John MacArthur on the “lie” of Evolution:
“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.” (from “The Battle for the Beginning“).
There was a time, ten or twenty years ago, when I would have taken the bait and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. Today I won’t. Not because I am now convinced about a God-guided theory of evolution, but because I just don’t know. I am not confused or disturbed about the issue, nor does it put any of my faith in jeopardy in any way. I just don’t know whether or not God used evolution as a means to create humanity. Neither do I know how long it took to create the earth. I don’t know if Genesis 1 is meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, symbolically, ideologically, mythologically, or accommodatingly. I simply believe that when it is interpreted rightly, it is true.
But I don’t think that it is here we find the central battle for our faith. I believe that there are more important issues. Much more important issues.
What I do find is that if Christians get sidetracked on these type of things, believing that if this city goes undefended then the Christian empire crumbles, we are in trouble. The “Battle for the Beginning” is not the battle, at least in my book.
But John MacArthur is a man I respect very much. While he is not a scientist, he does seem to be a very wise leader in many respects and he knows the Bible well. This is why I have to pause at what would otherwise seem to me to be an over-the-top statement. He is right that the last two decades have seen many (if not most) evangelical leaders concede to the real possibility of a God-guided use of evolution. It would seem that there is quite a bit of pressure out there to do so. Evolution is quickly becoming the if-you-don’t-accept-it-then-you-are-committing-the-same-mistake-that-the-church-did-in-the-Galileo-incident type of issue. You remember: back when we insisted that the Bible said the earth was the center of the universe and then ended up with egg on our face.
I don’t really see evolution in the same light. There is quite a bit of observable data that shows us the earth is not the center; it is not quite as cut-and-dry with evolution (I think).
Either way, the gauntlet is going to continue to fall and Christians who believe in evolution are going to continually be accused of compromise. Maybe they have compromised; I don’t know. But to me, it only makes a difference when people push for it to make a difference.
What do you think? Has Christianity been compromised?
668 replies to "John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution""
It is interesting that no one else but me has discussed the fact that evolution is at its core, both in origin and development as a theory, not only atheistic but also anti-theistic. There was the assumption, by some commenters, that evolution was somehow a value neutral endeavour, but I have challenged that view.
Re post 600 and the basic ideas of evolution
Anyone that thinks that the basic ideas of evolution have not changed should read some of the blogs about the Chicago celebration of the 150th anniversary of Darwin and the papers that were presented. Yes, many scientists do still believe in Darwinian evolution, but that theory is no longer the only game in town and it is facing severe challenges even from within the evolutionary camp.
Consequently it is an inaccurate and unconvincing argument to put up the supposedlyl unassailed and unitary theory of evolution as the winner in comparison to biblical Christianity.
regards,
#John
Renton,
I honestly don’t believe I have ever known anyone who claims to be a Christian and yet spends so much time seemingly trying to debunk Christianity!
Cheryl:
“By their fruits you shall know them.” When was the last time you walked on water?
John:
Sounds like an interesting point. Where exactly did you make it? Could you reference the #?
#John says:
“It is interesting that no one else but me has discussed the fact that evolution is at its core, both in origin and development as a theory, not only atheistic but also anti-theistic. There was the assumption, by some commenters, that evolution was somehow a value neutral endeavour, but I have challenged that view.”
Have you ever read the Origin? Darwin was a theist when he wrote it. How then can you claim the theory is intrinsically anti-theistic?
Also, you have failed to show how evolutionary biology is any more “anti-theistic” than any other scientific theory. Why is gravity not so? It removed the notion of God holding the planets in their orbits, for example. Shall we throw Newton on the pyre as well?
I think the reason why this line of argumentation has been ignored is because it is simply your unsubstantiated opinion. Claiming evolutionary biology to be anti-theistic does not make it so.
#John, RE: #606
See my post #585. It would seem that Darwin himself agrees with you.
I know some Christians are still under the false impression that he was a Christian. That was originally true, as I pointed out, however as he advanced in his scientific studies, he became more and more convinced that Christianity and evolution could not co-exist.
He, however, concluded that Christianity was wrong, not evolution. So I’m wondering how the TE’s feel about Darwin saying that Christianity is “a damnable doctrine”, and why they don’t consider that a compromising statement coming from the man who is considered the father of evolution.
While, I realize that many here are not Darwinists in the strictest sense, it does seem that a great number of modern evolutionary scientists seem to agree with him. They reject Christianity as either a myth or a lie, or simply a treatise on morality, when compared to the discoveries of science. I’m wondering how TE’s deal with those folks, since many of you so insistent on this blog that we keep them separate. Do you tell them that they must keep it separate, while all the while quoting them to prove your point?
I’m just wondering how you handle the flak you surely must get from their side, regarding your theology.
A quick aside to Renton,
It seems to me that miracles probably can happen on the basis of need. And sometimes what we think of as need is not what God sees as our need. Not even everyone during the time of the Apostles was healed, for instance.
I remember an incident that was told to have happened in our area a few years ago. Two Christian young men were hiking up a mountain trail when they came upon a grizzly bear coming down the trail directly at them. The report was that they commanded the bear, in the name of Jesus, to leave. Apparently it got a look of terror on it’s face and turned around and ran back up the trail! Conincidence? I don’t think so. Now that wasn’t removing a literal mountain, but a grizzly bear may be just as formidable if it is right in front of you!
I myself have had a smaller scale incident happen, (not with a bear!), that makes me believe that this story was in all probability true.
Now I reckon it is your choice to believe or disbelieve a story like this. I just wanted to let you know that I believe miracles still happen.
P.S. We’d better not pursue this conversation any further here because it would utterly derail the topic and we might get in trouble for that!
John,
Again you have dodged actually answering the question by simply making accusations against you opponents. What one believes about the authority and inerrancy of the Bible has no bearing whatsoever on the question that was asked because it is not a player at the table. We have two players, tradition, which i our interpretation of Scripture, and General Revelation, which is God revealed through the created order. Now I know you don’t want to answer this because it is a direct attack on the epistemology you are using to make your case, but if you want to go forward you will have to answer it, because I’m not responding with anything but this question till it is answered.
So again answer the question. Which wins – tradition or General Revelation???
And for the record I personally agree with CMP and what he wrote here as to the way the Bible should be viewed.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/my-definite-stance-on-inerrancy/
#John1453,
I’m not quite sure how to respond to your argument about evolution being atheistic cause I’m not sure what you mean by it.
If you mean that those who believe in it are generally atheists, this may be true, but isn’t determinative.
If you mean that it was a theory formed with the assumption that there is no God, this is also true. However, again I don’t see the issue. Every scientific theory ever formed has an assumption that there is either no God, or a God which created a physical law which explains things. As someone pointed out the theory of gravity removes God from holding the planets in the sky as was believed by the ancients. Ultimately we should be aware of any preconceptions that went into a scientific theory, and I would say more so we must be aware of the limits of science and methodological naturalism that goes with it. However, given that this has proven our best way to understand the universe (basically all of modern technology and understandings was discovered by methodological naturalism) when the evidence is strong enough we must recognize it. We can’t just ignore it because the method through which the evidence was discovered assumes a natural explanation for things.
If someone can look at the same evidence and come up with another logical explanation (scientific or not) I’m all ears. Yet so far I haven’t seen a better explanation that hasn’t been addressed and easily explained away and many of the explanations that come out are just plain illogical.
I don’t think we need to draw the battlelines quite so firmly here between Religion and Science.
It seems from the above, 1) that Darwin was a Christian when he first formulated his theory. So that, though Darwin later became an atheist, the doctrine orginated in a Christian mindset.
While then too 2) many scientists have claimed to be Christians.
While 3) others simply say science is about the natural world; religion is about belief and faith and spirit. Thus avoiding direct conflict.
In any case, 4) I and thousands of others have argued for TE and similar theories: that we can come up with a reading of the Bible that is totally consistent with a) the Bible itself, and b) science itself too.
Especially if we obey God’s command to learn to understand a parable, an allegory, a figure of speech; and apply that to understanding the Bible.
5) It may be that SOME scientists and practical people, were/are atheists, and even anti-theists. But that is just one group of people; not all – or even most – of them.
6) Those who don’t like the various formulations of TE, might consider various other attempts to reconcile religion and science. Consider the founding father, Jefferson, and “Deism”; the idea that God indeed created the physical universe – but then left it behind, to operate more or less independently, according to its own principles. Principles best discovered by science.
No doubt at times, it seems useful to starkly contrast science to religion; but it hardly seems necessary for now. Given so many useful theories to reconcile them; or to at least allow them to operate independently, without conflict.
Darwin’s Atheism
It is a myth that Darwin believed in God while he wrote his books such as the Origin of Species. The myth is difficult to kill because it serves the purposes of evolutionists who try to soft sell their theory to Christians. Darwin’s alleged Christian faith is nought but poppycock and was merely part of his self promotion and later hagiography.
The most recent rebuttal of this myth is in B. Wiker’s book, The Darwin Myth: the Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. Darwin was raised and taught by atheists and materialists. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, believed in and promoted evolution (called by him “transmutationism”) and he wrote a book on it called “Zoönomia”. Erasmus’ peers considered him to be an atheist.
Darwin began writing a journal in notebooks at age 27, after he ad returned from his trip on the Beagle. In notebook C, at age 29, Darwin wrote that “The intimate relation of Life with laws of Chemical combination” suggests that “spontaneous generation [is] not improbable.” Later in the same notebook he wrote (in reference to himself), “oh you Materialist!,” and then he writes “Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves . . .” In his twenties he wrote this in regard to the proposition that nature was planned by God, “in his reaction to a quote from John Macculloch suggesting the design or plan of an omnipotent Creator, he scratched in heavy ink, “What bosch!!” Darwin was also a big fan and follower of Hume.
Naturalism / materialis, whether of the metaphysical or merely methodological varieties, treats nature as “complete”: it contains all that is needed to produce the effects that we observe. Physical, material nature is the ultimate (and only) reality. However, for the theist For the theist (though not for the panentheist of process theology), nature is not a self-subsisting entity but the result of action by God. God is the ultimate realty and nature is only derivative of that ultimate reality.
Those who argue that there is no philosophy in science are simply ignorant of the fact, and need to get out more. The fact that most scientists are unaware of the interpretive framework from within which they operate does not mean that the framework does not exist. It does and scientific materialism is the current philosophy that guides and interprets most of modern science. The unthinking acceptance of the framework of scientific materialism means that it has by default become part of the definition of science. However, it is not necessary for scientific materialism to be the sole paradigm for it is only one way to interpret information and evidence; it is only one way to do “science”.
# John,
I agree with you. Science in general is too narrowly construed. Yet this is not a result purely of the scientific method, but rather because of unscientific philosophies which have been allowed to creep into science. Furthermore, there is the idea perpetrated by this philosophy that science is the only way to know truth. I have argued from the very beginning that “science” has become polluted by philosophy and is not science anymore. When the odds of something being a natural occurrence are so extreme as to be next to impossible science should admit that it is so and admit the likelihood of some non-natural cause. To me it is no different then a police officer looking at the evidence in a death and determining that it was likely a result of foul play because the odds of someone dying in such a manner by accident are extreme.
Personally I have no problem looking at the evidence for evolution and seeing very clearly the evidence of a designer in the process. Now a “true” scientist would say this isn’t science (they’d be right – but saying it is an unguided, random process and then proclaiming that to be science is ultimately the pot calling the kettle black). Yet the naturalistic assumptions of science I don’t think undermines the evidence that I have seen. I think evolution is the best solution to the raw physical evidence and have yet to find a more plausible explanation which doesn’t create way more problems then it solves.
re Michael T’s post 612
Unfortunately I must disagree with Michael T. There are no such things as “unscientific philosophies”, nor is it correct to say that philosophies have “crept into” science, nor is it true that science has been “polluted by” philosophy. All science has an underlying philosophy. Everything humans do that involves thinking has philosophy associated with it. It is not possible to practice any kind of science without having a philosophy. The questions, properly put, are “what philosophy should we use when constructing the practice of science”, or “what kind of philosophy should we use when practicing science?”.
Michael T’s arguments regarding “odds” are not arguments in favor of God using evolution to develop biological nature as we observe it, but rather are arguments against evolution per se. If the odds are astronomically against against a land animal becoming a whale, how is it that God makes the impossible possible? How are long odds evidence for a God?
regards,
#John
#John writes:
Don’t we use long odds and statistical probability as evidence all the time? I remember a murder case here in CA where a CHP officer was accused of rape and murder. They established his semen carried an enzyme found only in a miniscule percantage of the population (this was before effective DNA testing). He was convicted in part because of the “long odds” that some other guy with the same enzyme could have committed the crime.
re comment 614 by Dave Z
To clarify, I meant how are long odds against evolution evidence that God is involved in evolution? It’s only evidence that evolution is unlikely. In order for there to even be a trace of an argument in that proposition, evolution would have to be true (of which there is no proof or evidence) but only true up to the point of the gap where God’s power is needed. If one assumes that is the case, where would Greg posit that the hand of God intervened? Any point that he chose would be challenged by F. Collins and, likely, D. Venema.
regards,
#John
” John goes over the top with his argument (if I understand it correctly) that if you throw out inerrancy you then must throw out everything. ”
Firstly, I didn’t say you must throw out everything. I said that everything is subject to being thrown out because it is subordinate to ones understanding of general revelation and ones assumptions about the ignorance of the ancients.
Secondly, if the god described in the bible is immoral, and thereby we are told that it doesn’t accurately portrait God, which is what we’ve been told in this thread, what exactly are we left with, and why ought we retain anything as sacrosanct?
I’m really quite open to hearing an argument about why the presentation we have received here doesn’t destroy Christianity, since the biblical presentation of God has been described as false. Maybe I’m missing something, but this seems rather obvious to me.
” Furthermore, John refers to “your side”, as if all the theistic evolutionists were of like mind ”
That’s why my last statement in my last posting invited Greg, or was it Michael, to throw his fellow TEs in the river on this. So far the silence is deafening, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
“Even if we just treated the Bible as uninspired, but merely the record of people as they interacted with God, we would not be reduced to the feeble position that John appears to think we would be.”
But if the god described in the OT is immoral and therefore not a portrayal of God, then the Bible is NOT a record of people as they interacted with God, but a portrayal of people as they THOUGHT they were interacting with God, but weren’t!
“We have two players, tradition, which i our interpretation of Scripture, and General Revelation, which is God revealed through the created order.”
Firstly, you seem to think all interpretation is tradition. That’s false. Some interpretation might lean on tradition, but not all.
Secondly, the issue at state is not interpretation! We’ve been told here by TEs that what the OT says God did is immoral, and therefore not what God did at all. Both sides agree on what the text means, the issue is whether it is true or not. Again, if you want to say that poster was wrong and raise the level of your side’s stature to a position hitherto not seen in this thread, then maybe we could move on.
Thirdly, before we could go into a more wide ranging discussion of tradition, you would have to first affirm the traditions in scripture itself. Are you willing to affirm the apostolic interpretations of Genesis for example, because here again, no TE in this thread has been willing to do so. If you can’t affirm the enscripturated tradition, there’s not much point arguing about whether a particular interpretation is objective or merely tradition.
If you want an answer, the traditions of interpretation of scripture, as found in scripture by the apostles, trumps what you think about General revelation, because the former is God’s word, and the latter is your opinion.
mbaker, Re post #606,
…why they don’t consider that a compromising statement coming from the man who is considered the father of evolution.
We don’t do this because this good biologist was also a poor theologian. My evolutionary biology professor in college was the same, and I told him as much in my evaluation. He knew his science but not his theology.
Darwin seems to root his rejection of his faith in his common experience and knowledge about the world, namely that agreeable accounts are usually considered more reliable, miracles are unverifiable, and that false religions are a very powerful force in the world. There is no mention that he thought this way as a direct and necessary result of evolution. At least this is the idea I get from the excerpt you quoted in post 585.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that Christianity is bolstered by faith first and foremost. We cannot objectively prove beyond a doubt Jesus is alive, or that God exists, or that the Bible is inspired. Evidence can be gathered to make an informed decision, but the actual belief comes about and is sustained by faith. This is a very subjective way at figuring things out.
Science deals with the objective, material, testable, and falsifiable area of knowledge. Its a lot harder to deny when its more objective. So I can understand Darwin picking the thing he was more certain about. Doesn’t mean I think it was the right choice though.
I wonder what his rejection of the faith tells us about the doctrine on the perseverance of the Saints?
Do you tell them that they must keep it separate, while all the while quoting them to prove your point?
I have no problem quoting someone when they are an expert in one area, and passing over them for another area. The distribution of gifts is never evenly spread out across the board. My strength is understanding the Creation account, for example. Not biology. So I may defer to Dawkins’ expertise on evolution, but can easily pass over anything he tries to say about Genesis.
Chris Heard, a biblical scholar, over at the blog Higgaion takes some of Dawkins’ cohorts to task when they make some non-expert statements about the Bible. Its an entertaining read here: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1577
Here’s an excerpt: “I mentioned above that I’m a biblical scholar by trade. Imagine how a biologist feels when some creationist nitwit trots out some old, tired argument that misrepresents evolutionary theory (“If humans evolved from chimpanzees, why are there still chimpanzees?” for example). That’s how I feel when I read paragraphs like the two posted above, which get ancient history all wrong. ’nuff said.”
Just as atheists misrepresent the Bible, so do Christians regarding evolution. Its a very wide two-way street unfortunately, and both are rooted in ignorance.
Cheryl, Re Post # 607,
Conincidence? I don’t think so. Now that wasn’t removing a literal mountain, but a grizzly bear may be just as formidable if it is right in front of you!
While I’m not against this being a miracle, I don’t think that’s the only explanation. For example the hiker’s loud and probably authoritative voice may have been enough to frighten the bear away.
John, Re Post # 616,
That’s why my last statement in my last posting invited Greg, or was it Michael, to throw his fellow TEs in the river on this. So far the silence is deafening, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
What statement was that? I seemed to have missed it.
Re Post #617,
Are you willing to affirm the apostolic interpretations of Genesis for example, because here again, no TE in this thread has been willing to do so.
I’ve done so. But only in the context of the Apostles era, of course.
For example, Matthew used a method of interpretation that was accepted in his day, but isn’t practiced today as much in Christendom. So when I interpret Matthew interpreting the Prophets, I don’t run into any issue because we are using two different interpretive methods. If I recognize that, then scripture’s fidelity is preserved; if I don’t then Matthew read meaning into the Prophets that isn’t there according to the historical-grammatical method that you and I both use. He would be doing eisegesis, as you insist we’ve done.
I know you don’t like interpreting the Bible according to its own standards, but the Bible comes out much stronger because of it.
If you want an answer, the traditions of interpretation of scripture, as found in scripture by the apostles, trumps what you think about General revelation, because the former is God’s word, and the latter is your opinion.
The interpretation the Apostles place on scripture is founded in their worldview at the time. We have to account for that in our own interpretation lest we miss the meaning.
Its like shooting an arrow. If your initial aim is off by even a centimeter, you can miss the whole target.
This means our interpretations should be done with extra caution and extra study, making full use of the resources we have available to us.
John,
Again you didn’t answer my question. You went into all sorts of attacks on our side that are not true and paint with broad strokes to avoid answering you question. The problem of violence in the Old Testament has been a long running theological issue when compared to the message of Jesus. It has been discussed for centuries as a issue we have to deal with as Christians. Now someone made the comment that God’s behavior in the Old Testament was immoral. That does not represent my position nor the majority of TE’s (though I certainly have thought about the problem extensively and posited a possible solution earlier that I hold tentatively). I would say that God’s behavior “appears” immoral when not properly understood, however this doesn’t really matter.
Ultimately you’re using the position of one person to attack a larger group who by an large doesn’t hold that position (most of them don’t even hold my position and haven’t even thought about the issue). It’s a logical fallacy. It’s almost like saying some Evangelicals are Calvinist’s therefore all Evangelicals are Calvinists. You’re saying some TE’s think the God of the OT is immoral therefore all TE’s think the God of the OT is immoral. It is a logical fallacy that designed to do nothing more then allow you to dodge a difficult question and it’s not working.
So stop trying to wiggle your way out of this one. Stop simply attacking the other side so you don’t have to address the weakness in your own argument. We have been patient and addressed (most) of the questions you have asked us, it’s time you answer one of your own. So answer the question. If tradition (out interpretive framework of the Bible) conflicts with General Revelation (God as revealed in creation) which should win???
It only requires a one or two word answer. So answer it. tradition or General Revelation?
“For example, Matthew used a method of interpretation that was accepted in his day, but isn’t practiced today as much in Christendom.”
How do you know? The interpretation he presents might not be supported by the historical-grammatical method, but you beg the question in a major way to assume that the source of his interpretation is some methodology rather than revelation.
“if I don’t then Matthew read meaning into the Prophets that isn’t there according to the historical-grammatical method that you and I both use. ”
Who said I restrict myself to the historical-grammatical method anyway? Sounds like you are confessing that your interpretive methodology is not the apostolic one, and to me that can’t be a good thing by any means.
What you’re saying in your euphemistic way is that Matthew couldn’t interpret it properly and therefore tells us some fibs. But you can supposedly do better than Matthew. Isn’t there something in Luke 6:40 about a pupil is not above his teacher? How can you can hope to know more than those to whom the revelation was given?
“This means our interpretations should be done with extra caution and extra study”
What for? If the apostles of Jesus are getting it all wrong, how how can I interpret better than them? And what is the point when I’ll be carefully interpreting their flawed message? You can know less that what was revealed, but not more.
Michael: As I said, the problem with your question is it seems to assume you know what the General revelation is, but you can’t possibly know the correct biblical interpretation.
I might just as well ask you what wins: The Special Revelation, or your interpretive framework of the General Revelation.
Your premise seems to be we can know with clarity the General Revelation, but the Special Revelation is all plastic and needs to be formed and reformed by what we think we’ve discovered about the General Revelation.
Why this is a good hermeneutic we aren’t told.
Of course, anything that is truly revelation trumps everything, because if it was revelation then by definition it would have come from God. But the specifics of science are not usually reckoned as General Revelation in a theological context. Revelation is what reveals something about God. As the Holman dictionary says about General Revelation: “God might reveal Himself through His actions in that world”. Knowing Hydrogen has one electron is not generally reckoned as General Revelation, because it tells us little about God. What the bible says that General Revelation is, is only of the broadest nature, about God’s eternal power and divine nature.
I suppose what you are hoping is I will admit General Revelation to be above some interpretation, and thereby you somehow win. But what is definitional of Christianity is the Special Revelation. Believing the General Revelation, or being an expert on the General Revelation is not making you a Christian. Believing the Special Revelation as best you can makes you a Christian. Using your interpretational framework for the General Revelation to trump the Special Revelation makes you suspect as a Christian. You think that what you do is not trumping the Special Revelation, but you certainly may be wrong, since so many people disagree with you. If you’re wrong, then you’re a crusader against God’s Special revelation. If you’re right you’re not. But if I’m wrong, I’m merely a bad scientist, which is no bad thing unless I’m purporting to be a scientist. But a Christian who looks like they might be a crusader against God is at best very divisive in the Church, and at worst not a Christian at all, since they reject the Special Revelation which is definitional of being a Christian in favor of a secular theory they have about the General Revelation.
I know I can be a Christian and believe what Christians have always believed, even if that is scientifically flawed. Whether you can be a Christian and believe novelties that could have far reaching theological consequences is an untested question. And since TEs seem to think God only spoke to ancient Hebrews and Greeks in terms meaningful to them, and is not intending to speak to a new supposedly enlightened generation to clear up the apparent contradictions between what he told us last time and what supposedly has been discovered by scientists, the question looks to remain unanswered.
Then the question becomes what the aim of life is. Is it to seek scientific truth for truth’s sake, and to be right about that, damn the consequences, or is it to be in communion with God? If its the latter then conservatism and prudence would suggest caution before rejecting what the faith meant to those to whom it was first revealed.
Re post 617 and 620
I agree with Michael T. We have not been told by all TEs / theistic evolutionists that God is immoral. It would further the discussion for John to actually quote what he disagrees with, or at least provide a reference to the comment he disagrees with, and then provide reasons for why that comment is wrong. He could then provide his own alternative and the reasons for it.
It is also neither evident nor clear to me that both sides share the same interpretation. In fact, I’m not even sure from John’s post what the text is of which he believes everyone shares the same interpretation.
It’s also not evident to me that we all share the same understandings of the apostolic interpretations of Genesis. I, for one, don’t see that any of their interpretations preclude all versions of theistic evolution.
re post 618
Greg writes, “We cannot objectively prove beyond a doubt Jesus is alive, or that God exists, or that the Bible is inspired.” In the sense that Greg appears to be using “objectively prove”, the same could be said about evolution, which is theory of history more than a scientific theory. No one can objectively prove beyond a doubt that evolution occurred either. Hence adherents to evolution are making just as big a faith commitment as Christians, in fact bigger, because their is more, better, and stronger evidence regarding God/Jesus then there is regarding evolution.
Greg’s definition of science is only one of many definitions (his definition: “Science deals with the objective, material, testable, and falsifiable area of knowledge.”). If his definition were used, then evolution would not count as science because it not falsifiable, and because arguably it is not testable or objective either.
re post 622
John pejoratively writes that theistic evolutions believe that “God only spoke to ancient Hebrews and Greeks in terms meaningful to them”. So, John, are you suggesting that God spoke to the ancient Hebrews in terms that were not meaningul to them? If so, which parts of Genesis 1 were meaningful to them and which parts weren’t?
John also seems to misunderstand the need for, and the use of, epistemic humility. How do we know what we know and how confident can we be about that knowledge? Even to for form or understand language at all means that one must use one’s experience of the natural world (God’s general revelation) and one’s reasoning. In this life, at least, one cannot avoid that. Consequently, when presented with a written text one must use the knowledge of language that one has, which one has built up from natural world experiences and human reasoning, to understand what it means.
Given that humans are flawed, one must be humble about one’s interpretations because no one, this side of the second coming, can be utterly confident that their interpretation has no flaws.
regards,
#John
John #:
You read the following, as Darwin being too materialistic, even early in his life. But look more closely. Darwin is actually criticizing himself if he is too materialistic at times. And suggesting that being too materialistic is “arrogant”:
“Darwin began writing a journal in notebooks at age 27, after he [h]ad returned from his trip on the Beagle. In notebook C, at age 29, Darwin wrote that ‘The intimate relation of Life with laws of Chemical combination’ suggests that ‘spontaneous generation [is] not improbable.’ Later in the same notebook he wrote (in reference to himself), ‘oh you Materialist!,’ and then he writes ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves . . .'”
Why are all these non-scientists trying to tell science how to do its job, and change? When science works so fantastically well, as is?
Can you cite any REAL science – not “creation science” – that isn’t mostly naturalistic/materialistic? Defining “materialistic” broadly, to include energy?
Do we really think that a science that accepts ghosts and supernaturalism, will be better? And not just a visit to the ancient past, and gross superstition?
Woops; excuse me. My lunch just materialised out of thin air in front of me, thanks to my magic wand. Must eat, like any good scientist.
RE 625
In fuller context, Darwin’s comment “oh you materialist” is a mock protestation. He is recognizing that his materialism is “naughty” given the widespread belief at the time that the world was not soley material but spiritual as well.
The second comment is in fact an approval of materialism because it takes mankind down a peg. Mankind assumes that he is special because he can “think” and because “thinking” is some sort of non-material happening that elevates him above animals that cannot. Darwin is postulating that thinking is merely a physical, material thing and that therefore man is no different from animals and has no separate soul.
Darwin faked his alleged slow conversion away from Christianity. He was, and remained, an atheist from early in his life. But at least he was an honest one and revealed his atheism to his fiancée Emma before they married. In addition, in order to sell books, he agreed to many edits to the various editions of his works that added references to God that did not appear in the drafts or early editions.
Evolution was, and still is, the atheist’s alternative origins and development myth. It is a myth that takes faith to believe in, a myth that has not been proved even on a balance of probabilities, a myth that is actively in opposition to Christian beliefs, and a myth that compromises Christians who subscribe to it.
regards,
#John
Was Darwin an atheist?
1) If so, then maybe God can still love atheists.
BIblical evidence is hard to find, to be sure. But: the writer of Ecclesiastes tells people not to be “too righteous”; he doubts the afterlife and asks “who knows” where people go when they die; he doubts whether God honors his covenants, since he has seen good people “perish in their righteousness,” and bad people flourish. Etc.. So that, though he often speaks of God, he seems at least rather agnostic, and Epicurian/mildly hedonistic in the end. Telling us to simply “enjoy life.” Since to be a live dog, is better than a dead lion; the dead “knowing nothing” etc..
Admittedly, I’d have to do a little more research, to find God approving full-out atheists. Though in Revelation, say, God seems to approve people who are totally “cold” on religion, over those who are “lukewarm.”
2) In any case, a logical contradiction: a) if Evolution is really a “religion” – as many here assert – and b) Darwin is an Evolutionist, then c) Darwin is religious. And d) being religious, he probably has a sort of God. (Matter, if nothing else).
And e) therefore, Darwin is not an atheist.
In the September, 1991 issue of the Christian Scholar’s Review (a journal to which I formerly subscribed) Alvin Plantinga wrote “When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible”. In that article he addressed the question: what should Christians do when there is an apparent conflict between faith and reason? The article is quite relevant to this thread because he examined the alleged conflict between the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of current evolutionary theory. He observed in his article, as many have argued in this thread, that many scientists and their followers claim that evolution is as certain as our purely physcial claims such as the earth revolves around the sun.
Plantinga disputed the claim of certainty, and argued that the TOE was less probable than not, and he did it all “without saying exactly how I think God did create all the varying forms of life, without specifying and endorsing some hypothesis of the same logical level or the same logical strength as TCA.” (quoted from a follow-up article by him in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44 (December 1992): 258-263).
Several people on this thread have indicated or implied that if I reject evolution as a theory or explanation because it unlikely on the evidence, I have to propose some other theory in its place. If claim that evolution is improbable, on the evidence (and as a consequence do not accept (believe) it). Should I be embarrassed if people often ask me what my alternative is and I don’t have one?Like Plantinga, I wouldn’t be embarrassed nor do I feel it is necessary to propose an alternative.
Plantinga writes, “if you think a given explanation or theory T is less likely than its denial, or even if you think it is only somewhat more likely than its denial, you quite properly won’t believe it. This is so even if you can’t think of another theory or explanation of the phenomena that you believe more probable than not, or even more probable than T.”
Plantinga believes, as do I, in special creation (“SC”). However, as he and I will acknowledge, SC isn’t really an alternative to TOE (even in TOE’s minimalist form of simply common descent). Special Creation holds merely that God has created life in some way incompatible with TOE, but it doesn’t venture a guess as to what way that might be. Common DNA is neither here nor there, and proves nothing either way.
Most theories of theistic evolution have God merely as some sort of ghost in the machine, which I believe is unacceptable.
Intelligent design would, from a Christian perspective, be compatible both with some forms of theistic evolution and with all forms of special creation. Furthermore, for the same reasons as argued by Plantinga, it need not propose a detailed and complete theory in order to be a valid postulate.
regards,
#John
One must wonder what Darwin’s motives could have if he did ‘fake’ an early belief in God in his autobiography.
While he doesn’t come right and say he lost faith, (or never had it as the case may be) because of evolution, it now leads me to wonder if he wasn’t subtly trying to prove Christianity wrong all along, like Dawkins unabashedly does nowadays.
While the Christians in the field may be strictly interested in scientific research into evolution, the fact, remains that Christianity atheists like Richard Dawkins delight in using ALL evolutionary discoveries to disprove God, including those findings of Christians, while debunking creation science as junk.
While I realize that scientists often times have no control over how their evidence is used or interpreted, I think that’s often true with theologians as well.
The science of evolution is relatively new compared to Christianity, however, and these scientists are the new kids on the block themselves. Thus, the burden of proof should be upon them to prove they are completely right in their claims that man evolved from primates, before rejecting the traditional claims of the Biblical creation account, whether they are Christians or not. Seems to me those who are already seeking to disprove the biblical account have got the cart before the horse, when it is their side who needs to provide a lot more verifiable answers at this point in time.
Renton, you use an incorrect definition of “atheist”, you have a false premise, and your “e)” is not entailed by “d)”. Your argument is both invalid and false; so also is your conclusion.
John,
Dodging the question again. This is getting to be like a broken record. No one is saying that the Bible is below General Revelation or vice versa even. Both reveal God to us in different ways and we must be aware of both. Please Read http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/is-natural-revelation-also-gods-word/. I linked it before.
Ultimately these two sources of revelation play off one another and there are areas where we can be virtually certain of what they are saying and other areas where they seem obscured. By way of example most rational people would admit that we are “sure” from our observations of General Revelation that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They would also say we are “less sure” about the proper interpretation (Tradition) of the verses in the Bible which seem to indicate that the Sun revolves around the Earth. As a result most people look at the certainty of General Revelation and relative uncertainty of their traditional interpretation of Scripture and side with General Revelation.
What is being ultimately alleged here is that the translation of Genesis you favor is more about your tradition then trying to discover the truth of what the text actually means. Many here have proposed alternate ways of reading the text that wouldn’t be incompatible with all forms of TE. If you actually bothered to read all the articles which Greg linked earlier you would’ve seen that many of our doctrines would need virtually no change if these views were accepted to be true. Furthermore, the views proposed are made much more likely by discoveries about the ANE over the past few decades as ANE studies has become a more popular area of inquiry.
Now the other John (John 1453) raises a number of issues about how certain we are about evolution and these are certainly worth discussing. However, this doesn’t allow you to dance around the question or not answer it. It is possible (I think highly unlikely obviously) that all of evolutionary theory is hoax, but I think the probability is much higher that it is real.
So I’ll rephrase the question slightly. If evolution is proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt which will win out for you??? Will you hold steadfastly to your tradition and they way that tradition interprets Genesis, or will you change your tradition and reinterpret Genesis in light of General Revelation (or will you just leave the faith)???
I don’t much see the point or force of Michael T’s question in his comment 633. It’s a hypothetical with no current basis in reality, and no likelihood of ever being true. But let us assume that we have no epistemic doubts whatsoever about evolution–perhaps God Himselve reveals that Darwinian evolution and descent from a common ancestory is true. What of it? The only correct answer, if one is rational and one believes that all truth is God’s truth (and there can be no conflict between general and special revelation when both are correctly understood), is that of course John would have to admit that his interpretation of scripture was wrong.
Nothing significant flows from that conclusion, because that conclusion does not pertain to the real world in which we find ourselves, and especially not to our current circumstances in which we have limited knowledge and (should) have a great deal of epistemic humility.
So, there really is no other answer for John to give other than “of course”, and there is no point in John giving that answer either because it is tautological and thus irrelevant. Reduced to its essentials, Michael T is just asking John to agree that truth is truth.
At this point the Wesleyan quadrilateral is of some assistance. The “Wesleyan quadrilater” is a term coined in the 60s to refer to John Wesley’s understanding of religious authority in which he affirmed the interdependent relationship between (1) scriptural authority (to which he gave primacy) along with (2) religious authority of tradition, (3) reason and (4) experience.
What we have in actuality is conflicting assessments of what is true, and conflicting methodologies for doing our reasoning and assessing our experience, and differing weights given to the various aspects of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. But this does not, I think, leave us in a morass with no way out.
regards,
#John
#John:
There are 600+ entries here; it’s hard to reconstruct your full point of view. But you seem to be 1) posing hypothetical objections to Evolution and often specifically TE, Theistic Evolution. Those objections seem to stem from 2) objections to Evolution in itself. Including objections to science? And 3) perhaps you focus on disagreements between the evolutionary account, and the Bible.
I personally support TE, and specifically am especially interested in the third class of objections: any apparent contradictions you see between Evolution, and the BIble.
THis might be much too much to ask; but if you would like to VERY briefly summarize your major points here, that might help you a) systematize your own views. And b) give us a useful point of reference.
If you don’t want to do this, I understand.
(By the way, the syllogism above is not entirely serious. But to be sure, many people here have said that Evolution, science, is based just on blind belief or faith; and is in effect a religion. My point being that IF we accept what people say, that – to be sure, questionable – first premise, leads to a contradiction with the position that Darwin was an atheist. Darwin’s quote suggests he worships Matter over all you hint; so Darwin has a god. Therefore – since the definition of “atheist” is one who has no “theo” or “god” – Darwin is not an atheist)
“John pejoratively writes that theistic evolutions believe that “God only spoke to ancient Hebrews and Greeks in terms meaningful to them”. So, John, are you suggesting that God spoke to the ancient Hebrews in terms that were not meaningul to them?”
Not that he only spoke to them in terms meaningful for them… but… He only spoke to Hebrews in terms meaningful to them, and not to us.
“John also seems to misunderstand the need for, and the use of, epistemic humility. How do we know what we know and how confident can we be about that knowledge?”
It’s epistemic humility that requires me not to embrace any brand new interpretations hitherto unknown. Lack of epistemic humility is what results in all sort of new cults, splinter groups, and various divisive elements in the church. I believe that is why Paul is emphatic that the Church is to hold to what they’ve been taught, because this is humility and this results in godly unity.
“Can you cite any REAL science – not “creation science” – that isn’t mostly naturalistic/materialistic?”
So you define science to exclude non-naturalistic versions thereof, and then you ask us to cite some that doesn’t exclude it, when you just excluded it a-priori?
I must agree with John’s point in #637.
A point here I think also needs to be made is that creation science has had to rise up in recent times as a defensive response, primarily to dispute the claims some evolutionists and/or atheists were/are using to debunk Christianity. I don’t think it was ever meant to be in direct competition, but has been forced into that position by evolutionists who fight creationism or intelligent design being being taught in schools, and offered as a viable alternative elsewhere.
Why is that issue such a danger to science, I wonder?
“They would also say we are “less sure” about the proper interpretation (Tradition) of the verses in the Bible which seem to indicate that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”
I’m still not buying that the bible teaches the sun revolves around the earth. Talking about movements from your own perspective is simply a means of expression that even persists into this heliocentric age, and one might even argue it prefigures Relativity in that movement is only meaningful in relation to something else. Plenty of words and expressions in the bible come from paganism without us assuming the bible teaches pagan theology. Neither does phrases and idioms from a possibly geocentric worldview mean the bible teaches geocentrism.
But very little theology is related to centrism. The same can’t be said for the Genesis account of Adam which is used in various contexts to justify a number of things including the all important meaning of the atonement. So obliterating the plain meaning is far more significant. It is certainly obvious that the danger exists here to come up with something totally off the wall.
Now you might say you can come up with a concoction that somehow you can squeeze into the text and have it compatible with evolution. Some ape is given a soul and that is Adam, or there is no literal Adam but he represents something or other. The trouble is it is just that – a concoction. There is no possibility you could ever show that fabrication is the true one. That being so, you are adding a possibly very wrong appendage into a biblical point that just so happens to be very central to the entire book, with who knows what consequences for the perception of the church for these important issues.
This is why I say you should whenever possible shut up about this issue in a Christian context, because even if evolution is true on some level, you have no idea whatsoever how to insert it into biblical theology and come up with the truth. We only know how to interpret the theology of Genesis correctly in a creationist worldview, because that is the way it was presented to us, and that is the way it was understood by the apostles & church.
You ask if in some hypothetical scenario I will steadfastly hold to my tradition in interpreting Genesis. But seriously, its not “my tradition”, nor any other “tradition”. The book presents a creationist story and worldview. You shouldn’t be asking me if I intend to stick with a tradition of interpretation, you should be asking me if I intend to stick with the actual meaning as found in the text and as found in prophets and apostles’ interpretation of the text, as opposed to aligning myself with one of dozens of concoctions, theories and fantasies about apes being given souls and eisegeting that into the text. Whether or not apes were given souls, and whether or not Genesis might withstand such manipulation, it doesn’t give me any cause for picking among these theories as a new viable interpretive…
… framework for the bible.
John,
And thus we have the fundamental epistemological disagreement between you and I. I would suggest you read the link from CMP I linked earlier which suggest that the Bible indicates Special Revelation and General Revelation are on much more equal terms then you suggest and that when we understand something with a degree of certainty from General Revelation this should affect our tradition and theology.
If you have some disagreement with CMP’s exegesis of the relevant scripture then let me know where you disagree and we can further this discussion. .
Mbaker,
Why is that issue such a danger to science, I wonder?
It’s a danger to science because it isn’t science. It’s folk-science. Although I’d recommend watching all 16 videos, Gordon Glover did a video on folk science here (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-1/). It’s Lesson #4. I’d recommend watching the two ID videos too, lessons 13 & 14. His “Intelligent Design vs. Alien Intervention” videos are also pretty good.
The US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Michale Behe, the darling of the ID movement, admitted that ID doesn’t fall under that definition a little over four years ago in the famous Dover Trial. He went on to offer his own definition, but then, on the stand, had to admit that astrology would also be considered a valid scientific theory according to his definition.
I personally don’t think that’s very useful.
Ever heard the saying when you’re looking for something that “its always in the last place you look”? We say that because we don’t continue looking for something once we’ve found it.
If science gave up a total commitment to methodological naturalism and thought a problem settled by simply adding God to the equation, like creation scientists and IDers do, then there would be no reason to investigate the matter further. The problem’s solved! God did it, so why keep looking?
Every Westerner operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism. When you lose your keys you search for them until you find them. You don’t assume God had anything to do with it. When you get sick, you go to the doctor, who may or may not be a Christian. You both don’t even consider God as the cause of your sickness. Then the doctor starts testing for material causes. If he did his job without invoking methodological naturalism, we would call him a witch doctor.
I know injecting God as an option into science sounds good in theory, but most people would never do it in real life.
In my opinion, if they don’t live it, then they don’t believe it. I don’t care what they say.
# John,
I’m not fully sure where you are going with your statements. Your arguments seem off topic in some ways. I mean we could have a full blown discussion about the relative merits of evolution and the evidence for it. Yet to me that doesn’t seem to be the question we are trying to get at. The question asked by CMP was whether or not evolution (which I understand to mean common descent) is incompatible with or compromises Christianity. Now we can have legitimate disagreements on the evidence (though at he end of the day I find the evidence quite convincing) and still debate the fundamental question of how we handle things if the evidence becomes undeniable (as many would argue it is). Yet the evidence itself isn’t the point, it is rather the philosophical and theological issues.
Maybe I’m misreading you here, but your line of argument would essentially get Johnny Mac off on a technicality (very lawyerly of you btw). Since in your mind (and many people for that matter) evolution carries the inherent belief in atheism and naturalism it couldn’t possibly be compatible with Christianity (which of course I agree with – no belief for which a belief in atheism is a requirement could be compatible with a belief system which requires a belief in theism). However, I think this misses the point which is why I have rephrased the question a number of times to say “Does a belief in common descent compromise Christianity”?
I think the idea of common descent (which is what I think of when I think of evolution and even ID people such as Behe believe) can be separated from the larger naturalistic context it is generally presented in. I think that this common descent is ultimately what needs to be addressed. In a technical way evolution and common descent does not equal Darwinian Evolution.
On a personal aside. I can’t count the number of people I have come into contact with for whom Christian beliefs about creation are the number one roadblock to them accepting Christ. They are told by Christian’s (or at least it is insinuated) that in order to become a Christian they must accept a particular understanding of creation (generally YEC). As a result they feel like they are being asked to shoot their brains out in order to become a Christian which is just too much to swallow for many.
Greg,
I love what you just wrote about science and Methodological Naturalism because it is right on the money. Let me be clear I don’t like Methodological Naturalism any more then Winston Churchill liked democracy. At the end of the day no one has come up with a better system of inquiry which doesn’t just say goddidit to everything or allow in the whole kitchen sink as explanations.
That’s why I say I don’t think science is the problem. The problems is the philosophy of naturalism which states that science is the only way to know Truth. Now the two have honestly become joined at the hip (call it a marriage of convenience), but they have ultimately failed. Believe it or not the postmodern generation (of which I am a part, by age, not epistemology) is VERY skeptical of science. We have seen that science can destroy us just as much as religious zealots can. Ultimately the failure of science is why many believe that there is no knowable Truth, even when it comes to scientific or mathmatical Truths.
I think the idea that science is the only way to know Truth has a limited number of days left. The opportunity for revival is ripe, but not if were going to sit around claiming the Earth is 6000 years old. Ultimately Christianity is a worldview as much as it is a religion. It understands the world through what postmoderns call a metanarative of creation-fall-redemption. Any worldview to be true must adequately explain human history and the world around them. Christianity does this almost to a T and people are understanding this more and more (even though they don’t know it). It used to be that the first step in “converting” someone was to get them to admit they were a sinner. Believe it or not that is not that hard anymore. People get human falleness and imperfection – we see it on the TV everyday. The greatest obstacle these days is two fold 1) explaining the exclusivity of Christ, and 2) explaining how the Christian worldview fits the world around us.
Now in #2 the issue of origins always comes up. I AM NOT SAYING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES IN EVOLUTIONS WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT JUST TO WIN CONVERTS!!!!!. Now that that is clear enough I think it is important that we have very well thought out answers (one way or the other) as to the evidence for evolution. These had better be sophisticated and well thought out answers cause people aren’t stupid, and they are really good at using google.
I guess what I’m trying to say is 1) whichever side of this you’re on you better have some VERY GOOD answers for the questions non-Christians are going to ask about this and “Genesis sez so I believe” isn’t going to cut it, and 2) Don’t make creation a make or break issue. Before I came to believe in TE I would tell people about that view even if I didn’t believe it to prevent creation issues from being a stumbling block. Believe it or not God-fearing Bible believing Christian do interpret Genesis…
Michael,
Thanks for the kind words.
I know what you mean too. For many non-Christians that I’ve known, the issue of Genesis almost always came up. As a YEC I use to just argue with them, but that got no where. As my views changed so did the reactions I got.
I was just able to get further with them, and Genesis just became less and less of an unnecessary stumbling block.
Hey, are you on Facebook? If you are can you friend me? I’d like to get your opinion on something!
I’m the only Greg M on Michael Patton’s friend list.
“Since in your mind (and many people for that matter) evolution carries the inherent belief in atheism and naturalism it couldn’t possibly be compatible with Christianity”
I don’t think I’ve argued exactly that, although others here have.
But anytime I’m of half a mind to give you guys a little slack in that department, I’m met with a new doozy, like Greg’s new statement that Matthew’s interpretive abilities were lacking. Anytime I hear you saying you don’t believe in naturalism I hear something like this which is indistinguishable from naturalism. I can’t help but thinking that despite the protestations that you are just like us, but you’ve accepted an inevitable scientific fact, I’m met with more and more naturalism. Are the two related? I have my suspicions.
“On a personal aside. I can’t count the number of people I have come into contact with for whom Christian beliefs about creation are the number one roadblock to them accepting Christ.”
Well, believe it or not I think YECs in many contexts should shut-up more as well. But the trouble for you is, it is pretty hard to distinguish between YECs and people who are simply preaching the bible as-is, without particularly delving into issues of YE, OE, TE etc. And this where your side has the impossibly uphill battle, because you can’t tell anyone what it all means in a TE world, other than vague references to non-literal and metaphor, and even then every time you do, you risk an uproar, at least in many ecclesial settings. God isn’t making this easy for you. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.
Greg,
Whether creation science or intelligent design is considered folk science is not my point here, nor should it be for you. Many theologians consider TE folk religion, and could make a good case for that not to be taught in seminaries as well. The point is that evolution is being taught as the ONLY valid source of the origin of man, while still being a theory with a lot of holes in it as well, as Michael T. admits. Defining it as a science doesn’t change that.
This should concern you because we have a generation of school kids whom we are going to try to convert to Christianity at some point in time, outside of the classroom. Why would they be interested in doing so, or becoming part of a church family after being taught that we descended from primates, period, and any other way of looking it is junk science, meaning creationism? Furthermore, I think it presents difficulty in a Christian home to a child because it makes that child wonder who’s telling the truth, his parents or his evolutionist teaching.
Even the TE’s must admit that’s a problem, but joining ranks with evolution is still going to leave you leave you just as open to doubt as the YEC position does for creationists, because you can change school science textbooks yearly to reflect updates, but you can’t get by the first chapter of Genesis simply by changing your opinion, or someone else’s about it. So it seems to me that would present the same problem in convincing unbelievers to accept Christ as the YEC’s do, only in reverse, because you’ve got to jury rig the biblical account of the origins of man to do it.
Re 646 and John’s irrational and pejorative remark
Greg did not claim that Matthew’s interpretive abilities were lacking. If John is unfamiliar with the literature regarding second temple interpretive techniques and the relevance of that to Matthew’s use of the Old Testament, he should either ask for clarification or do some reading.
Summary of why I think evolution is a compromise
Below is a first attempt at summarizing why I think evolution, including theistic evolution, is a compromise:
1. it incorrectly empties Romans 1:20 of a great deal of meaning;
2. it unecessarily buys into philosophical or methodical naturalism or both;
3. it leaves God as merely a ghost in a machine;
4. it divorces faith from science;
5. it accepts an atheist alternative explanation for the origins and development of the biological world; and
6. it is a primary faith commitment to something that is non-falsifiable and which was explicitly developed on materialist principles in order to exclude God and special creation.
I believe that those are valid whether or not we know if evolution is true. That is, I am not arguing that it is a compromise for a Christian to believe in and promote evolution because evolution is factually wrong. Since it is not possible to falsify the present theories of evolution (they are not falsifiable theories), it’s not possible to prove that evolution is wrong, and thus it’s not possible to show that a Christian evolutionist is believing in something that is wrong.
re espistemic humility and post 636
Unless John is already a Roman Catholic, he should either have some epistemic humility about whether what he was taught is true, or he should reject the novel teachings of the reformers and return to the RC fold. In addition, belief that Genesis does not teach creation in seven 24-hour days has a long pedigree, going back to Augustine and before.
re post 639 and a consistent hermeneutic
John misses the point being made about his hermeneutic: if he were consistent in his approach to interpreting the Bible he would have to conclude, as the church did before him, that the universe is geocentric and that the earth is flat. And why, one can ask, is he abandoning that early church teaching for his new fangled teaching of heliocentrism? Could it be . . . . science?
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. promotes geocentricity, even today. This is what he has to say:
“Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to “up” and “down;” through the question of just what the earth was “orbiting” the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5: ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.’ Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13: ‘And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people…
re the slur in post 646
Michael T writes: “Maybe I’m misreading you here, but your line of argument would essentially get Johnny Mac off on a technicality (very lawyerly of you btw).”
Michael writes pejoratively about what lawyers do, as if I get JMac off when he really shouldn’t get off. Michael writes as if it is morally or otherwise wrong to “get someone off on a technicality”, based on the assumption that they are guilty and should not be getting off. Aside from the fact that no analogy exists between the two situations, MT misunderstands the purpose of so-called technicalities. In the judicial system as we have it, there are individualistic goals of justice and systemic goals of justice and the two are not always neatly aligned. Our criminal justice system is set up to maximize protection of the innocent and to restrain government power. Sometimes the protection and furtherance of a systemic goal (such as the use of only fairly collected evidence) outweighs an individualistic goal (the determination of the guilt of a specific individual). When an individual is let out of the system before his/her guilt is determined, it is because a systemic goal was being achieved. Different people might weigh the goals differently in each circumstance, and the system is not perfect, but that is the way it is. Furthermore, people often assume that the person being let go is guilty, even though there has not been an adequate testing of the evidence.
Most bars have as one of their rules of conduct for lawyers something like this: “In civil matters, it is desirable that the lawyer should avoid and discourage the client from resorting to frivolous or vexatious objections, or from attempts to gain advantage from slips or oversights not going to the merits, or from tactics that will merely delay or harass the other side. Such practices can readily bring the administration of justice and the legal profession into disrepute.
“In civil proceedings, the lawyer has a duty not to mislead the tribunal about the position of the client in the adversary process.”
continuation of geocentricity post in 648
“Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13: ‘And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.’
Here the Moderator of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: “And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay … .” That wording would be no more “confusing” to the reader than anything in Job chapters 38 through 41. There are those who would claim that the language used is phenomenological, that it was not meant to convey the truth of the matter. . . .”
There is a) little or no actual good science in Creation Science. It is b) a threat, not because it contrdicts our opinions, but because if some people take it seriously, and try to intermix it with real science, that would progressively incapacitate real science and technology. Real science has proven itself until now, quite capable; but it would be unable to function, with junk, fake, Creation “science” in its midst.
Thus, fake science is scary, not because it threatens allegedly staid scientists’ opinions, but because …. it is extremely dangerous to everyone. If creation science takes over, we will get people who will tell us there is no need for epidemiology for example, and no need for new flu vaccines; since organisms cannot “evolve.” Fake science leads to literally, physically, fatal consequences.
Scientists’ idea of science, is not a simple prejudice or mere opinion, on the part of scientists, as some imply here. Their idea of science has been proven, vetted, by a thousand years of experimental verification, and fruitful “works.”
Nor is science disproven by a syllogism or two: Science is not derived from just logic, but also empirical tests. In that sense, a mere logical exploration of it, sees only 1/3 of it at most. And fails to adequately critique it.
Creation science is an oxymoron. And no credible scientist will get near it. And its not because they are close-minded; its because it just isn’t science.
Granted, TE stretches the limits of science; but only a very, very little, when properly done. Whereas it is impossible to describe just how much violent damage most Creation Science, does to solid, responsible, experimentally verified data.
If you want to find a good compromise or meeting ground between science and religion, attacking and destroying the scientific method with “Creation Science,” isn’t it.
Rather than incapacitating/decapitating science, instead, I suggest a more open-ended reading of the Bible. Which the Bible allowed.
Jesus “never spoke to them without a parable”; following the “letter of the law” is not good.
– Dr. Renton