Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Creation and Evolution

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.)