(Paul Copan)
The former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca once said: “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” This simple advice has wide-ranging application—whether we’re settling personal disagreements, planning our schedules, or trying to build bridges with non-Christians.
One area of bridge-building has to do with the creation-evolution “debate.” In my book “That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Baker, 2001), I deal with a variety of philosophical and apologetical questions such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Eastern monism and reincarnation, foreknowledge and free will, predestination, and the like. One question I address has to do with the Genesis-science issue. I note that the fundamental question is not how old the earth is (although I do believe it is billions of years old); nor is the issue how long God took to create the universe (if we insist that God’s creating in six 24-hour days as more miraculous than a process of billions of years, this still wouldn’t be as miraculous as God’s creating in six nanoseconds…or just one!). I also mention in the book that the fundamental issue to discuss with scientifically-minded non-Christians—the main thing—is not “creation vs. evolution”; rather, it is the question of “God vs. no God.” There are, after all, evangelical theistic evolutionists such as theologian Henri Blocher and the late Christian statesman John Stott, and the theologian J.I. Packer seems quite open to theistic evolution (consider his endorsement of theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?).
Now I have my questions about evolution, but then again, a number of naturalists do too! For example, the biochemist Franklin Harold writes: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity….but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[1] Hmmm…interesting. At any rate, if evolution turns out to be true, then the Christian should embrace it as one dedicated to following the truth wherever it leads. This might mean reworking his interpretation of Genesis on the subject—much like Christians have had to rework their interpretation of biblical passages referring to the sun rising and setting, the earth not moving, or the earth resting on foundations.[2]
As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue. Rather, for the sake of argument, I grant evolution and begin the discussion there. I don’t want people turned off to the gospel because I’ve lost sight of the main thing—the centrality of Jesus; unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning Christians do just that and end up running down this or that rabbit trail and never getting back to the main thing. Evolution is a secondary concern; we Christians should remember this when engaging with unbelievers rather than getting side-tracked. Keep the main thing the main thing.
I typically highlight the following two points when speaking with naturalists.
1. If humans evolved from a single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, this is a remarkable argument from design! Indeed, a lot of naturalists themselves utilize design language when referring to biological organisms—“machines,” “computer-like,” “appears designed” (a point I’ll address in a future blog posting). As believers, we shouldn’t be surprised to see God’s sustaining and providential hand operating through natural processes—though unfortunately even some believing scientists are reluctant to acknowledge this. Alvin Plantinga’s recent book on God and science, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford), points out that the conflict is between naturalism and science, not God and science, even if this involves guided (not unguided) evolution.
Now, the atheist Richard Dawkins has claimed that Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist. Well, that’s not quite right. For one thing, Darwin himself didn’t see God and evolution in conflict with each other. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species (1859), “To my mind, it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes . . . .” And again: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”[3] But there’s more for the atheist to consider.
2. Several significant steps or hurdles must be overcome before evolution can get going: Many naturalists claim that “evolution can explain it all.” For example, Daniel Dennett asserts that Darwinistic evolution is a “universal acid” that eats through everything it comes into contact with. The problem, however, is that a number of massive hurdles must be overcome before self-replicating life can even get a running start. Here are the key hurdles:
- The origin of the universe from nothing: evolution’s no good without a universe in which it can unfold, and the universe began a finite time ago; it hasn’t always been around.
- The delicately-balanced, knife-edge universe requires many very specific conditions for life;
- The emergence of first life (and eventually consciousness): how life could emerge from non-life (or consciousness from non-conscious matter) continues to stump scientists; moreover, if humans could somehow produce life from non-life, this would simply show that this takes a lot of intelligent planning! Just because we have a life-permitting universe, this is no guarantee that it will be a life-producing universe.
- The continuation of life in harsh early conditions: even if life could come have into existence on its own from non-living matter, there would have been immense obstacles to initial life’s continuation, development, and flourishing.
When we’re looking at the odds in terms of probabilities, this is what we have:
|
STAGES TO CONSIDER |
CALCULATED ODDS |
| 1. A UNIVERSE (OR, PRODUCING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG): | Exactly 0. (Something cannot come into existence from literally nothing; there isn’t even the potentiality to produce anything.) |
| 2. A LIFE-PERMITTING UNIVERSE | Roger Penrose (non-theistic physicist/mathematician) notes that the odds of a life-permitting universe: “the ‘Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of one part in 1010(123).”[4] What number are we talking about? It “would be 1 followed by 10/123 successive ‘0’s! Even if we were to write a ‘0’ on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. [This is] the precision needed to set the universe on its course.”[5] Astronomer Donald Page (a theist) calculates the odds of the formation of our universe at 1 in 10,000,000,000124.[6] |
| 3. A LIFE-PRODUCING UNIVERSE (LIFE FROM NON-LIFE) | Stephen Meyer (a theistic philosopher of science) calculates the odds for the necessary 250 proteins to sustain life coming about by change as being 1 in 1041,000.[7] |
| 4. A LIFE-SUSTAINING UNIVERSE (MOVING FROM THE BACTERIUM TO HOMO SAPIENS | Frank Tipler and John Barrow (astrophysicists, the latter accepting the Gaia hypothesis) calculated that the chances of moving from a bacterium to homo sapiens in 10 billion years or less is 10-24,000,000 (a decimal with 24 million zeroes).[8] Francisco Ayala (naturalistic evolutionary biologist) independently calculated the odds of humans arising just once in the universe to be 10-1,000,000.[9] |
Many naturalists will simply deny design at every stage (and for all of them). It seems that no matter how much the odds are ramped up, design would never be acknowledged—an indication that the issue isn’t scientific after all. This is a theological and philosophical issue. At any rate, from the literal outset (the beginning of the universe) the falsity and folly of an “evolution did it all” explanation is apparent.
So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution. And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth? Indeed, God has revealed himself and his nature through two “books”—God’s Word and God’s world—and Christians should view them as ultimately in concord with one another.
[1] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 205.
[2] See Gen 19:23; Deut 16:6; Ps 19:6; 93:1; Ps. 104:5.
[3] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, orig. pub. 1859 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, n.d., corr. ed.). Quotations from pp. 459 and 460.
[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Bantam., 1991), 344.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Noted in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Coredell, “The Anthropic Teleological Argument,” Michael Peterson, et al. (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd edn.(New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 239.
[7] Mentioned in Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperOne, 2009). For documentation of other biologists’ calculations, see Meyer’s peer-reviewed essay, “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (2004) 117/2: 213-239.
For a brief video on the intricacies of the cell, see “Journey Inside the Cell”: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-on-id-at-justin-brierleys-unbelievable/.
[8]John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 557-66.
[9] Noted in Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology 2 (2003): 142.
328 replies to "Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing"
(40) Charles wrote:
“Paul (35)
It was you (and post # 1) who tabled “well meaning brothers” and “sincerity”. Clearly the context was that of erroneous brothers. If you are going to state as much, all I request is that you deal with the case.”
(42) Daniel wrote:
“Lest anyone take Paul’s silence at Charles’ challenges as a lack of a response, he DID say he was taking a break from this until after Christmas. I, on the other hand, probably won’t. So if you’d like *me* to response to things like “is this the case or not”, I’d be glad to.”
============================
You addressed “anyone” here. You imply that answers to my “challenges” may be required, and that you would be ‘glad’ to answer. Question: sorry, but would you be glad, or not? Now you have qualified your intention.
My questions are requesting supporting evidence for claims, some of them quite categorical. If one tables claims, one should be prepared to provide such evidence lest they remain unsupported generalizations.
As to answers, Daniel I have no questions for you and I do not note any others taking you up on your offer to provide answers to my questions to Paul and Kevin.
Also Mike and Loo, I requested clarification from,
Now you have qualified your intentions Daniel. Initially,you were concerned that people not take Paul’s silence the wrong way. Take up Paul’s case if that is your aim. If it is necessary for you to do so, I suppose whether or not I am playing games will have to be put aside. You will need to decide on your objective and follow through.
That’s fine, Charles. It was just coming across to me as more of a debate tactic than a sincere request for information. If the information was the goal, it wouldn’t really matter who supplied it. If the intent if to make sure that X person can answer a specific challenge with sources acceptable to you, that is fine. Putting someone else on the defensive and giving them the burden of proof for everything is a common debate tactic. If I can frame the debate on the things YOU have to prove in order to win, I don’t have to have any answers myself. In my own mind, I’ve won by default. And that is how this was coming across to me. I just didn’t want to spin my wheels answering some of your questions if an actual answer wasn’t your intent. So I’ll just ignore the questions you specify should be answered by others.
Daniel, sorry about another question here, but don’t you have your own blog to moderate?
As for ‘debate tactic’: you frame that as somehow unseemly. Debates are in fact an important means of arriving at genuine truth and have done so for thousands of years. What kind of science, or society, would it be if certain classes of individuals were entitled to proclaim ‘truth’ without having to provide evidence; or worse, that the right to respond was curtailed?
And in fact Daniel, that is how western courts function. The burden of proof is on the one who tables the case, or the argument, or the accusation, etc. And the standard of proof on which reputation, freedom, and life rest is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
So perhaps confine yourself to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief. The public are entitled to such even if we all know not everyone is sincere.
Daniel: please do not forget that you did offer to provide clarification of Paul’s arguments to the group here. You then turned that around to challenge my sincerity and go off on a little ‘naughty boy’ admonition. As you can see, I have already written that I do not care about sincerity, yours, mine or anyone else’s.
But I do think that may not have been a nice thing to do.
1. Yes, Charles, I do blog. I have had several over the years. Right now, I blog about theological stuff and political stuff at Theologica, where I also help moderate the forums. And I have a technology blog elsewhere as well.
2. I stated that challenging questions were a valid debate tactic. There is nothing wrong with it in that setting. William Lane Craig uses it quite effectively. I prefer discussion over debate though, and like it where questions are asked and answered as a group. To me, the goal should be in increasing knowledge, and I think that debate, like politics, often has “winning” as the goal. It isn’t “naughty” to have a context, but it IS important that we all share the same context if we are going to have an interaction of any value.
3. I understand that debates work a lot like the courts. But in court, everyone is aware of the context and the rules. You don’t have one side going in expecting court and the other going in expecting mediation. I’m not convinced that everyone here is expecting the same kind of context. In a debate/court context, it is perfectly OK to challenge the other side to produce something….but it can’t be done fairly if the other side isn’t going to have a rebuttal. A lot of challenging questions to Paul immediately after he said he was taking a holiday break could be seen as that kind of tactic. I respect Paul and didn’t want it to come across as if an absence of an answer those challenges over the subsequent responses was the same thing as not HAVING an answer.
The point is that it comes across as if you disagree with a lot of statements here. But your responses of challenges in the form of questions or even presuming that I need to “confine [my]self to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief” comes across, to me, as someone who is trying to frame the debate and discussion for their own advantage and not a sincere search for information. It does’t really contribute to the conversation as much as tries to shape it. And, to be honest, I get defensive when I feel like I’m being manipulated as opposed to consulted. If that *isn’t* your intent, that’s fine. But it IS the way it is coming across to me. And the fact that you admit that you don’t care for your own sincerity, much less the sincerity of anyone else, makes me wonder if you are here with the same goals as the rest of us. Not approaching a discussion with sincerity seems, by definition, to be a bit trollish to me. But I don’t moderate things here, so the way things appear to me don’t really matter. 🙂
Daniel (6,page 2) wrote:
” But I don’t moderate things here, so the way things appear to me don’t really matter. ”
If that is the case, why do you continue to make this an issue, and at some length? Why do you continue to speak for Paul Copan or the others writing here, when they are not asking you to do so, and they are not asking you questions? This I would call special pleading.
Daniel also wrote:
“even presuming that I need to “confine [my]self to the study of reasonable doubt and warranted belief”
Not presuming. That is the standard I try to apply to myself; it is the standard of scholarship; it is the way things are. It is not an innnovation on my part.
Daniel also wrote:
“and not a sincere search for information.”
Again with the sincerity thing. Paul was the first to put sincerity on the table; not me. And now you continue to make it “the main thing”.
The point is this; in the search for truth, sincerity does not matter. Method does.
It is not a character assassination to request that the one who tables the truth claim come forth with the evidence. To make that happen requires questions. It is not a legitimate response to make a character aspersion (you’re insincere) on the person making the request.
If you put it on the table, expect to be questioned. That is the way it works, whether or not it makes you uneasy
Daniel, look around. Who is asking you to defend their position or to answer my questions? Wno is it that has taken this from the so called “main thing” and related questions, to the questioners’ sincerity?
Dr. Copan: “And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth?”
On the flip side: If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?
Daniel also wrote:
” the fact that you admit that you don’t care for your own sincerity, much less the sincerity of anyone else, makes me wonder if you are here with the same goals as the rest of us.”
Look around Daniel. Who has asked you to defend their positions or to speak for “the rest of us” or to define the goals of “the rest of us”?
But you say that I am trying to manipulate the discussion!
Daniel also wrote:
” In a debate/court context, it is perfectly OK to challenge the other side to produce something….but it can’t be done fairly if the other side isn’t going to have a rebuttal. A lot of challenging questions to Paul immediately after he said he was taking a holiday break could be seen as that kind of tactic.”
Now that is a chuckle. Mr. Copan is a professional scholar and author, as we can note above. This is his web site. You are concerned that he will not have a rebuttal?
Look around. When did he express that concern? When did he ask you to answer for him?
The main thing, wasn’t it? You started off, as I have reminded you, with the intent of answering the questions. All you have done since then is make this an issue of character.
Daniel also wrote:
“And, to be honest, I get defensive when I feel like I’m being manipulated as opposed to consulted.”
Look around Daniel. Who asked you any questions? Who asked you to speak for them? And who offered to take up Mr. Copan’s cause by providing answers to questions? Who manipulated you into rebuking me for asking too many questions? And now you are the offended party!
Good article. Well-argued point.
As an evangelical Christian who’s finally settled with Framework interpretation/theistic evolution understanding of Genesis 1, I concede that there is one problem with this approach: it’s difficult to justify accepting a non-literalistic understanding of Genesis 1, without also accepting non-literalistic understanding of subsequent account of Eden story, Noah’s flood and Table of Nations.
That said, to my mind, the alternative is far worse.
Daniel also wrote:
” I’m not convinced that everyone here is expecting the same kind of context.”
That does not make it wrong to try to provide context. What do you think Mr. Copan is trying to do by writing his books and this blog? Does not the fact that he is an author and a scholar and freely admits he has a mandate to correct well meaning brothers, suggest this is exactlly the context? Does not the extensive list of references and footnotes suggest he is familiar with this standard?
Daniel, when one enters a discussion and begins to make truth claims and to correct others and to challenge their motives, one either knows or ought to know, or at least be ready to learn, the context or the rules of engagement. We both entered this willingly and at the risk of having our opinions corrected on the WORLD WIDE web. I’m not the one who has made this little engagement about my motives or your motives or deficiencies or lack of sincerity.
Charles, you have asked me a bunch of questions over a number of posts. I answered. I asked if you wanted me to address some of the questions you asked others and you basically said no. So I’m not going there. It’s no big deal. And yet the multitude posts directed to/at me continue – even as you seem to be at a loss to explain my responses to them. No one is forcing you to continue to talk about my involvement here and making that an issue. We are just on separate pages when it comes to the context of the discussion here.
I’m not saying I’m right in considering it a general and irenic discussion where we are ALL allowed to participate with our thoughts and answers to questions and where knowledge is the goal and not gotcha debate points, but until Michael and/or Paul tell me my thoughts on the questions being posted are out of line or disruptive, I’ll continue to post here just as I always have with whatever I think contributes to the conversation.
I think it is a valid question to ask of either of us why we are here and what our intentions are. Considering the number of times my comments were encouraged and complimented, I’m comfortable with my answer to those questions. I think I’ve added something to the conversation. You are free to disagree with a “Who asked *you* to get involved” kind of challenge. To which, I’ll ask who decided that YOU could judge who was qualified to answer questions and who was not…..
Daniel also wrote:
“..a bit trollish to me.”
I hope this represents your apogee from “the main thing”. What about the “Two Books” paradigm, or the relationship between science and general revelation, or things of that nature.
Daniel also wrote:
“To which, I’ll ask who decided that YOU could judge who was qualified to answer questions and who was not…..”
Nobody. The questions stand or fall on their own merit. Mr. Copan and you put your positions out here on what I remind you is the WORLD WIDE web. That’s a big table. You indicated the questions were “challenging” and warranted answers. The one who puts the issue on the very big table and indicates that brothers need and have been corrected must understand that questions will come. Now you have gone from a willingness to answer challenging questions on behalf of a brother you respect to more and more personal comments.
Repeat, nobody has made me a judge of who is qualified. When I ask you, “who has asked you to answer” I do so to point out that you have made the issue my right to question, and you have spoken in several places on behalf of the presumptive group or context or motive. You made the issue sincerity and motivation and got away from the actual questions.
[…] Copen wrote an article titled “Creation and Evolution: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing” that is worth reading, but the best part was one the comments. Let me reproduce it here (from […]
to Loo,
Here I offer my interpretation of population genetics.
First of all, the assertion is that modern humans descended probably from no more than a few thousand individuals after a prolonged period of either starvation or at least scarcity of resources.
Secondly, population genetics does point to one Mitochondrial Eve and one Y-chromosome Adam. The concept being that all members of a species ultimately descend from one progenitor. In the case of humans, since we all get our mitochondria from our mother, and all males get our Y-chromosomes from our father, we can reasonably trace our ancestors in this way.
In population genetics, it doesn’t mean that in the lifetime of this progenitor, he/she/it was the only member of its species, but over a huge number of generations, the clan that descends from this one individual eventually out-breed or out-survive everyone else (:P).
This concept has been applied, I think, to many species. In general, the fewer the number that are still alive within a species (the more endangered the animal is), the more recent the progenitor lived.
Interestingly, by population genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve lived hundreds of thousands years before the Y-chromosome Adam, which makes sense from biblical standpoint, since we know that we inherited our mitochondria from Eve, but our Y-chromosomes from Noah!
Now, I am no expert in population genetics, so I cannot tell you if Mitochondrial ancestor was expected to live before Y-chromosome ancestor from a statistical standpoint. I also concede that current population genetics does not explain Ham/Shem/Japheth – Table of Nations. But I actually do think population genetics has strengthened, rather than weakened, the data found within the Bible.
Where are the Theologica moderators to stop the 2-commenter comments. 🙂
Marv –
You said: Our faith is to a large degree a text-based faith. How we deal with texts is going to make a big difference. Your suggestion that we can just tailor our understanding of the text based on what we decide otherwise to be true is… disturbing. Trying to knead evolution into Genesis one would be serious eisegesis.
The reality is that we do tailor our understanding of the text to what we faithfully and reasonably (and sometimes unfaithfully and unreasonably) determine from other methods and sources. It is reality. It is not to deny that THE ultimate and absolute truth exists within what God teaches us in Scripture. Yet, not just because we are dumb, but because we are thousands of years removed from its context, we kind of miss it at times. It’s ok to recognise some kind of Wesleyan quadrilateral in helping us grasp God’s revelation in the text. It’s really ok.
I know you would keep arguing that the whole sun-setting/rising and stopping was meant phenomenologically. That’s a very difficult thing to prove, either way, that it was or was not meant phenomenologically. But if it was actually understand in that day that the sun moved, and not the earth, then we have some things to deal with in regards to our understanding of God’s creation and God’s revelation in the text. We don’t need to feel our faith is destroyed. But we have some things to think through, i.e., in the days of Copernicus and Galileo.
I suppose the reason Genesis 1 speaks of a geocentric focus (what is everything explained in relation to – the creation of our heavens and earth) is because they really thought geocentrically. Can you or I prove or disprove it? No, probably not empirically satisfactorily? But we can make educated guesses, of which I am not as educated as some. But it seems highly plausible we have a group of people working geocentrically back then. Not because they were dumb, for we are all dumb as compared to God’s knowledge, but because that was the way they understood things. So the gracious Father we have allowed some great revelatory statements about Himself and His good creation be made from a geocentric standpoint. You know, kind of like if God decided to speak today, in our 21st century world, he’d probably speak in a way we understand it. And you and I believe He does speak today (though we don’t stick it in the canon) – not as unto Hebrews of millennia ago, but to us in our culture and time. I suppose He spoke to Hebrews millennia ago as Hebrews millennia ago. Not because they were dumber than us, but simply because of the reality of Acts 17:26-27.
Scotti, that’s what happens when the blogger drops out for a couple of days! 🙂 Actually, I don’t mind these other dialogues just as long as the tone remains cordial (see the guidelines for posting at P&P). Charles, I do think your tone does have something of an “edge”; despite your disagreement with Daniel, he has been a most gracious interlocutor. Daniel doesn’t have to speak for me (though I agree with him on a number of points) and am truly intrigued by what he says and would like to see the conversation play out. This blogsite is a legitimate platform for just such an interaction, even if the blogger himself isn’t always engaging in the dialogue. May we all keep the tone gracious!
As for disagreement and sincerity, yes, we can agree to disagree. The apostle Paul does place a certain stock in sincerity-not simply in the content he is trying to communicate (e.g. 2 Cor. 1:12). I appreciate the sincerity of another brother, even if I think he is incorrect. The apostle Paul thought that the “weaker brother” (who had a conscience about meat offered to idols after it was sold in the marketplace) was well-meaning, even if Paul thought this position to be theologically incorrect. Paul sought to keep the main thing the main thing.
On the evidence for animal death built into creation, I gave verses for this from Psalm 104 and the latter chapters of Job. I don’t know what more to say, as this does seem sufficient evidence.
In terms of the two books view, I think this model is nicely reinforced by passages such as Isaiah 28:24-29:
Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed?
Does he continually turn and harrow the ground?
Does he not level its surface
And sow dill and scatter cummin
And plant wheat in rows,
Barley in its place and rye within its area?
For his God instructs and teaches him properly.
For dill is not threshed with a threshing sledge,
Nor is the cartwheel driven over cummin;
But dill is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a club.
Grain for bread is crushed,
Indeed, he does not continue to thresh it forever.
Because the wheel of his cart and his horses eventually damage it,
He does not thresh it longer.
This also comes from the LORD of hosts,
Who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great.
Thus this two books view applies to the science of farming (agriculture)—and by extension the various natural sciences as well.
Eric, thanks for your helpful comments, citing Groothuis. A nice summary.
Grace to you all!
Marv –
Forgot one thing. I am not sure anyone is trying to ‘knead’ evolution into Genesis 1. Rather, I see most people either a) acknowledging that Gen 1 is not ultimately given to us to answer the intricate ‘how long’ question nor the intricacies of the ‘method’ God used as He created (fiat or drawn out) or b) that God gave His revelation within the text all the while accommodating to the understanding and framework of the author of Gen 1.
I know you feel both options are dodgy and not in accordance with the text. But at least note that not too many people are kneading evolution into the text as if it’s ‘in there’ if we search hard enough. I would admit that’s going overboard.
The world, the greater culture surrounding us has and does change the interpretation of Scripture. The Bible teaches a flat geocentric earth, yet those passages have been so reworked in most interpretive traditions so that people today insist that they don’t teach or even use that ancient worldview. Jesus clearly taught that demons cause disease and that casting them out is the way to health, yet few churches outside of Christian Science sustain such a viewpoint, the evidence is so overwhelming that those verses are just rewritten in our minds. But the best example, i am aware of is slavery, read Robert Dabney for a justification not only of slavery but of a hierarchical worldview based on the ancient idea of the Great Chain of Being. He thought that Jacobin egalitarianism would be the end of a Christian society and the antithesis of a true Christian worldview. Yet few of his descendants believe this (neo-confederates and some folks in compounds in Idaho) having at the instigation of Rev Dr’s Sherman and Grant(kudos to Mark Noll) rewritten theology to accommodate the realpolitic changes in American society.
The question is not if the world, science, or politics changes our interpretation of what Scripture teaches but how, when and why it does.
To claim that our interpretation is just like Jesus’ or Paul’s or Moses’ is simply to ignore the extraordinary changes that have been part of theology since the very beginning.
Wow, a lot of comments piled up unawares. Let me just reply to one more comment by Charles: “If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?” The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and an evolutionist?” If so, then rejection of evolution is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.
The main thing is the main irrefutable argument of “Ex Nihilo” verses self existent (eternal) space, matter and energy.
Rather than explaining the previous point from a technical viewpoint, it can be best illustrated by how I explain the creation verses evolution debate to my 5 year old:
If people say “we came from monkeys”, you simply say “where did that come from”?
And when they move it back to fish or birds, then to amoeba’s or one celled organisms you say
“Where did that come from?”
When the argument gets back to “we came from the big bang”. the answer is …. you guessed it… “where did that come from?”
The very existence of matter, energy and space proves there had to be a God who is self existent who created (by speaking) the world into existence out of NOTHING (Ex Nihilo)
BTW —-The “bounds” of the universe proves the existence of a God who created it. If you think about what happens after you have traveled for a million trillion light years, you don’t get to the “end”, to see what is beyond the ends of the universe, because there can be no end. For if there is an “end” to the universe, then what is beyond the edge of what contains the ends of the universe?
I think it is possible to stretch creation ex nihilo to an extreme that the text in Genesis doesn’t support. When it says that the EARTH produced a lot of stuff, it doesn’t elaborate on the how. As such, the propositions of different options is not ANTI God or unbiblical. When a suggestion is given that doesn’t include a miracle, folks often take it as an attack on God. But whether we read a secular solution or a sacred one into the text, we are still adding to it. If we all recognize that it is possible for both sides to do that and neither is a spiritual exercise, I think we can get past this idea that if your understanding of how is more scientific than mine, you are more secular and less godly. If it is a necessary thing for us to believe a certain thing about the how in order to keep the main thing in focus, I’m sure we would have been given more details. The fact that we were not tells me that whether we believe it was all miraculously spoken into existence, whether it was manually formed and separated, or whether natural laws and such were programmed by Him to work His purposes, we can all agree that He is the focus and these other things should be used to point to Him, not distract from Him.
Very good post Daniel. #28
It is very important for us NOT to read anything into the text that is not there.
The Bible does not precisely explain the beginning of the universe. It does not at any point as far as I remember contain any raw data concerning the beginning of the universe, then interpret that data. It simply says God did it.
Why are we asking questions of the text that the text was not written to answer? Science as we know it did not exist when Moses wrote the account of creation. Even if it had, trying to explain advanced science to uneducated slaves who could not even read would have taken all the forty years in the wilderness up! Even modern scientists probably wouldn’t get most of it.
The point in the account of creation as outlined in Genesis is this:
“Hey ancient Israelites, see those stars you worship? Stop worshiping them, I made them, I am God, not the stars. Hey ancient Israelites, see the sun you worship? Stop worshiping it, Ra does not exist, I made it to give you light, I am God, not the sun. Hey ancient Israelites, see the fish , the birds, the lions and bears, see the trees, rocks etc, stop worshiping these things, I made them, they are not gods, I am. I made you the pinnacle of my creation, you are to subdues them, not the other way around. Oh and by the way, I AM GOD, snap out of your polytheism.”
This is the point of the account of creation as outlined in Genesis. To show that Yahweh is God. Not a rock, fish, or a bit of wood. It is very unfair to ask questions of the text that the people of the time and even the author were not addressing. Rhome Dyck pointed this out on TTP ‘Bibliology and Hermeneutics’ when he said that during the creation of the manhattan project and ultimately the nuclear bomb was taking place they were not asking ‘What will the side effects of this be?’ but ‘How big will this be? Will it work?’ Why then do we insist on defending our position with such staunch spirit when we ultimately look foolish for doing so? The professional atheist Anthony Flew did what most credible philosophers do, his first rule was ‘follow the evidence where it leads’ and he ended up a deist, possibly a theist. He could not answer to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Never heard of it? follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
Could God have made the earth in seven days? Yes. Did He? Well (deep subject;)) probably not, since the evidence points to something else, but He could have. After all, Jesus turned water into wine, and wine takes time to age, Jesus did it instantly, so believers have to admit he could have done that with the universe. Still, the evidence points to something else and we must follow the evidence so long as it does not conflict with the core points of Christianity, namely the resurrection. If I were God (your’e all lucky I’m not!), I would take the billions of years route. Why? because it would be more fun to spend all that time watching these things take place.
My post isn’t really finished but for the sake of others boredom, I’ll stop here.
Mr. Copan, thank you for your tolerance, but based on these items, I wonder how carefully you are have followed what I have written? Perhaps a little sharper edge is needed sometimes?
====================================
You wrote this:
“Paul Copan says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Like or Dislike: 0
Wow, a lot of comments piled up unawares. Let me just reply to one more comment by Charles: “If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?”
======================================
But the post to which you refer says this:
“Truth Unites… and Divides says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Like or Dislike: 0
Dr. Copan: “And if evolution turns out to be true, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which God brings about his purposes on earth?”
On the flip side: If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?
Dr. Copan, thank you once again for your tolerance.
With respect to this “two comment-er commentary” to which some object, (fair comment) I just point this out, and move on; you said this:
“Charles, I do think your tone does have something of an “edge”; despite your disagreement with Daniel, he has been a most gracious interlocutor.”
First, I suggest, as above, that you look the first part of the interlocution over again;
“Daniel says:
December 26, 2011 at 10:42 am
Like or Dislike: 0
I have a question for you, Charles. You throw out a lot of questions. Are they rhetorical? Do *you* have the answers for them? Or are they intended to be a challenge in lieu of any evidence *contrary* to things like population genetics? I just don’t understand the intention of the long list of questions. If they are legit, I’ll be glad to answer some of them. But if anything said is just going to be challenged in an endless game of “Who Said?”, I’m not interested.”
second, the writer of the post offers to the participants to answer my questions; following that the
subject becomes personal, as to game-playing, doubtful motivations and intentions. I did not engage the writer, or question the writer, or make any reference to the writer. But somehow the writer became the victim.
RHETORICALLY speaking, who went off topic? Who made the discussion personal?
That is all.
Again, thank you for your tolerance.
Charles,
why don’t you state your views clearly on the article by Paul Copan so we can discuss them? I would find that interesting. You clearly are quite bright. I am interested in learning different peoples views, especially ones more learned than myself. I live next door to an atheistic professor. He has some very convincing arguments. He has clearly thought through all these issues.
We got really deep into that wine bit on Theologica. We are told that drunk people thought it tasted good. That is all. Trying to read into it that time was messed with or that it is a good argument for God being deceptive, which is basically what the appearance of age proposition boils down to. If the wine came with fake invoices and delivery receipts, it would really benefit the creation discussion to bring it in. As it stands though, I just don’t get a lot of benefit from that account as it relates to creation. To me, there is a huge difference between proposing what God could do with time and understanding evidence to the contrary. But part of that has to do with my belief that Genesis 1-2 were cases of a Christophany, which might have a lot of implications for Someone in physical form in this space/time. But that is a different topic. LOL
Thanks for that Ben.
I will try to come up with a coherent response.
Thanks Charles,
I am relatively new to theology as a study topic, so any information and philosophy I can glean from others is of profound benefit to me! I am sure like your previous posts, it will be very coherent. given the level of discussion thus far, I’m sure you could enrich the conversation beyond measure.
Daniel,
in respect of this conversation, yes, the wine issue is probably not really worth bringing in. I don’t think there was a manipulation of time there, it seems more like a straight alchemy to me. I’m not an expert in these issues (as you can probably tell), just interested in self educating.
Thanks for your input.
[…] To Moses As Creationists Wish He HadDec 26th, 2011 by James F. McGrath TweetBrian LePort shared a brilliant comment someone left on the Reclaiming the Mind blog on a post about evolution. I thought I should share it, tweaking it slightly to improve the punctuation, and expanding it to […]
“If evolution turns out to be false, why couldn’t this be one of the means by which Satan brings about the damnation of souls on earth?”
Dr. Paul Copan: “The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and an evolutionist?” If so, then rejection of evolution is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.”
Another question to contemplate:
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning “secondary” doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Truth unites and divides,
Can you give an example of a “secondary” doctrine that leads anyone whatsoever to hell?
“Can you give an example of a “secondary” doctrine that leads anyone whatsoever to hell?”
Ben,
A good question. Truth be told, I rather regretted putting in the adjective/qualifier “secondary” as soon as I wrote it.
Let’s remove the word “secondary”.
(Revised) Another question to contemplate:
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Hello Truth Unites and Divides,
I’m a layman, and not skilled in debating, but another thought occurred to me though, how is this question you have asked relevant to the topic? I would be willing to discuss it even though as I have indicated, with my limited knowledge, we might just end up further from the truth than closer to it! lol
“Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning “secondary” doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?”
You mean something like saying that a young-earth creation is not just part of the gospel message, but central to it, and that you can’t accept Christ without accepting that as well? 🙂 Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that you can’t believe the Bible and doubt YEC or that if you don’t trust YEC you don’t trust God. When the church makes science the enemy, a lot of intellectuals are rejected in the process. Just saying….
Ben,
It’s related to the question posed in Dr. Copan’s concluding paragraph.
@Daniel #40/90,
Can a person be a true Christian and still be co-opted by Satan to teach and to propagate some soul-damning doctrine that leads some/many souls to Hell?
Would you answer the question as “Yes.” Or would you answer the question as “No.”
I would say yes. Lots of folks thinking they are doing God’s work are going to be hearing “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
Truth Unites And divides,
Stupid me. to be honest, I don’t see the connection. If you are proposing what Daniel is suggesting then I have never thought that this issue is one that would lead to hell. I may be missing the point entirely here. If you want to explain further what you mean then great, I would appreciate that as someone who still has an awful lot to learn, I’m genuine novice. Sorry to be a bother.
Truth – #38 –
In relation to the topic of the blog, and specifically with regards to evolution and creation, I really firmly believe that it is often not the propagation of an idea that leads to damnation, but the propagation of the the idea that one must choose between it and faith in Jesus Christ.
Now on an issue like “did Christ rise?” or “did Christ come in the flesh?” or “did God create the world?” this dichotomy is true.
On an issue like evolution, I passionately believe that far more damage is done insisting that you can’t be a Christian and believe it, and bolstering this idea by telling people that evolutionists believe that fish grew legs one day and walked out of the sea, or that humans descended from monkeys. This is the reason why people get out into university away from the shelter of their church and family, are exposed to sophisticated arguments and actual real, compelling evidence, and they turn away because they have been told their whole life it is one or the other. They see that the things they have been taught in church are not true to the real science as it is taught and practised, and their faith can’t handle it. That’s our fault for not giving them the chance to work through the issue properly, and for telling them that any sort of capitulation to it is tantamount to heresy and apostasy. It just isn’t. It IS a secondary issue. You can be a Christian and believe that evolution may have occurred or that it did occur.
It is one thing to study the evidence and decide one way or the other for yourself. It is quite another to tell other people they can’t be Christian and believe it.
Truth, that wasn’t as such meant to be a rant at you because I see what you are asking and it is a good point. It just raised quite a sensitive topic for me. I know too many people who use evolution as an excuse not to believe anything in the bible because they perceive this ridiculous dichotomy as being true.
Peace,
Saskia
Let me clarify that last statement by saying I *ALSO* think there are many who believe they are doing God’s work but are not true Christians. But I do think sincere and true Christians can be wrong and lead people astray as well. None of us are perfect. And I think one of the Devils most successful tactics is to get us to add to the Bible. That is why I try to keep my list of required beliefs to a bare minimum. I think the more junk we add to a pretty simple message, the more difficult we make it for some people.
I’d add to what Saskia #45 says in that is isn’t just that our kids are going away and faced with solid arguments and real science that is the issue. They are also taught a Biblical principle that became a foundation of science to test everything and hold on to the good. When they actually start testing those “Creation Science” arguments, they fail. And this leads to a crisis of faith because they have been taught this is what Genesis says and have been taught that this foundation is critical for the Gospel. I think it is critical for our youth to learn that their faith should not rise or fall on their interpretation of Genesis 1. Yet you have folks like the AIG staff member that spoke at my daughter’s commencement at a very dogmatic YEC place that they basically already had the truth and shouldn’t listen to any college or university that proposed they question it. Sorry. If I am not allowed to question and test what I’ve been taught in the same way the Bareans did, I’m not being educated. I’m being indoctrinated.
Well put Saskia.
I guess in my country, this issue is not as big as it may be in the USA. I have never even come across this idea before, that you must have one or the other. It seems ridiculous to me since it’s obvious salvation is not based on anything other than the resurrection.
Daniel, you have a very good approach keeping the required beliefs to a minimum. I want all churches here in the UK to start TTP or something like it. It is a brilliant course.
Thanks CMP
Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing
(Dr. Copan) “So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God—not creation vs. evolution.”
Is a variant of this a reasonable analogy:
So the main thing is to keep the main thing: God vs. no God – not Virgin Birth vs. non-Virgin Birth.
Recently, C. Michael Patton wrote a post on the importance of the Virgin Birth. His concluding paragraph wraps with this:
“While even some evangelical theologians seem to relativize the importance of the virgin birth (see above), it is vital to note that denials of the virgin birth (and/or the resurrection) have historically inevitably been accompanied by heresies that undercut an orthodox understanding of the person of the incarnate Christ. In other words the sign of the virgin birth cannot be separated from the thing signified, a true incarnation of God in human flesh. Attempts to do so empty the Incarnation of its content and with it the possibility of salvation which is anchored fully in the grace of God.”
In a slight transposition of Dr. Copan’s comments in #26/76, is there agreement with the following:
“The question is: “Can a person be a true Christian and deny the Virgin Birth?” If so, then rejection of the Virgin Birth is not central to embracing the gospel. If you think not, then I fear this illustrates my point about failing to keep the main thing the main thing and that this is adding to the gospel.””