Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Creation and Evolution

  • Dr. James White Declares me (among others) Evil

    No, he presumably doesn’t know who I am, and didn’t mention me by name. But I voted for Barack Obama on Tuesday, and I also voted against Florida’s amendment banning gay marriage. I am a Christian, a Bible teacher who normally spends hours daily studying the scriptures.

    I found this video by Dr. James White via Tim Ricchuiti. While I have always appreciated Dr. White’s defense of modern Bible translations in King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, I have also been well aware that we differ on many things. The most important of these things are contained in this video.

    Tim has already made some very good points, though I would quibble on the matter of defining Christianity. An apologist, which is Dr. White’s vocation, must define Christianity in some way, else just what will he defend? You cannot defend that which is not defined.

    The fundamental difference then is one of definition. I define “Christian” differently than does Dr. White. This is no surprise. The important thing is that it simply makes his accusation that certain people aren’t Christians, or that they are vile heretics of no importance whatsoever, unless one is trying to do some ministry in conjunction with Dr. White’s ministry or to work together with him.

    The important thing is just how well he supports that definition. One of the critical errors (not doctrinal, but logical) in the video is the claim that words have some meaning given to them by a transcendent God. Sorry, but no. Not so. Words gain their meaning from usage, as someone who has commented at such length on translation should know from experience.

    In this case, since Dr. White doesn’t define Christian precisely in his video–OK, it’s only 18 minutes so what do I expect?–we must take the definition implied from his usage. In that case, we must assume that a real Christian:

    1. Does not base theology on race
    2. Opposes same sex marriage even in the civil sphere
    3. Not only is against abortion, but must believe that the law is the best way to put a stop to it.
    4. Believes that people who disagree on these points are evil.

    I would say that I’m on the weakest ground on the fourth point, though it seems to me that he is making that part of the implied definition. The reason for this is that he challenges the Christian faith of people who disagree on any of those points. Again, I don’t challenge his right to have a definition of Christianity–I challenge the usefulness of this definition.

    It’s interesting that besides defining people who don’t agree on these points as non-Christian, he also declares them evil, evil which must be confronted. Having just been studying Romans 1, and especially verse 32, I’m guessing those who don’t confront these things as evil are also to be regarded as evil.

    How would I define Christianity? First, in conversation, I simply accept one’s self definition. If you say you’re a Christian, I’m going to go with it for purposes of discussion. That’s just a convenience. I don’t regard the label “Christian” as all that important. Go ahead and define it how you like. The issue is whether you are a follower of Jesus or not, and while I will list characteristics and discuss discipleship, the ultimate judge of that will be Jesus.

    But if I go a step further and use the term “orthodox Christianity” or perhaps the basis on which I would call myself a Christian it is this: I say the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed without my fingers crossed. So if someone believes in the incarnation, in the doctrine of the trinity, in the resurrection, and the final judgment of God, that sounds very Christian to me. Please note again that I’m not trying to tell you who gets to use a label. I’m simply saying how I use the label of myself. Were I to begin to need crossed fingers in reciting those creeds, I would cease calling myself Christian.

    If I share my Christian faith with others, those are the elements I’m likely to tell them about, and those are thing things I will tell them define me as a Christian.

    Thus the following statement from the TUCC web site means that I accept TUCC as Christian:

    The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.

    Now let me note a few points of disagreement other than the obvious ones with Dr. White’s video. He refers to it possibly not being God’s will that someone be brought to repentance. Of course this is a major Calvinist-Arminian divide, and I fall to the Arminian side. He criticizes the emerging church in terms that I would find quite unacceptable.

    Further, he takes the stance that a belief in evolution is at the foundation of all this evil, misunderstanding evolution as necessarily atheistic and as stealing the dignity of humanity. I’m guessing this is another part of his definition of “Christian” but I’ll leave that out for now. The creation-evolution controversy can be found in many inappropriate places, and is rarely discussed with comprehension.

    I agree with him that Christians need to soak in the word, immerse themselves in the word. I would suggest, however, that Christians may soak themselves in parts of the word that are either not applicable or that are placed in the wrong priority. I have a prioritizing suggestion, and it comes from Jesus: Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two (Matthew 22:35-40).

    That will at least get your priorities straight.

  • Albert Mohler Steps in It on Evolution

    There are some basics about what evolution is and is not, and what the various positions of both creationists and evolutionists are, that everyone who steps into the debate should know. Some examples include the difference between a young earth and an old earth creationist. I’ve seen a few discussions in internet fora in which someone explains the age of the earth in great detail to someone else who actually agrees.

    Then there is the difference between an intelligent design (ID) proponent and one of the more specific types of creationist. An ID proponent might be young or old earth, or might even accept most, but not all, of the features of biological evolution, as does Dr. Michael Behe.

    Someone of the stature of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. should be aware of these things. I don’t mean he has to agree with anyone else’s position. Merely that he should be aware of what those positions actually are. Pretending that alternative views don’t exist strikes me as just a bit deceptive.

    Nonetheless, Dr. Mohler writes, in The End of Evolution (article, not book), writes in his introductory paragraph:

    The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity – everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution – and the theory of evolution alone – must explain everything about humanity.

    Now I could fisk the entire article, almost word by word, but I’m just going to touch on three paragraphs. You see, there may be a few people out there who believe that evolution explains absolutely everything, but there are very few of them.

    What evolution does is explain, within the bounds of science, how live diversified on planet earth. It would also propose how life may well diversify anywhere. It is not merely evolution that is naturalistic by necessity, but science itself. That’s for a rather simple reason: Science is designed to explain the natural world. It is ill-equipped to explain the supernatural, because the supernatural does not function as the natural world does. That’s why we call it supernatural.

    Now one may not believe there is a supernatural, but if one does believe in something supernatural, it would be extremely odd to also believe that the supernatural followed natural laws. If it did, we would simply call it natural. On the other hand, if it does not follow natural laws, how would a method designed to study things that follow natural laws study it?

    Imagine the lab experiment for chemistry (the only science I took in college). Careful instructions are given as to temperature, what chemicals one is to combine, how, and when. Then the teacher announces, “Then, if God wills it, the whole thing will light on fire!” It’s silly. I think everyone knows it’s silly.

    Here’s the problem. Many Christians living in western culture are so thoroughly convinced that science is the best way of knowing that they want to put their faith, the most important thing in their life, on a foundation of science, somehow.

    But faith is not science, and God is not a proper object of scientific investigation. Oh, we can see what God has done via science. I would suggest that if a miracle actually takes place, the scientific evidence for the physical event should be present. But even so we do not see a miracle. Rather, we see the results of the miracle. We simply have an event for which we lack an adequate natural explanation.

    If you can’t accept that there are other ways of knowing than science, then you probably shouldn’t be a Christian, because science is never going to make a scientific theory of the Christian faith. It cannot because of its nature and because of the nature of science itself.

    When Christians say evolution is naturalistic, they are quite correct. But when they treat that as some special thing about evolution as opposed to all other branches of science, they are in serious error, both scientifically and theologically (from the viewpoint of orthodox Christian theology). Scientifically, they try to examine a phenomenon that is by definition not available to scientific inquiry. Theologically they try to put God in a box, regulated by natural laws. The god that they can fit in that box is not God.

    A bit further on Mohler says:

    Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins. Evolutionists – if consistent – believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.

    Of course, looked at from the Christian point of view, evolution cannot explain the totality of Christian experience. It’s not supposed to. As a Christian, I believe the totality of human experience involves origin from God and an experience with God, neither of which are defined in a way that science could even investigate.

    But neither can any other scientific theory explain all those things that it does not purport to explain. Now there is a great deal that evolution can explain. In fact, I think what evolution can explain would make Dr. Mohler very uncomfortable, and so he has to make a broadside attack on something he clearly does not understand. Evolution can explain a great deal. (See my earlier notes on the book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator for more information.)

    Finally, I want to address this paragraph:

    That’s a cold theory, and it just doesn’t make sense to the vast majority of Americans – and it shouldn’t. The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence.

    As a minor point, let me note that the majority of Americans are not really equipped to evaluate the evidence for biological evolution. It requires certain skills which the majority of us do not possess. I’m a well-read layman on the subject, yet I would refer you to others to discuss the science, while I discuss Biblical and theological issues.

    But as for it being a “cold theory,” it’s also a cold fact that a hurricane will follow it’s proposed course and there’s nothing I can do about it. Shall I reject it because it’s cold, inexorable, and so incredibly NOT warm and cuddly? The fact that the Christian worldview, or rather Dr. Mohler’s particular version of it, is satisfying doesn’t make it any more true. In theology we would have things such as legalism, the notion that one can earn one’s salvation. One can construct such a system that will be quite satisfying. But assuming Dr. Mohler is a good Southern Baptist, he would not accept the satisfying argument as a demonstration of their validity. He would argue that one can’t earn salvation, that it is God’s gift.

    Which leads to the word “true.” If we are to determine whether evolution is true we have to go right back to that place that Dr. Mohler apparently wants to avoid–natural, and naturalistic, science. Methodologically naturalistic, of course, which simply takes note of the fact that science studies the natural world, not the supernatural.

    The facts do not adjust themselves to our convenience and comfort. Whether I like the idea of evolution or not is quite irrelevant to whether it is a valid theory.

    Meteorology is a cold theory. But whether I accept it, or replace it with an alternative theory of lovingly God-guided hurricanes, that hurricane is still coming. It cares not in the least how comfortable I am.

  • Book Notes: An Old Testament Theology (Waltke)

    Waltke, Bruce K. with Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: an exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. ISBN: 0-310-21897-7. 1040 pp (940 excluding front and back matter).

    I’m going to complain a bit about this book, so first let me tell you the good things about it. It provides a solid introduction to the scope and theology of the Old Testament from a confessional point of view, starting from Christian orthodoxy. The tendency is the conservative edge of evangelicalism. It is not fundamentalist, and struggles with many issues that one might expect fundamentalists to ignore.

    In addition, there are several very strong points about this:

    • Waltke clearly expounds his approach and the understanding of inspiration on which he bases it. He then consistently applies that throughout.
    • The discussion of narrative theology and how one goes from narrative all the way to application. I don’t always agree, but the discussion is enlightening.
    • The chapter on creation has much to commend it, though it features in my complaints as well.
    • Chapter 16, The Gift of Liturgy is again excellent.
    • The overall theme of covenant theology is well-done and will be very helpful along with the discussion of alternatives.

    A substantial portion of the book is taken up simply narrating the story of the various Old Testament books and providing an introduction and background. Thus there is less on the theology of a book than there is simply bringing the reader to the point of understanding. This is probably required in an introduction of this sort, though ideally I would hope someone would take an Old Testament introduction before taking Old Testament theology.

    The confessional approach is not precisely one that resonates all that well with me in the study of the Hebrew scriptures or the Old Testament. This should not be a complaint because one can hardly criticize a book for being what it sets out to be. One should, however, note that Waltke is quite serious about this and that the confessional approach shows through.

    The book is also true to its title as an Old Testament theology, and not a theology of the Hebrew scriptures. In other words, the Old Testament passages are read Christologically, and chapters frequently conclude by discussing how these concepts carry through into the New Testament. Again, this is an approach that is clearly stated in the early stages of the book, and then carried through consistently.

    Though I personally would prefer more discussion of the theology in the historical context rather than the context of Christian canon and theology, this is again a stated goal of the book as a whole. You will find the justification for that approach in the preface and the first several chapters.

    Now for some complaints:

    • The author affirms Biblical inerrancy. While I do not, that is not the complaint. In his support of inerrancy and the unity he expects as a result, he seems to gloss over differences in theology between various books with very limited explanations. For example, the difference in perspective on marriage outside of Israel between Ruth and Ezra/Nehemiah is not so much as given a routine dismissal.
    • The author is very much opposed to the historical-critical method, but doesn’t really bother to explain very much of it. I would expect that if one dismisses a particular method in an introductory work, one needn’t go into depth on it, but he repeatedly references and disparages the method, almost exclusively by discussing naturalistic presuppositions, yet fails to provide sufficient foundation in my view.
    • The discussion of creation is really quite good, but is marred by a dismissal of “evolutionism” based again on its supposed naturalistic assumptions. In fact, some varieties of theistic evolution would fit quite well with the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis provided.
    • Chapter 9, The Gift of the Bride is dismal throughout, in my view, as Waltke embraces patriarchy with both arms. That is too long of a discussion to go into here. Suffice it to say that I disagree with almost the entire chapter, including the notion that Deborah is the “exception that proves the rule” (p. 245).

    I just reviewed DeSilva’s New Testament introduction, which is also from a more conservative perspective than my own, though not as conservative as Waltke’s. Yet DeSilva managed to present a variety of viewpoints while at the same time letting you know where he stood. He provided enough material for the student to evaluate without even going to the references. That is a quality I really appreciate in an introductory work.

    I am not a fan of purported neutrality. The author does have a viewpoint, and I think it is better to let the reader know what that is. Yet advocacy can be combined with a broad coverage of alternatives that give the student a good perspective. I know a number of liberal works that write as though all conservative views can be dismissed. For example, one will search in vain for defenses of Mosaic authorship in many critical commentaries on the books of the Pentateuch, even defenses presented for the purpose of refutation. This book appears to be a good example of the reverse.

    It’s a bit cheeky of me to review the work of so well-respected a scholar as Waltke, whose Biblical Hebrew Syntax I consult regularly (it’s on my “constantly available” shelf). But while I did find considerable here that was helpful, the items I mentioned detracted substantially from the value of this experience. Were I asked to teach Old Testament theology (much more likely than that I would be asked to teach New Testament intro!–see my comments on DeSilva), this would not be my text.

  • Thoughts on Michael Reiss

    . . . from Thoughts from the Heart on the Left. Tony has some good words on the topic.

  • New Creationist Prize

    . . . and it’s sillier than the old ones.

    Adnan Oktar, who writes as Harun Yahya, is offering the prize, according to the Telegraph.co.uk (HT: Breaking Christian News, surely an interesting place to find this):

    Mr Oktar, 52, who successfully campaigned for Mr Dawkins’ official website to be banned in Turkey, has said he will give 10 trillion Turkish lira, roughly equal to £4.4trn “to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution.”

    The problem with all these prizes is that the folks offering them demonstrate no comprehension of even the most basic elements of how an historical science is carried out, and simply cannot recognize the abundant evidence when they see it.

    Of course, the effort to ban the Dawkins web site amply demonstrates Mr. Oktar’s particular methodology. He doesn’t have the facts, so he prefers to ban the opposition.

    As an interesting side note, and a case of “with friends like these, who needs enemies,” Mr. Oktar defended Dr. Michael Reiss:

    Mr Oktar has also defended Professor Michael Reiss, the British biologist who resigned as the director of education for the Royal Society earlier this month after suggesting science teachers should tackle creationism if the matter is raised by pupils.

    I also believe Dr. Reiss was treated wrongly, and even more the cause of sound science education was dealt a blow. But Mr. Oktar should consider that he wants to ban a web site entirely for disagreeing with him, while complaining that a scientist lost one position. He should be too embarrassed by his own actions censoring dialog to complain about those of others.

  • Evolution, Historical Methods, and Assumptions

    Andrew Lamb has commented on a post I wrote back in July. I have responded to most of the comment there, but he references an article of his own, Immeasurable Age, and it employs an approach that, while I do not think it has merit, is so common in both public discourse and apologetics, that I want to respond.

    In the comment he states:

    Contrary to your assertion Henry, age is dependent upon assumptions, i.e. age is not something that can be measured. See the article Immeasurable age.

    It’s interesting to note here that Mr. Lamb introduced the term “measured” and then uses a mildly eccentric definition of the term. Apparently if any form of inference is involved, one is not measuring. But we use various types of inference in a number of measurements. For example, inference is involved in measuring radio frequencies. One observes the effect and from there infers the frequency.

    Now you should rightly point out that my example of inference is substantially different than the types of inference involved in determining the age of the earth. (Note again that I did not use the term “measure.”) That is why I called his use only mildly eccentric. There is no device, such as a time ruler that I can put up against the time line of earth’s history and read off the actual age. That is the nature of historical study, whether human history or historical science. (At the end of this post I will provide links to a couple of online sources on the age of the earth. I’m not planning on discussing the actual science, but rather the general approach.)

    I would prefer better definition of terms like “assumptions” (which Mr. Lamb uses) or “presuppositions” (which is seen frequently elsewhere). In this case Mr. Lamb is using “assumption” in a manner that borrows some of the baggage of “presupposition” without actually going there. (A presupposition is something one must suppose or assume to be true to make sense of a worldview, i.e. it is unquestionable within that worldview. An assumption can be something that one takes temporarily to be true, but which one intends later to test–or not, as the case may be.)

    Thus I would immediately disagree with the definition Mr. Lamb provides in his article:

    All three methods involve making assumptions. Assumptions are things we believe, but which cannot be proven.

    That definition is closer to the definition of a presupposition. Now note that I’m not much of a fan of the term “presupposition” either, but I’m much happier with it when it is either carefully defined by an author, or used in a standard defined sense. I have found so many senses of the term, however, that I think each author would do well to state how he understands the term whenever it is used.

    A more serious problem, however, is the way that this idea is used in the article. We are told that because the age of the earth cannot be measured, but is rather based on assumptions, pretty much anything goes. Lamb gives a number of ideas of measuring age based on clearly false and ridiculous assumptions, such as checking your current rate of growth and extrapolating, thus implying without saying so that scientific assumptions (if such they are) are also perversely stupid. One could summarize this as “It’s all based on assumptions (probably bad ones), so why not ours?”

    To quote:

    When it comes to the age of the world, we can use historical methods (method 1 above), which involve assuming or trusting particular records to be accurate. This is the way we at CMI calculate the age of the earth. We trust the Bible to be a supremely reliable record of world history, and from the information in the Bible we can calculate that the world is about 6,000 years old.

    So we are to believe that the assumption that the records in the Bible are accurate, and the assumption that rates of radioactive decay have remained essentially unchanged, are to be placed on the same level. Then if one is a Christian, of course one should accept whatever the Bible says over equally speculative scientific options.

    I hope you note the way I worded that. I believe a number of my more conservative friends would be uncomfortable with the idea that the accuracy of Biblical records was simply one assumption among many, so hey, why not accept it.

    But the assumptions involved are not even close to the same level. An age based on radioactive decay may be based on an assumption of a constant rate (though more on that later), but the assumption that the earth is 6,000 years old is based not on a single assumption, but rather on a large number of them.

    1. We assume the Bible’s accuracy
    2. We assume that the Bible intends to present us with history in specific passages
    3. We assume that we read those passages correctly
    4. We assume that genealogies are, or are even intended to be, complete
    5. We even make an assumption of constant rate in reading Genesis 1, that each day is 24 hours long even when it occurs before the appearance of the sun
    6. . . . and many more

    But do we have to make such assumptions, or are these things testable? Other ancient records go well beyond the 6,000 year history based on the Bible. The great pyramid and the Sumerians, amongst others, would have live through the great flood. In later years, records from these other nations can be synchronized with part of the Biblical record. If we can synchronize the record at one point, why would we take the Bible in isolation earlier, unless it proved to be accurate in providing this specific type of historical data?

    I discuss the issue of historicity in the Genesis accounts on my Participatory Bible Study Blog in articles Historicity of Genesis 1-11, Literary Types in Genesis 1-11, and Perspective on Vocabulary and Genre in Genesis 1-11. To summarize, there are good indications that these chapters are not intended as narrative history, and if they are not narrative history, then the assumption (!) that one can glean that type of information from them would be incorrect.

    But my intent here is not to prove the 6,000 year old earth wrong. While I avoid the term “prove,” I think that the evidence against a young earth is so strong that it is perverse to reject it. But what I am concerned with here is what one does with the concept of “truth.” This isn’t capital T “Truth” with which one can pound the table, but valid data on which one can base sound decisions for one’s life.

    I depend on such information from science and technology all the time as I live my life. I’m using a computer that is based on such information. Of course, I am again not speaking of historical information.

    So let’s turn to the resurrection. I’ve discussed recently how far from proof this is, and looked at a couple of attempts to place it on firmer ground. Some of my conservative friends may be concerned that I’ve given away the store by stating that a miracle can’t be the most probable explanation of an event by nature from an historical point of view.

    But one can provide some evidence that sets up the circumstances and the results of the resurrection. This too is based on many assumptions. First, one assumes that there were witnesses, that nobody just made this all up. Second, one assumes that this material was passed on with any sense of accuracy. Both of these assumptions involve a set of other assumptions about the nature of the ancient world and how its people worked.

    But if I use the word “assumption” in the manner in which Mr. Lamb uses it, I would say, “Well, those are your assumptions, and that’s how you choose to believe.” There’s no basis for testing and discussion. Any believe is equally plausible because they are all based on assumptions. But are all assumptions equal?

    What I would suggest rather, is that each of those assumptions can be discussed and tested and we can discover what is more or less probable. Then we can build a complete picture based on the best set of parameters we can work out. Note that I begin to deviate seriously here from the definition of “assumption” that I stated earlier. That’s because I believe it is the wrong concept to use.

    “It’s all based on your assumptions” parallels “that’s just your interpretation” in terms of tearing down the possibility of intelligent discourse and discovering truth. “That’s just your interpretation” suggests that a text actually has no meaning of its own, and anyone can read into it whatever they desire with equal validity. “It’s all based on your assumptions” does the same thing to scientific data.

    As used here, some “assumptions” are more equal than others, with apologies to George Orwell. Only in this case I’ve inverted the idea, and it is true and right that some assumptions be more equal.

    In fighting what he perceives as falsehood, Mr. Lamb has taken an unwitting (I hope) shot at any sort of truth or validity.

    To simply consider one thing regarding the age of the earth, one of the most common young earth creationist objections to constant rate in a natural process is the idea that the global flood would have massively changed deposition rates, as indeed it would. But the first point here is that there is no assumption that deposition rates everywhere and at all times are the same, but rather than the physical laws that govern them remain the same.

    Scientists are well aware that a flood deposits different things at different rates depending on the specific conditions. That’s why they can look at the state of the geologic column and be quite certain that there was no global flood. It would have left certain depositions. Old earth creationists are willing to go with the evidence here and understand the flood to be more local, though certainly great enough to stand out.

    Amongst the things that one can use to check deposition are the fossils of creatures that lived at that time. For example, if a layer was deposited instantly in a massive flood, all of the creatures involved would have to have been alive at one time.

    Just as we can divide up the various assumptions that we would have to make about the Bible in order to get the young earth position, we can divide up the assumptions here as well. Then we can test these one against another. One need not make all these assumptions at once, and many of them can be tested and determined to be probable or improbable.

    Let me provide references to a couple of articles:

    Abundant Evidence, Skepticism, Apparent Age (from the American Scientific Affiliation). Provides a more detailed discussion of the relativism involved in this type of argument.

    FAQ: Age of the Earth (Talk.Origins Archive). Goes into more of the nuts and bolts.

    CB102: Mutations Adding Information (Talk.Origins Archive). A good starting point on this issue, raised in Mr. Lamb’s comment to the earlier post.

  • Idiocy and Firing Michael Reiss

    I realize that journalists write confused stories and that headline writers produce stupid headlines to go with them, but I would think that academic or scientific organizations, irrespective of subject, should be able to be more sensible.

    It may not be so. “Firing” is, of course, my own overblown headline, provided you regard essentially forcing someone to resign as substantially different from firing them. In this case, I think the difference is entirely in framing.

    Reiss advocated responding in a reasonable and rational manner to the objections of children in school who are creationists. He didn’t advocate teaching creationism as equally scientific as the theory of evolution. His view is actually mainstream in his views.

    As an advocate of the theory of evolution I hope that the folks on our side will be clear here on what we do advocate (sound science in the science classroom) and what we don’t (suppression of all discussion).

    I’d commend to you Nick Matzke’s post on the Panda’s Thumb, which covers the scientific and educational point of view. Supplement this with and Doug’s post at MetaCatholic which deals with the religious aspects more fully.

  • The Bible Does Not Contain Science

    Jason Rosenhouse has a post at EvolutionBlog responding to an essay by Owen Gingerich in Frye’s Is God a Creationist?.

    In that essay, Gingerich makes some interesting claims, suggesting some special advance information provided by God in the words of Genesis 1. Rosenhouse quite correctly comments and then asks:

    It’s people like Gingerich I don’t understand. He cherry picks two verses that he wants us to take very seriously. In verse three we find that God begins by creating light, and, hey!, that’s kind of like what modern cosmology says. Then he turns to the end of the stroy and tells us we should ruminate on the verse that asserts we were created in the image of God.

    And the twenty-three verses in between? Where the Bible enumerates, in great detail, a sequence of events that is utterly fictitious? Well, just ignore that part.

    And right there is my major problem with several approaches to apologetics in Genesis 1-11. There is a common thread of trying to preserve the idea that God somehow provided scientific knowledge ahead of time, and described the origin of the universe in ways that would not have been known to the ancient world in which this literature first appeared.

    Sometimes, as in young earth creationism, interpreters take Genesis at face value as narrative history (I discuss what I believe the actual genre is here, and then demand that reality conform to their view. When reality fails to play nice, they simply deny it, or claim that in the future we will find out they were right all along.

    At other times, old earth creationists try to find ways of reconciling the statements of the first 11 chapters of Genesis with science, not in the strict sense of scientifically worded statements, but in the sense that as a narrative history, they don’t contradict science. Rather, they can be viewed symbolically as going along.

    Finally, we have the approach of Gingerich, which is to claim glimpses of great scientific ideas in the prose of the chapter. Admittedly, this requires reading past a great deal, and requires some imagination, but that has not prevented numerous people from trying and from publishing what they believe they have found.

    When I deny scientific content in Genesis, I am frequently confronted by someone who has read somewhere how closely aligned Genesis is with science, and they will point to some area of agreement. But these areas of agreement, even if one has the imagination to accept them in the first place, are very small, very narrow, and are surrounded by areas that are puzzling at best from the scientific perspective.

    I would apply here a standard I demand in comparative literature and comparative religion: Compare both the similarities and the differences. I also use a related requirement to search out what is regarded as critical within either the piece of literature or the religion in question. For example, to an evangelical Christian who believes firmly in salvation by grace received through faith, and regards that as central to his faith, the fact that another religion teaches love is only a minor point of similarity. It doesn’t make the two religions equal.

    So in comparing Genesis 1 and 2 to science, it is not valid so simply list points of contact without also listing points of dissimilarity. One interesting thing here is that those who point out that “let there be light” is in one of many ways similar to the big bang do not also note the spirit of God, or God’s wind moving across the waters before the light appears. One has to posit a strange mix of symbol and literal physical data to make this work.

    When Genesis is compared to scientific data as we know it on a broad basis, looking for both similarities and dissimilarities, it doesn’t come out so well. In addition to looking at both, it’s a good idea to look for accidental similarities, such as information that would be common knowledge anywhere. A reference to sunrise and sunset in two distant cultures would not be regarded as evidence that they had communicated, for example, because both would have observed the same phenomenon.

    To support the claim that the Bible contains science, one would need to find statements of physical fact stated in a well defined and testable way, in other words, statements made the way scientists might make them. You may believe I am putting too high a standard here, but to use such a thing as evidence one must eliminate other explanations, especially more plausible ones.

    If one thinks that the “waters” in Genesis 1:2 make some sort of statement of the place of H2O in chemistry, an implausible suggestion on its face, one should also consider the place of the waters or the deep in related ancient near eastern creation myths. Is it more probable to assume that the statement came from an unknown chemistry, or that God chose to cryptically convey information, information that would not be recognized until it was discovered in other ways, or that the waters here come from the same pool of mythological symbols used throughout the ancient near east?

    For me, this issue settled into place when I started to read this material in the context of ancient near eastern literature. It is not surprising that even one of my professors in graduate school, a Seventh-day Adventists school and fairly strong on young earth creationism and associated interpretation, was extremely concerned that I would not see Genesis as coming directly from God in its current form.

    Reading Genesis as ancient near eastern literature worked. It fit. I didn’t have to explain numerous loose ends. It was also something that the original hearer and/or readers might well have understood. There really wasn’t anything left to explain.

    Over time I learned to read Genesis again as theology, and specifically as theology suited to its time. It expresses, in the context of ancient near eastern cosmology, the relationship between God and the universe. Even that expression is time and culture related.

    Now I don’t expect atheists to like my position that much better. I know that they generally look down on views of inspiration that don’t result in error free texts with hard knowledge. After all, why couldn’t God get it right? But I think a better question is why would God get it “right” in that sense?

    Spirituality involves communion with God, and the Bible reflects that communion as experienced by my community and its antecedents. Every piece of scientific information people claim to have gotten from the Bible can be found elsewhere, better expressed, and more reliable. But as a Christian this is the core of the experience of my community.

    That doesn’t provide me with the means to convince others that my (or our) scriptures are better than others. That would have to work through the lens of the community. But the attempt to find scientific data is sure to be a failure.

    Doubtless the Bible will get some facts about the physical universe right, but unless those facts are more than incidental, they demonstrate nothing, and high claims for them can only result in a negative judgment on the text in which they are found.

  • Methodists and Evolution

    I reported some time ago that the United Methodist General Conference had passed some resolutions in support of evolution and opposing teaching faith based ideas in the public school science classroom. There’s a story in the Fort Wayne, Indiana Journal-Gazette about how this happened and the role of a local church member.

    I have observed some people trying to get resolutions passed at annual conferences or occasionally at General Conference and the process is somewhat difficult and I know that the individuals involved put a lot of work into the process. It’s nice to see people willing to be that involved. I do note that it seems that resolutions from general conference have little weight in practice.

    I would say that in the four congregations of which I have been a member, for example, the social principles only played a noticeable role in the most recent, and even there many members would probably be surprised to learn that there are social principles. (For non-UM folks, let me note that the social principles are only one area in the Methodist discipline which I’m using as an example, not the full statement of our doctrine and polity.)

    Perhaps it would be a good idea for Methodist pastors, teachers, and church leaders to refer to the social principles and other portions of the Discipline and Resolutions even when we don’t particularly like what they say, as will inevitably happen.

    Two early experiences of mine in the United Methodist Church come to mind. First, after I had read the relevant portions of the United Methodist Discipline prior to joining my first Methodist congregation, I asked the pastor about the social principles. I pointed out certain ones with which I could not agree. “Oh, the social principles,” he said, “we don’t really pay that much attention to those here.”

    The second was teaching in the same church, when I was asked to teach about the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian Perfection. I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and SDAs have a substantial bit of Wesleyan in background and doctrine, so I was acquainted with Wesleyan theology. I looked up what we had in the Discipline, and included it on slides for the class. I found that of those attending (perhaps 40 or so), only the pastor and I were aware that there was such a thing as the doctrine of Christian perfection.

    It’s the Methodist doctrinal position with which I am probably least comfortable, but I would have thought more people would be aware of it. My guess is that pastors know their members are not comfortable with “perfection” in just about any form and just prefer to let that one slide.

    And just to get back to the topic in the title, I suspect evolution comes under the same heading. Why get into the debate if you don’t have to?

  • Of Double Standards and Cesspools

    Steve Matheson at Quintessence of Dust notes regarding Dembski’s Uncommon Descent blog:

    Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants. . . .

    C’mon Steve! Don’t hold back! Tell us how you really feel!

    While I lead with the controversial (and I agree with him about UcD), Matheson makes some excellent points in this post, all of which may be controversial. Besides my own distinction between behavior that I regard as rude and inappropriate (that’s what I think of what both PZ Myers and one poor college student at the University of Central Florida did), and what should be illegal or worth firing someone for, there is the distinction between what one can and should say about one’s own group, and what one can and should say about others.

    Earlier, Matheson notes:

    The sickest crap at UD isn’t the usual dishonesty and shoddy pseudoscholarship. It’s the religious propaganda, a toxic mix of normal everyday bullshit (about “Darwinism”) and the pearls of our lives as Christians: scripture, our confessions, even the name of Jesus, the chief cornerstone. What’s worse, I ask: Myers’ desecration of a piece of matter that he reckons a mere cracker, or Bill Dembski’s malicious use of Christ as a lame polemical device? I’m sure you already know where I stand.

    Just so. My stand is the same, though the language is a bit intense for me, I think. When Christians behave inappropriately in a public way, other Christians may have the duty to call them on it. I’m not calling for every Christian to speak up in every case, but in a case like this, public Christians, such as bloggers, need to comment on other public Christians who are bringing disrepute on Christianity.

    Anyone may be wrong. I have occasionally had someone stop by here and question my vocabulary or the way I expressed something. Others have questioned my beliefs. That is a good thing. When that happens I need to do a recheck on what I’m doing and correct such actions.

    Which is my own additional point about UcD. My friend Peter Kirk is very intense about blogs that don’t allow comments, and I mostly agree with him, though I continue to read a number of blogs that do not allow comments. What I find reprehensible is a blog that appears to allow comments, but then weeds the threads in order to make themselves look better. That is the case at UcD when comments are suppressed, not because they are obscene, libelous, or spam, but rather because they annoy the writers there.

    At least one knows when a blog closes off comments. Nobody can comment, and you know that the blog is not totally open to discussion and correction. When a blog is censored other than according to precise standards, that presents a lie to the world. It says that discussion is welcome, while at the same time presenting a skewed view of the resulting discussion.

    PS: My own policy on comments is that I will remove posts with excessive language, i.e. likely to get this blog in trouble as family friendly, or when such comments are actually libelous assuming I can identify them as such, or when they are clearly spam. I have removed one comment under the first point in the history of the blog that I recall, none under the second, and of course thousands under the third. If your comment either doesn’t appear, or disappears under other circumstances, you are welcome to call me on it here publicly in a comment, and I will check it out.