holds that the current creation is one of a series. Most advocates would hold that there was one creation, then a destruction, and then recreation, though some allow there may be a number that we don’t know about. The key basis for this doctrine is a translation of one word in Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew word which practically all translations render “was.” The Hebrew word here is “hayah” which is the perfect (suffix) form of the Hebrew verb “hayah” which means “happen,” “become,” or “was” in most cases. Advocates of the ruin and restoration theory argue that it should be translated “became” here rather than “was” and they point to the huge number of cases in which this verb is translated in that way throughout the Bible. The difficulty with this argument is that it ignores the syntax of the passage. The vast majority of the uses of this verb are also used with a different syntax. If one limits one’s study to those uses in which the syntax is similar to what it is in this verse, the statistics look much different.

    Advocates of this view also bring Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 as descriptions of the destroyed world. Such interpretations ignore the use of figurative language. Advocates of this view take these particular verses very literally. Both are part of an existing prophetic oracle with a very specific application at a time that is now past, but easily identifiable. An interpreter would need to establish a strong contextual basis for applying these verses to a different time than is clearly the referrent of the passage of which they are part.

    What are the advantages of this view? Basically one can hold that the earth is old, which eliminates some of the clearest difficulties of the young earth view. Like old earth creation and theistic evolution, this view also allows for death prior to the creation story. In fact, it allows pretty complete destruction of life on the planet prior to the current creation. At the same time, advocates can take Genesis 1-3 absolutely literally, as long as the one translation change in Genesis 1:2 is allowed.

    The disadvantages include the need to explain the recent date of the flood as determined from the genealogies of Genesis 1 & 11. One either has to assume gaps in these genealogies as do old earth creationists, in which case one may be accused of not constructing the text strictly enough, or one must deal with all of the archeological problems that a late date (24th century BCE) for the flood produces. In addition, the interpretation required for the texts in Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 are very difficult to sustain.

    This position is largely held by those who accept dispensationalism as a system of interpretation. It is a minority position, but is nonetheless held by a substantial number of Christians, and should be given considerations.

  • Rev. Creech Rebukes Clergy Letter Signers

    Agape press (associated with the American Family Association) has now attacked the , which produce the Clergy Letter signed by more than 10,000 clergy. Starting with their news story Pro-Evolution Clergy Sign Letter Affirming Faith in Darwin’s Theory, in which the headline is inaccurate, and continuing with an opinion piece by Rev. Mark Leech entitled Rebuking the ‘Clergy Letter Project’, in which the author manages to severely misrepresent the issues involved.

    Now this attack is not at all surprising. It’s what one would expect the AFA to do. Further, I don’t have a problem with AFA advocating their own position. But these articles are much more an attack on other peoples’ positions, specifically of those Christians who do accept the theory of evolution, and it’s not a very good one.

    Let’s look briefly at the two quotes used in the article. First, Theodosius Dobzhansky is quoted talking about the inappropriate standards of evidence which creationists request in their challenges to evolution. The quote is characterized as an admission. But it is important to note that Dobzhansky is not “admitting” anything. He is simply stating the facts of the case. In a theory that involves historical data, the standards of evidence are different, and appropriately so. I have heard creationist speaker’s ask for all steps of evolution between two very distant species, i.e. a fossil for every single physical stage, which would mean many thousands of very specific fossils. This request is ridiculous, and I think those who make the request know that it is. No theory of creation could meet the request either, and no theory with an historical element could manage it.

    Dobzhansky is merely stating a fact that should be obvious to anyone with any understanding of the field at all. (As an aside, a theory is never proven; it is always subject to review and could be invalidated by any new discovery. For example, the recent find of a water mammal from the jurassic requires adjustment of portions of the history of life on our planet, but no basic restructuring of the theory of evolution as such. Creationists tend to use such finds as evidence against the theory of evolution, but they are, in fact, some of the best evidence that the scientific method is working in studying the historical aspects of the theory.

    Despite this debate over the evidence required for historical reconstruction, there are many aspects of the theory of evolution that are subject to laboratory testing. A theory by nature integrates a variety of data, and not all are necessarily subject to the same type of testing. In general, a theory would not be “proven” by any single experiment. The experimental data would be collected, and individually would either be in accord with the theory’s predictions or not. If they are not in accord with the theory’s predictions, then the theory needs to be updated.

    When creationists use this type of argument they merely use the scientific illiteracy of a substantial portion of the public to manipulate them by pretending that routine facts are surprising revelations. This is an excellent reason for improved scientific education in this country. It is also one reason why many creationists attack the public school by attempting to water down teaching of evolutionary theory. If the public understood the nature of a scientific theory and the standards of evidence involved, this type of attack would not work.

    (To look at the other quote, from L. Harrison Matthews, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html.)

    But what I find even more objectionable in this article is the attack on the faith and commitment of those Christians who accept evolution. Creech says, “Moreover, to doubt a literal interpretation of the creation account is to undermine everything taught in the Bible.” That is an incredibly stupid statement. There is no doubt introduced by believing a portion of the Bible is one type of literature or another. The question is what type of literature it actually is. In fact, someone who demands that one take a figurative passage literally is simply setting up Bible students to lose their faith when they discover that the literal interpretation makes the passage false. (See my comments in my previous entry, The Bible and Young Earth.)

    Further Creech then blames a lack of commitment to God on this failure to read Genesis 1 literally. This is a false accusation, and Creech should be deeply ashamed of this sort of tactic. He can’t argue from the literary nature of the text itself, so he resorts to this sort of ad hominem.

    Just for the record, I accept the theory of evolution. At the same time I believe that God is constantly and actively present in the universe. Not only my next breath, but every movement of every subatomic particle occurs because God sustains the universe. If God chooses to use evolution to diversify life here–and the evidence is that he has–that’s up to him. If he chooses to represent creation in the Bible with something other than a literal historical narrative, he can do that as well.

    And this doesn’t prevent me from being an active Christian. My faith comes first. That’s why I’m a Bible teacher. That’s why I lead seminars on prayer and encourage people to dedicate more time to their faith and to daily time with God. My understanding of the facts of evolution doesn’t prevent any of this. In fact, my study of nature increases my faith in God and my awe of his creative power.

  • More on Communicating Science

    Carl Zimmer has more on The Loom about communication and evolution, with an interview with Randy Olson, director of the movie A Flock of Dodos. I believe he has some good suggestions about communication, but I also believe we are still missing the largest issue. I don’t think that a nation that is addicted to information that is presented quickly, and requires little effort to comprehend is going to be able to understand the issues involved in science. That would be OK if people without any understanding of the issues were not trying to make decisions about it.

    PZ Meyers has already made some good notes over on Pharyngula.

    Those whose primary role is to communicate with the public should look at the suggestions here. But again, I don’t believe that those involved in scientific research and even in classroom teaching (beyond a few basic courses that are almost identical to the popular media) should have to be concerned about these types of things. They should take notice, however, of the fact that they are not well qualified to communicate with the general public. A number of scientists have gone out to debate with creationists who should have stayed in their labs.

    But that is not the primary problem with this debate. I believe that the primary problem is that we have an issue that can be expressed well by one-liners on one side, but requires serious study on the other. It is much easier to understand that “God did it and we don’t know how” than it is to deal with biological issues. Even at the gross amateur level (which is where I am), evolution is simply more complicated than creationism. Creationists will tend to win debates for this one reason alone.

    There is indeed a need for some good publicity work. There are major public misunderstandings that can be dealt with through some good publicity. Projects such as the Clergy Letter and Evolution Sunday help let people know that this is not an issue that divides between people of faith and the “infidels” (however defined), but rather that people of faith are involved in large numbers on the evolutionary side.

    I’m afraid that I sense a certain condescension from the media savvy communicators. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that scientists are principally gifted at dealing with complex scientific information. And just to keep beating my regular drum–solid education is what we need.

  • The Bible and Old Earth

    Old earth creationists differ from young earth creationists primarily on the age of the earth. There is good reason for this. The evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old is overwhelming. While there may be debates on speciation and on many details of biological evolution, lines of evidence from many different branches of science converge to demonstrate that the earth is old.

    But the change in the age of the earth is not so simple. It has an impact on many other aspects of how the Genesis account is to be read.

    First let me distinguish old earth creationism from another view, ruin and restoration, which also accepts the general evidence for the age of the earth. I’ll discuss ruin and restoration in a separate entry, but old earth creationism views the days of creation as long periods of time, culminating in the creation of human beings. Ruin and restoration, on the other hand, still takes Genesis 1-11 literally, but sees this as a recreation. The earth itself is much older, but the earth was restored, and and Adam and Eve were created only 6,000 years ago.

    Further, it’s important to understand the difference between the “young” and “old” in terms of the age of the earth. Young earth creationists suggest 6-10 thousand years. Old earth creationists accept the age generally accepted in scientific circles, 4.5 billion years. Taking the most common time frame of 6,000 years, which is about 1/750,000th the time. Often young earth creationists point to errors in various dating method as evidence that the earth really could be young, but it is important to note that these errors are generally very small compared to the difference between the two time lines.

    The key elements of the old earth creationist view are:

    1. Each day in Genesis 1 represents an indefinite period of time
    2. God was active in creation throughout that time
    3. Though there may be considerable variation, and thus evolution, within groups of creatures, major groups are products of creation
    4. As a corollary to this, physical death does occur before the fall, i.e. creatures created on the fifth and sixth days would die
    5. Humanity is a special creation of God
    6. The fall changed humanity’s spiritual nature, but was not responsible for introducing physical death into the environment

    In my previous entry, Young Earth and the Bible, I mentioned three points regarding the Bible that are accepted by young earth creationists. If one accepts these three points, one must accept a young earth. Old earth creationists hold a modified view of the first and third of these points. They believe that one must determine whether something in the Bible is to be taken literally starting from a neutral position. Gleason Archer, for example, indicates that it is equally wrong to take something figurative literally as it would be to take something figuratively taht was intended literally. In his words, “We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.” (From The Witness of the Bible to its Own Inerrancy, quoted from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html.)

    Archer is, of course, no liberal, and in fact is one of the major advocates of inerrancy. The issue here is not the authority or accuracy of the Bible, but rather about what the Bible is actually saying. Thus when young earth creationists criticize old earthers for abandoning the Bible, in fact the problem is that the old earthers have abandoned the young earthers’ view of the Bible.

    This difference extends to the third point, in that old earth creationists don’t view the Genesis story as narrative history. They do, however, view it as containing and assuming certain history. They will provide explanations for the time taken when Adam names the creatures, and also look at how the earth existed under the conditions described in each of the creation days. In other words, while it is not a simple narrative, the Genesis narrative does describe natural history in figurative language.

    Most importantly, old earth creationists generally accept the second point, that when the Bible speaks about science it does have priority. They would simply maintain that the Bible makes less statements, and less precise statements, about science.

    While old earth creationists generally believe that physical death occurred prior to the fall, they do see the fall of humanity (Genesis 3) as an incident in historical time. Humanity chose to disobey and as a result was separated from God, and made subject to mortality.

    Finally, old earth creationists generally hold that the flood (Genesis 6-9) was a local event, not a global one. With the geological record explained by an old earth, there would be little room in the evidence for a worldwide flood.

    My next entry will be on the ruin and restoration theory.

    (For more information at an outline level, see God the Creator, The Two Flood Stories, and Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)

  • Who Needs to Change?

    Carl Zimmer, on The Loom, writes about A Flock of Dodos, and comments on scientists who are portrayed in the movie as “inarticulate and high-handed.” Zimmer expands on this topic in a very balanced way, I think, but I question what is expected of scientists in terms of public relations.

    I know well from my own field that those who do the best work in their field are often not the best people to present it to the uneducated. If you expect all scientists to learn to speak publicly like Kenneth Miller, then many of them are going to have to take time away from research and from teaching other people to be good scientists.

    I know I harp on this topic, but the bottom line here has to be education, especially science education, starting from elementary school. Most people, and most politicians claim that education is our priority in this country, but the actual state of education doesn’t reflect a high priority. Scientists would be able to communicate scientific ideas much more easily if the public was conversant with basic scientific concepts.

    Of course, in a democracy, we need to educate the public in order to get the funding and the standards for the needed education, but that is a task for all of us, not just those in the scientific disciplines. I certainly hope this task can be accomplished.

    (See my previous essay, Make Education a Priority.)

  • Young Earth and the Bible

    Note: I’m going to be running two series here in parallel over the next few weeks, one on the methods of Biblical criticism and how a layperson can apply them, and the other on views of God as the creator.

    I’m pretty well known to be a theistic evolutionist, but at the same time, I have said argued that this is just one way of viewing the Biblical and the scientific evidence on origins. Others include old earth creationism, the ruin and restoration theory, and of course young earth (or young age) creationism. I believe that intelligent people hold all of these different positions. That doesn’t mean that I think they are all equally well supported by the evidence, either Biblical or scientific. Thus I will respond with vigor to the arguments of positions with which I disagree, but that doesn’t mean I think the people who advance them are stupid.

    Before I get into today’s topic let me look at a little bit of terminology regarding young earth creationist. A person who accepts all three elements listed below will almost always also accept a young earth and stick with that position. Since I’m summarizing, let me also recommend reading the presentation of these elements by Dr. Kurt Wise in Faith, Form, and Time, Section 1, pages 3-39. I strongly recommend Dr. Wise’s book as the one book to read on young earth creationism–if you’re only going to read one, make it this one. [edited 1/8/2008 for clarity.]

    The elements are these:

    1. The Bible is to be taken literally where possible (this is a very common conservative position, though not all conservative Biblical scholars adopt it. Gleason Archer, to whom I will refer in my discussion of old earth creationism, is a strong advocate of inerrancy and takes a quite different approach here. A good example of a scholar who holds this position is Tim LaHaye, who in his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, chapter 11, page 159, makes it his first rule of hermeneutics.)
    2. The Bible is the decisive source of knowledge whenever it comments on a topic, including science
    3. The obvious literary form of the Genesis prehistory is narrative history

    Note that those are my restatements of the issue, and not quoted from any particular source. Accept those three things and you will be (or become as you study the Bible) a young earth creationist. Reject them, and you have many other options, but you are unlikely to accept a 6,000 year old earth created in one literal week. There are those who believe in young earth creationism who will not accept what I have stated here, and will argue that there is good scientific support for their position. But I believe I am being fair, and that the issue does primarily depend on one’s theological position with regard to the Bible. Young earth creationists have criticisms of evolution, but the only thing that ties the position together is the Biblical material. I think they should be open about that.

    Now let’s look at the basic evidence, taken literally.

    1. The Bible says the earth was created in one week.
      Taken literally and as narrative history, this one is pretty clear. If one has a bias in favor of the literal reading, then this one will be easy. Other creation stories, such as Psalm 104, will be read as more general descriptions and the “history” label will be granted to Genesis 1 & 2. Between Genesis 1 & 2, priority will be given to reconciliation of the accounts
    2. The Bible provides genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 that provide complete chronological data. Again, assuming both literal and narrative history, these genealogies provide a very specific answer to questions about the age of the earth. Those YEC advocates who allow up to 10,000 years rather than sticking with 6,000 years depart slightly from the basic interpretive approach by allowing gaps in genealogies that have each person’s age at their first son’s birth specified, and the number of years they lived after that.
    3. The Bible again provides a narrative of the flood. I find it odd that some young earth creationists try to develop their model with the flood and related geology separated. If there was a worldwide flood, if the Genesis narrative describes it essentially as history, then it should become an integral part of the theory
    4. No matter what sort of mass of evidence that archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, and others gather showing that there are major problems with this chronology, this clear reading of the Biblical record must be decisive.

    I would suggest that in discussing this issue, those who disagree should start with where they stand on the three issues I listed, and discuss those first. As a theistic evolutionist, I reject all three of the premises, and I will discuss that in a later entry on theistic evolution. But young earth creationists should be criticized for inconsistency only when they depart from these principles, or when they claim scientific support that they don’t possess (a considerable area for discussion!).

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.