(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"
Daniel, #47 –
Yes well said, I was sort of driving at that as well but was not able to put it as clearly as you have,
Thanks
Saskia
I personally agree that the virgin birth is not a necessary element of faith. I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.
However I do not think it is a perfect analogy as it is a historical idea much like the resurrection of Christ. It is not a case, as evolution is, of a specific reading of scripture, which seems to be invalidated by the current data we have on the natural world. Science cannot provide any evidence for or against the virgin birth.
Also, the issue with the virgin birth, I believe, would not so much be god vs no god, as “incarnation vs no incarnation” i.e. the manhood and godhood of Jesus. This is the main thing, which even Mr Patton wrote in the passage you quote – he says the importance of the virgin birth is what it signifies, i.e. that Christ was the incarnation of God.
I guess in the end it comes down to what we define as “central”, what we define as “important” and what we define as “unimportant.”. I would not put either the virgin birth or evolution in the central category, but I wouldn’t know whether to say they are important or unimportant. I would love to hear others’ thoughts on these issues as well.
Saskia
“I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.”
I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in Creation it would be a terrible tragedy.
I think if someone turned away from Christ it would be a terrible tragedy 😛
Yeah that wasn’t so well put, you got me 🙂
It is a real conundrum, where you classify different doctrines. And I can’t pretend that I am enough of a scholar to be able to categorically state which doctrines are central. Just throwing in my two cents.
Saskia
I think the worst tragedy is for someone to turn away from Christ not just because of a non-essential belief, the belief that it WAS essential when it wasn’t, but the fact that essential or not, it isn’t a clear doctrine at all but just a preferred interpretation. You wouldn’t just be trusting someone else over the Bible, but trusting someone else that was wrong both in what is essential and in what they believe the Bible actually taught. At that point, we have not only elevated our interpretation to the Word itself and added to the requirements for salvation, but have done so in a way that is a stumbling block for others and actually drives them AWAY from Christ. And once someone has learned that this is what is required of them, it is that much harder to un-teach that and un-ring that bell to actually get them to be receptive again.
Saskia, I don’t pretend that I am enough of a scholar to be able to categorically state which doctrines are central either. But the thief on the cross had enough information and faith for it to save him when he trusted in Christ. I don’t see him being put through a lengthy catechism first. I don’t see anyone having to explain the Trinity or predestination to him. It must have been pretty basic and, according to Romans 1, must be simple enough that we can get what we need to know from what God has provided us. The Bible is rich in doctrine, and I love the Pauline epistles for that. But if a proper understanding of all of that or even a complete knowledge of it even if we didn’t fully understand it is a requirement, then I don’t see how Romans 1 makes any sense. What about those that pre-dated all that doctrine being put to paper? Just how much did the woman at the well need to know and understand? Very little, I think.
Saskia 105
“I personally agree that the virgin birth is not a necessary element of faith. I think if someone turned away from Christ because they decided not to believe in the virgin birth it would be a terrible tragedy.”
Various doctrines could be put forth as ‘necessary’ or not necessary for faith. I take a point of view on this based on (a partial list) 2 Timothy: All scripture (in the context Paul refers primarily to the Old Testament is God breathed and is profitable; for training, admonishing, rebuking, correcting, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully equipped, lacking nothing…; in another place Paul reminds you “how from infancy… you have known the Holy Scriptures which can make you wise unto salvation”. To the Ephesians Paul reminds them that “I have not failed to teach you the full counsel of God… I have not failed to teach you everything necessary…
If it is taught in Scripture, it is meant to be known and cherished. And Paul commanded also that his letters, which were in his lifetime acknowledged as God-breathed scripture, where to be read in every church.
As to why, in general, men do not believe in Christ:
Jesus said, in John 3, that they are already condemned if they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. And that is because they love darkness and their deeds are deeds of darkness, they refuse to come to the light to be saved. They are to look on the One lifted up on the cross, like the serpent lifted by Moses in the desert, because only the crucified and risen Son of God can divert the wrath of God coming upon them.
It is not as though because one man believes in evolution, or another despises the Trinity, a third ridicules the virgin birth, a fourth mocks guilt in Adam based on the mere bite of a fruit while yet another cannot abide the unscientific foolishness of a literal six day creation.
All alike are subject to the wrath of God. They are sinners, and guilty sinners at tfalhat. Men love sin. In their minds they are hostile to God. They do not find it convenient to retain the knowledge of God. Yet Romans is clear; they can clearly see his eternal power and divine nature from what has been made; this they reject because they are hostile, unregenerate sinners. That is why fallen man is hostile to the doctrines of creation; he has chosen to make his gods from the natural world, and to claim a non-existent ancestry/biological kinship with them. This has been a staple pagan them for thousands of years, including the Greeks intellectual heritage of Paul’s time. To confirm, all you have to do is to look at the literature of modern evolutionists and environmentalists.
re:why men do not believe in Jesus Christ
In a recent study of 1John, I counted between 25 and thirty reasons why men do not believe in Christ.
God’s word preached under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, leads to conviction of sin and to salvation. Any doctrine, any text is just as likely to bring a man to saving faith by the Spirit, as it is to harden his heart against God, according to the will of God. In the end, it is only because of him that we are in Christ. Salvation is of the Lord.
Charles #46
Sorry, busy with Christmas, you asked where I got the population genetics info:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/520.full
This is not easy reading. If science is not your area consider:
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam
Even with Mitochondrial Eve, the human population doesn’t get down to 1 breeding pair. It isn’t about a man named Adam and a woman named Eve back at the dawn of time that shared the earth with others that causes the issues. The issues are from the idea of Original Sin. Many believers and denominations have held to a notion that we inherit our sin physically from our fathers. IF this is the case, having Adam in a populated world when he first sinned means the inherited curse of the first sin would have taken many generations (centuries) to be present in the entire human race. That means the true fall from Grace wouldn’t have been evident for a long time later (if we inherit this curse physically). If we don’t inherit our sin at conception – how are we born sinners? That was the stumbling block I meant (should have been more clear). I realize not all denominations nor doctrines believe this, so it certainly isn’t a universally christian stumbling block.
Hope this clears my comment up a bit more Charles.
Loo-thanks!
Truth –
It’s not about whether we Christians argue for or against creation. We all argue for a telos-purposeful creation created by our God. We cannot get away from such. So no one is denying that. We are walking on firm and similar ground here together.
Rather, the question is the length and method God used to accomplish this most awesome and powerful act of creation. Some see only one specific method and time period as more God & Scripture-honouring. Some see the possibility of another method as maintaining honour for God & Scripture as well.
Rather, the question is the length and method ”
God spoke, and it was so. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He sustains all things with his powerful world.
Why do people say “we do not know how” or “Scripture is not intended to show us how” God made the creation? There is an answer; why is this answer not satisfactory to inquirers? We have a Savior who with a word could transform hundreds of liters of water into high-quality wine; who could say, “Go. Your son his healed’ and from that very hour, the son was healed. Who could say, divide the bread and fish amongst the people and multiplied thousands are fed from a basket.
‘
This is a man who could shout, “Lazarus, come forth” and it was so. Who could walk on water, walk through walls, defy gravity, call up a fish with a coin in its mouth to pay his taxes, defy gravity and levitate to the stratosphere.
Which is easier, he would say: “To say to this man, ‘your sins are forgiven’ or to say ‘rise, take up your bed and walk”
Here is the eternal Son of God who in the beginning of the Creation, when all things were made through him, called out the stars one by one, and by name, in their uncounted trillions and unending variety and power.
Why should we consider it strange that he can and does do all things according to the praise of his glorious grace, according to the counsel of his will, and by his powerful word? As Paul said to Agrippa, ‘Why should you consider it strange that God should raise the dead”
Charles –
I agree with all the examples you have given. And God could produce a child in a matter of seconds. But it is interesting He has chosen to develop such a beautiful creation over a 40-week period, step by step, process by process. It is a beautiful, creative project, one I believe He revels in even though He could have done it in mere seconds. And He still gets all the glory in the process of knitting us together in our mother’s room.
My goal is not to convince you of evolutionary creation, but that we recognise that, if such is plausible (and it seems plausible) such need not be seen as a ploy of the enemy nor dishonouring to God and His word. It is creating an extreme and unhelpful dichotomy.
”
Some see the possibility of another method as maintaining honour for God & Scripture as well.”
Scott, by that do you mean evolution?
I think that a real some-one with a name and a face and a story has more value than a hypothetical ‘somebody’ with a ‘possible ideal’.
As you might very reasonably infer, I make no apology for believing the creation account of Genesis to be factual history, albeit like all history accounts and like of Scripture, a selective, necessarily incomplete but by no means insufficient account.o
If your last post was meant to suggest those who believe in a
God-honouring form of evolution over against a belief like mine, it would be helpful to me if you would state some cases. Who do you have in mind, with such a point of view?
On what basis does this person adopt, maintain, and promulgate such a view to the glory of God?
a” But it is interesting He has chosen to develop such a beautiful creation over a 40-week period, step by step, process by process.”
I would like to know in what way this process as an analogy makes any conception of theistic evolution plausible.
Dr. Paul Copan: “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.”
As I speak to secular audiences on university campuses and elsewhere, I don’t raise the creation vs. evolution issue.”
This is a good approach.
Given that you’re focused on “the main thing” (God vs. No God) with non-believers, several questions primarily emerge for me:
(1) Have you ever had a discussion/debate about “the main thing” with non-believers whereby the non-believer brought up the issue of Creation vs. Evolution in response to your discussion about “the main thing”?
(2) If so, why do you think non-believers would rather derail away from “the main thing” to instead discuss Creation vs. Evolution?
(3) Suppose in response to their attempt to derail the topic away from “the main thing”, you gently responded by saying, “Let’s address one topic at a time. The Main Thing here is “God vs. No God.” Let’s not get sidetracked to other issues, that while important in their own right, gets away from “the main thing” of God vs. No God.”
Would that response be well-received?
“My goal is not to convince you of evolutionary creation, but that we recognise that, if such is plausible (and it seems plausible) such need not be seen as a ploy of the enemy nor dishonouring to God and His word. It is creating an extreme and unhelpful dichotomy.”
The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.
Why should the one who responds, be the one charged with the offense? I have seen this type of language before and I do find it alarming. What happened to looking at the claims on the basis of their relative merits, rather than accusing one of the respondents of heresy (for that is the one who breaks the unity of fellowship). For surely if one view is untrue, it should not be taught to
Christians as though it was, and Christians should not be told to tolerate that which is untrue or scolded if they oppose such.
I would like to know, an but by no means in an urgent hurry, some of the reasons why you think it seems plausible.
IHe he. Scott I just found this a bit of a chuckle..
You say you do not want to convince me of EC but that “we ” recognize….
eeeh, so, “just think like me”.
Good night.
Charles –
For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org. You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX). Another author would be Francis Collins. Or see Scot McKnight’s site with his articles on science and faith.
I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.
You said: The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.</i
Charles –
For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org. You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX). Another author would be Francis Collins. Or see Scot McKnight’s site with his articles on science and faith.
I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.
You said: The dichotomy is inevitable. Any time there is more than one opinion. Supposing then that you do favour the evolutionary paradigm, and supposing you are not trying to convince me to believe, nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that to oppose it on any grounds makes one necessarily a troublemaker or a disturber of the peace and unity. Thus, the
believer in EC maintains that it it “God honouring” means I am bound to agree or stay quiet or be charged with creating an ‘extremely unhealthy dichotomy’.
I didn’t call you a troublemaker. I’m simply asking that you not paint it so black and white. It’s not that simple in such a highly discussed and debatable topic. I wish it were. I wish I had all the answers. Discussing the in’s and out’s of different positions might be more fruitful than claiming one is more faithful to God and Scripture than another. I am not claiming EC is the more faithful. I am asking that we not despise it as simply an untenable belief of true Christ-honouring disciples.
” Discussing the in’s and out’s of different positions might be more fruitful than claiming one is more faithful to God and Scripture than another.”
Delay long, and never come to a conclusion
“For helpful Christian evolutionary creationists, you can see the BioLogos group at http://biologos.org.”
Are you aware of the ridicule and contempt in which BioLogos is held by the agitators in the radical atheist evolutionist camp?
True evolutionists want know accommodation of the true faith with Christianity or deism of any sort.
” Another author would be Francis Collins. ”
I have heard at least three addresses by Collins given to various audiences, on the faith/science theme. And he was none too charitable to those who disagree with him.
Collins is another one who has, it seems, not won a lot of friends with his deism. The letters section of National Geographic was an interesting place after they featured Collins and his ‘faith’. Some writers felt is was a disgrace and against what science and NG had always stood for.
“You can see Denis LamOureaux’s book, I Love Jesus and I Ccept Evolution (link here – http://amzn.to/slGrEX).”
DOL does not model the charity you recommend. He writes that those who criticize evolutionists are guilty of bearing false witness.
I have a contact who has sat in on a seminar he gave to high school teachers and who has children who have taken his courses. Would you like his telephone number so he can describe DOL’s behaviour to you?
I have appreciated BioLogos, Lamoureaux, and McKnight. Perfect? No, just like me. But helpful thinkers about the issues.
If an idea has no merit, that ought to be found out and quickly. If it is wrong, it ought not to be taught and disseminated to Christians.
As to true disciples: I have heard Collins give his ‘testimony’. If one can be damned by faint praise, then Jesus Christ is such. Collins describes coming to faith as an intellectual epiphany, and gives most of the credit to his own analytical skills and to CS Lewis. He does not speak of sin and grace, or the Gospel, the Good News, nor of the cross or eternal life.
I have appreciated BioLogos, Lamoureaux, and McKnight. Perfect? No..
No one is asking for perfection. Just plausibility.
Why do you personally find EC plausible?. I know why these gentlemen do.
Please understand, by the way, that I refer to character issues here because you put it on the table. These men simply do not model the charity you enjoin.
Collins and Lamoureux also are clear that those who oppose EC should keep quiet and not make trouble. Perhaps it is you invoking DOL’s ‘false dichotomy’ meme that gave me the impression.
“I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.”
I do know why you mentioned it; what I want to know is why you think as an analogy it makes EC plausible in any way.
I know what Denis Lamoureux thinks. I would like to know the reasons you think and reason the plausibility of EC. If you could just do that one thing, clearly explicate why the analogy of the birth process is comparable to EC, that would be a start.
Charles –
I am not that skilled in the sciences. I have read some, and desire to read more as time permits. But I know my limits. As I have said, my desire is first and foremost to challenge people to not see evolutionary creation as absolutely implausible and not honouring to God or Scripture. I think that is taking it too far. As Paul Copan has suggested, we can graciously allow others to hold to differing views. But to give bad and unhelpful labels to those who either do or possibly do hold to EC is going too far.
Scott, this is a small sample size; but I have met two EC sympathizing scientists in connection with Christian ministry functions. Both, and one of them his spouse also, got right in my grill and in a most direct and unequivocal manner told me that people who oppose evolution, in the Christian context, especially if they were creationists, were divisive troublemakers who ought to keep quiet and let the EC folk get on with it. Both incidentally very active in the CSCA, the Canadian equivalent of the ASA.
“… my desire is first and foremost to challenge people to not see evolutionary creation as absolutely implausible and not honouring to God or Scripture.”
Scott, what if on careful analysis, evolutionary creation is found to be ‘absolutely implausible’? Is this not a possibility? And after all, Paul Copan has written above that Christians are bound to follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it turns out that evolution is true.
What if EC is wrong? (And it is wrong). But IF it is wrong, then it does dishonour God the Creator. That is bad. It ought not to be taught or disseminated to Christians.
Moreover Scott, their is no Scriptural mandate to tolerate all differing views without remainder. For instance Paul the Apostle had the audacity to confront Peter face to face “in front of them alla , because he was in the wrong”. So there is a precedent.
In the same place, Paul speaks of the other Apostles in this way: what they were makes no difference to me; did they bring the same Gospel that I do?
EC impinges on several doctrines foundational to the Gospel.
“But I know my limits.”
Then be careful to not hang great weights on small wires,
Today’s science is tomorrow’s witchcraft.
“I think it fair to say that you would know why I mentioned the 40-week developmental process of a baby as relevant to our discussion.”
I do know why you mentioned it; what I want to know is why you think as an analogy it makes EC plausible in any way.
================================le===
With respect, if you cannot explain this one thing which you advanced in support of the plausibility of EC and therefore, (other than the endorsement of Francis Collins and Denis Lamoureux) constitutes your main scientific argument for EC; then is it possible that you don’t understand it? And if this is the case, perhaps it is not your calling to scold people who don’t mind saying that EC is implausible, and don’t mind who they say it to?
But to give bad and unhelpful labels to those who either do or possibly do hold to EC is going too far.”
Well Scott, Paul Copan says folk who don’t use his method, turn people off the Gospel. That is quite a serious criticism. Mind you he hasn’t named a case where he knows this has happened; he just knows you’re wrong.
I should mention that asI understand it, there are two main schools of scholarly apologetics; Evidential and Presuppositional. I suspect that Mr. Copan is in the Evidential School. In any case, there are vehement disagreements ongoing between these schools of thought and their practitioners. Mr. Copan knows this; which is why I think it is really not cricket for him to dismiss those who don’t adhere to his methodology as just wrong.
Greatest cultural and intellectual historian from the last 100 years writes on Darwin and evolution:
“…This profound emotional and intellectual victory once gained, it would have taken a superman or a coward to retreat from it for so trifling a cause as lack of final proof. The scientific principle being sound, demonstrative proof would be sure to follow in due course….No one of any intellectual standing went back to Personal Creation. On the contrary, intelligent clerics and their flocks adapted Evolution to Revelation in exactly the same way that their grandfathers had adapted Gravitation to it. In the United States especially, the most fervent evolutionists were deists: Asa Gray, Joseph Leconte, Theodore Parker, John Fiske, young William James—none of these in welcoming evolution denied a supreme being.”
—Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Jacques Barzun, p. 65 – 66
“And what is mere lack of evidence, against so massive a force? Of what import is it that almost all the available evidence points in other directions?”
SOURCE for both prior quotations: Uncommon Descent
also from Uncommon Descent: Is evolution a truism?
“They know not how, but they are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs. And so therefore, they have believed that the mere existence of biological variation that is inherited, limited resources and natural selection, together make evolution a truism.”
But now even evolutionists are coming around to what was obvious from the beginning. Biology is not a “just add water” kind of project. It is yet another miserable failure of evolutionary theory. But evolutionists will, of course, remain undeterred. For evolution must be a fact. Religion drives science, and it matters.”
Charles, Charlie, TUAD,
I am coming to this thread late, being pointed to P. Copan’s blog just recently. Charles, your analysis in this thread is spot-on as well as the earlier comments by Charlie and TUAD. I take it you both (Charles and Charlie) are not the same person. Keep up the good work to all of you.
Scott, just how are we to be gracious to those that hold to a different interpretation when folks like Francis Collins doesn’t even have a Bible in the right color!!!! 🙂
Charles,
My faux pas. There is no Charlie. What I had thought was a Charlie in comment #2 on the first page, was a trick of my mind and eyes and was really a Charles. Stay young my friends, old age creeps up surreptitiously and degeneration and the enemy death are soon to follow.
Charles, ALL interpretations can be wrong. That includes both yours and mine. As more evidence is developed, we should be humble enough to admit when the evidence favors a different interpretation and more and more of our own arguments fall. Many Christians went into geology in the mid 1800’s in the belief that they would find evidence for a global flood. And the evidence just wasn’t there. They ended up forming old-earth creationist organizations. In more modern times, Glenn Morton’s story (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) is a great read of those who were brought up under “creation science” that went on to find that the facts don’t fit that model. And we should have the integrity to admit that and change our creation model. Unfortunately, the US Church has a tendency to become dogmatic about something and then double-down on it. I don’t think I have ever heard a pastor get up and say that upon further research and meditation, they have changed their position on some passage. Instead, they see the increasing evidence against their position as a test of faith and chalk it up as being right leads to persecution. Yet if it is someone like Francis Collins who is under attack from various directions, it doesn’t even cross their mind that HE might be right and HE is being persecuted for standing for truth. And, from my personal experience, the reason why they are not open to any interpretation other than their own is that they have erroneously been taught that any old-earth interpretation is in response to and a capitulation with Darwinsim. They’ve been taught that the church as ALWAYS held to the current YEC flood geology model. And any information that they have on the alternate interpretations are generally straw men created by the folks like ICR and AIG. They wouldn’t dare let their political opponent tell them what their political candidate of choice believes, but have no problem at all with that kind of think when it comes to the Genesis Debate. They have never actually sat down and gone through an objective explanation of where the models fail or succeed (like Glover’s series at http://youtu.be/Fperp1Mezt0), so they don’t know that the science behind things like EC is growing and becoming more solid while the evidence for the flood geology model gets weaker and weaker.
The bottom line is that we are to defend ourselves and our faith with both gentleness and respect. When it comes to Genesis, it is often a full-contact sport and you better wear your pads and cup, and respect is generally limited to the folks that agree with you and doesn’t extend far enough to also cover the truth.
folks like Francis Collins doesn’t even have a Bible in the right color!!!!”
Are you an Evidentialist then, Daniel?
I am partial to the Presuppositional school.
“And any information that they have on the alternate interpretations are generally straw men created by the folks like ICR and AIG.”
Daniel, I invite you to illustrate here, with an author, a date, a title and your synopsis and analysis, one straw man each from AIG and ICR. Show why each is wrong.
I invite you also to seek and find the book “The Great Turning Point by Dr. Terry Mortenson. Dr. Mortenson did a doctorate on the 19th Century Scriptural Geologists in England. He lectures widely and writes on the subject.
It is all too easy, and bad manners I feel, to start a link war in these situations, so I will avoid that; however the book and its references in its entirety is available online.
I invite you also to communicate with the author, and share you view above with him.
There are too many unfounded generalizations in what you have just written. I really suggest you go at one point, one case at a time. Remember you had some specific answers to specific questions I posed earlier?
You are right, the subject of flood geology and the age of the earth are related to evolutionary creation; please note however that in the preceeding interchanges, it is Evolutionary Creation (or theistic evolution) and whether it is plausible or biblically defensible, are on the table.
“They have never actually sat down and gone through an objective explanation of where the models fail or succeed”
Daniel, this is what I think you need to do with the items I’ve suggested. Let’s please stick with cases and names rather than “they, them, the other one, all of them…)
Daniel, I looked up your first link. Thanks. I intend to follow it up.
” Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.”
Interesting description of the “chopping off” of Steve Morris at the ankles. The suggestion that he is not a real petroleum geologist because he was not working for an oil company at the time. He had been a professor at the University of Oklahoma, which means he was not a slouch as a scholar.
Morris did his doctoral dissertation on the origin and transportation of trees found in coal deposits.
Charles, I’ll try to get to all your questions and challenges, but it is going to have to wait until I get some horizontal time. To give you one quick answer though, when dealing with most folks in most areas, I lean towards being an Evidentialist. To me, Presuppositional apologetics works great when trying to convince the choir that already is convinced, but otherwise comes across too much like begging the question. Sooner or later, we need evidence to support our presuppositions.