Are young earth creationists actually leading people away from the Gospel? This is not necessarily the argument that made by Vance McAllister at the Euangelion blog, but he does bring up some very good points. In a blog well entitled “Creation v. Evolution: the danger of misplaced dogmatism,” Vance challenges readers to consider the debate from a more philosophical perspective. He writes:Â Â
I want to remove the stumbling block to the Gospel message that is being created by a dogmatic presentation of Creationism. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or†teaching that comes with it. I am not here to argue for an old earth or evolution, necessarily, but against the false dichotomy that so often comes along with Creationism. More and more people are being taught that an old earth/evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. Such a blanket statement puts two very distinct groups in crisis and I am convinced that souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. This may sound a bit over-dramatic, but I have seen too many people distracted from the Gospel message by this issue.
I really don’t think it sounds over dramatic at all. In fact, for a long time I was one of these people. I can still remember the names and faces of those whom I have encountered in the past with whom this became the dividing issue. I would present the “Gospel of the Young Earth.” Sometimes I would not even get to Christ. Yes, I was a dogmatic young earther. Why? Because that is what all Christians are. You believe that Christ rose from the grave and your believe in a young earth. Well, if only I could redeem the time with those people.
Don’t get me wrong . . . I don’t have this issue figured out. In fact, I don’t talk about this issue much unless it is trying to help people (both young earthers and old earthers) see that it is not quite as cut-and-dry as people like to make it.
I agree with Vance. He tells of a (the?) major danger of “the Gospel of the Young Earth” with regards to young people:
First, there are Christians, especially young people, who have been raised in a dogmatic Creationist households or attend such a church, and have been taught that evolution, or even an old earth, are evil and absolutely contrary to Scripture. That if you believe Scripture, you can not also believe in these “liesâ€. They are taught that those who do believe both are deluded or compromising Christians, probably not even worthy of the name of Christian. They are taught these as absolute truths, rather than one interpretation among the many that sincere Christians hold. These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully. Then they come into contact with the scientific evidence and begin to suspect that evolution or an old earth scientific might actually be supported by the evidence. This creates a severe crisis of faith. They have been taught that if evolution or an old earth were true, then the atheists are right and the Bible can not be trusted and God did not create everything after all. I have seen this crisis in action. I have discussed this matter with those who either had abandoned Christianity or were about to because of this dogmatic teaching, and did my best to explain to them that the conflict was not inherent and that they could, indeed, believe in both. Most did not even know that there were Christians who accepted evolution, which shows how sheltered their lives had been.
 Thoughts?
181 replies to "The Gospel of the Young Earth"
Michael,
That was point from the first post that although the OEC/Evolutionists maintain that they are irenic and not dogmatic on their position but they continue to maintain all of their beliefs as fact. For instance that although Scriptures irrefutably speaks of a real Adam but we are to believe from science that all this has been around for billions of years and its only a figurative Adam without any proof. And again any YECs out there are ignorant and confused.
Michael, civilization through the ages not only lived history but they were the first eye witnesses to it and they never believed in the one true God and then when our Lord was revealed to them in the flesh, they still disbelieved. Evidences and apologetics are for the Church. We start with Scriptures that has no record of death before the Fall with a real Adam and therefore a real need for a Saviour. Science can help us understand as can natural revelation as your other post blog suggests but God has revealed to us what we need to know. Science and natural revelation when read with the Bible can lead to eisogesis which allowed concepts like evolution to be read into Scripture.
Michael, I think you seem to be misinterpreting my tone or approach here. My response is always to the same thing: that the theological claims use terms like “must” and “if/then” language that does not allow for any possibility of error. That is why I pointed that out first about your earlier post. I agree there definitely ARE theological issues to all of these questions, and I am not proposing that my suggested resolutions are by any means the only ones, much less the correct ones. But I am trying to get everyone off of their absolutist terminology and thinking, so that we can visit the theological constructs afresh and with an open mind.
The difference between science and theology is that science can analyze much less important things, since it is limited to the natural, but can describe those things with much greater precision, because WE are natural and our brains and language can handle the natural. Theology handles much more important things, and as to the basic big concepts, we can know them just as surely (or more so), but we can not describe them as precisely or pin down all the niceties with as much detail. Again, all discussion of theology is human language to describe God things. We can only get an approximation in SO many areas.
We, as humans, and especially Modern humans, like to think that we CAN describe everything in minute detail, we can pin it all down, categorize it and give it a name. We happily go through those mental exercises and develop our constructs, and forget along the way that they are just that: constructs, and dim and fuzzy ones at that. None of us have it right, and I am sure that when we can see it all clearly, we will all pull a Homer Simpson and slap our foreheads and say “DOH!”. Still, the exercise is worth it, since it DOES get us closer to God, and focuses our minds on the bigger issues and God wants us to work through this process, as long as we don’t get too enamored of our own little, faulty frameworks. We need to keep the Mystery in mind, a good dose of Eastern Orthodoxy is needed in the evangelical body every once in a while.
Why am I so absolutist regarding the science, then? Because there ARE some areas of knowledge that are NOT “seen through a glass darkly”, that are NOT part of the mystery. I could ask you how certain you are about dozens of scientific statements, and you would (I hope) give that same level of certainty. Well, take heliocentrism. What level of certainty do you have that the earth is really revolving around the sun?
I agree completely that we should only hold things, whether it is theology or science, to the degree that all the factors justify. With these theological issues regarding “death before the fall”, I don’t really see much of a problem with them. I see the issue, I understand where the position comes from, but I just don’t see it as a real problem, and don’t feel the need to develop a systematic and absolute “work-around”.
I know what the Bible tells me, which is that God created the world systematically and Man in His image, that he said the Creation was “good”, that He wanted to have full communion with Mankind in a state of spiritual life and health, but that Mankind rebelled and sinned and now we are separated from God, and in need of redemption. I am not inclined to read a whole lot more into that in absolutist terms. I can theorize, postulate, add this to that and come up with the other, etc. But ultimately I am not going to cling tightly to anything that goes beyond this basic information.
Let’s put it this way. When confronted with a person who knows, without doubt, that the earth is billions of years old and that there was death from the beginning (a point from which they would NEVER be moved), and they asked you how that could work within Christian belief, what would you say?
BTW, what is with the lack of love for the plant world?! 🙂 Y’all are willing to let them die all over the place before the Fall, and not even consider it death at all for some reason? That alone should make everyone sit back a minute and think it through.
Just to add, regarding the degree to which we hold things. I have a higher certainty regarding the age of the earth than I do a theological construct regarding when “death” entered the world because there is simply much, much more reason to believe the one than the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with holding a particular scientific conclusion higher than a particular theological one, since not all theological constructs justify being held with high degrees of certainty and many scientific conclusions do.
At the same time, there are some theological points which I hold strong enough that there is simply NO degree of scientific evidence which could move me. The fact that God created everything, for example, or that Jesus came and died and rose again.
I would assume everyone is more certain that the earth revolves around the sun than they are regarding their particular view of pre-mid-post tribulation rapture, for example.
Thanks for your responce to my question guys. But you need to understand his definition of “religion”. Because our concept of God would fall under it.
So to say that “humans do create religion” would be to say that humans do create the concept of God, affirming that God is subjective rather than an objective reality. Thus we are living an illusion by believing in God. (similar to what Dawkins argues for I believe)
And I think we run into problems with this line of reasoning. I guess my question would be more along the lines of, how does one give strong argument for the objectivity of God?
Thanks for your help.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Hi Josh,
Looks like I’m jumping late into a really interesting thread.
I used to help teach intro evolutionary bio lab to first years way back in my college days. A few observations are in order I think. One is that, not to toot the “creation science horn” (hehe) – there is a general bias in university science departments against a religious outlook on creation. An unbiased view in the eyes of most profs would be the one that assumes that every “religion” is but the fruit of the human mind and nothing else. As a med school prof now I find the same thing…That is not unbiased per se – but that is how it is.
As far as the question goes I think the idea for objective evidence for God is problematic. That would seem to say that God can be measured by an exterior standard – and this is not in keeping with the view of God given in scripture. In addition objective proof diminishes the significance of faith, which is by definition belief without proof.
There are still many chinks in the overall Darwinian scheme, of which Dawkins is a “triumphalist” supporter. That does not mean that evolution doesn’t make a good bit of sense as a method of explanation. The example of human language is a good example. There is no evolutionary explanation for how we got our language ability – it just seems that we are “hardwired” for it and other species are not. Dawkins shows his bias when he dismisses this sort of thing.
In my own opinion the human body absolutely must have a designer. There is simply no way otherwise!
C Meadows
I’m going to try and post this again, because the one wrote a few hours ago still isn’t showing up. I apologize in advance if it shows up twice.
Josh, good questions – no easy answers. I guess the difference is that Christianity is the only religion where God Himself puts on human flesh and comes down earth. Of course, Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection must be accepted on faith since there is no way to prove it per se. But since there is no way to disprove it either, it must also be rejected on FAITH. The question then becomes, which person’s faith is more credible: the one who believes on faith or the one who rejects on faith?
Now to compare these two worldviews is like comparing apples and oranges. If you start with materialistic presuppositions (accepted by faith) then you will reject any argument for God because you always find a reason to disbelieve. If you start with theistic presuppositions (also accepted by faith) then you will reject any argument against God because anything can be explained with miracles. So what you typically get with traditional apologetics are people talking past one another.
Ironically, since neither sides’ presuppositions can be logically deduced (non-trivial), and they are both just begging the question, it is impossible to judge each system from the outside. The only way to do this is to examine each sides’ presuppositions and the conclusions drawn from these presuppositions, and then see if the the entire system is internally self-consistent. So what does that look like? I’ll try and do this with as few words as possible:
To reject God is to accept materialsim, which presupposes that the universe (matter and energy) is the extent of reality. In other words, there is no reality that transcends the natural world. So anything immaterial is merely a figment of somebody’s imagination, which ultimately is nothing more than chemistry and biology.
To accept God is to reject materialism, and recognize that there is an entitiy that exists outside of time and space, upon which both time and space have their being.
Now what are some of the things that are common to the experience of all humans living with both worldviews? We all love somebody, we all get outraged at injustice, we prefer fairness over unfairness, we like nice people more than mean people, we make personal sacrifices for causes bigger than ourselves, we want to take care of animals, we want to protect the environment, the list goes on. The problem is that non of these concepts can be found on the periodic table – which is just another way saying that they are immaterial concepts that transcend physical space and time.
Now if we step into a theistic worldview, then we know that these things are real, becasue God real, and we are created in His image, and even though we corrupt His perfect standards of love, justice, mercy, fairness, niceness, compassion, etc… we can at rest assurred that these things are real and are not subject to the whims and wants of selfish creatures such as us. We also believe that Christ was God in the flesh, and that He rose from the dead on the third day, and that God has preserved His word through the ages so that everything we need know about our relationship to Him is revealed. Given our starting presupposition about God and creation, none of these things are impossible. Science is not problem because God runs it, miracles are not problem becuase God is not bound by science (since He runs it), and immaterial absolutes are not problem sine God is bothe immaterial and absolute. In other words, the thesitic world is entire self-sufficient, coherent and consistent.
Now if we step into a materialistic worldview, where does that leave us? We might still feel love for another human, but it is merely chemistry. We might get outraged when a little girl is abducted, but ultimately, who cares if some “preditor” molecules took some “innocent girl” molecules and rearranged them. And what is “innocent” anyway? Who cares? None of these things can be real or have any meaning or value becuase they are not even supposed to exist in a materialistic worldview. It’s survival of the fittest baby! Every man for himself! Get yours before someone gets you! etc…
As you can see, the materialistic worldview completely breaks down. It is not a coherent system of belief and completely contradict the human experience – which tells that that a reality exists apart from ourselves. Just pick up any of these recent books by proponents of the so called “new atheism” and you won’t find any consistent arguments. what you’ll find instead is a bunch whiny atheists complaining that god lets too many bad things happen to innocent people? But in the atheist worldivew, who decides what is bad? Who decides who is innocent? And what should we care as long as my cells keep comfortable?
The fact that atheists can’t even be consistent atheists only shows the image of God in man – no matter how fallen. As Paul says in Romans 1, all men know the truth, but supress the truth in unrighteousness. And are reduced to eating the Christian leftovers while they shake their fists at a God they supposedly don’t believe in.
Unfortunately most Christian apologetics simply tries to argue for a young earth or against evolution, and they completely ignore the more powerful ontological and presuppositional arguments in favor of haggling over the meaning of word “day” or the reliability of C-14 dating. It’s too bad really, because we could really shut guys like Dawkins up by taking them off their playing field and forcing them to fight on the ground of our choosing. But instead, we only end up demonstrating our own ignorance of the natural sciences and giving people like your proffessor the perception that atheism is more rational than Christianity – when quite the oppostie is true. So even though this post is about apologetics, it is still not too far off topic :).
Hope that helps – but I probably just confused you more. For great example of this by somebody smarter than me, read Douglas Wilson’s response to Sam Harris, “Letter from a Christian Citizen”.
-GJG
Very well said, Gordon. I have used something like one of your points when faced with the theodicy issue. When someone says there can’t be a God because no God would allow such evil in the world, I will often respond that if there was no God, he would have no concept of something being evil.
BTW, here is an article on the “death before the Fall” issue from Glenn Morton, who used to be a leading YEC scientist, but has since moved away from that (with much hostility from the YEC camp following him). I have corresponded with him in the past and we butt heads a bit since he still insists on a very literal reading of the text. Anyway, it is a fun read:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/death.htm
Here is another article on the subject from the Creationist site “Reason to Believe”, run by OEC scientist Hugh Ross:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
I just don’t really see any reason to hold to a “no death before the fall” doctrine, and I don’t really see any Biblical support for the “restorationist” approach that the new heaven and new earth were going to be a restoration of the way the earth was before the Fall. Maybe I am missing that, but I am not seeing that laid out anywhere.
Vance, do you believe what that guys says in the first article contains legitimate arguments?
I hate to be overly critical, but it showed a massive lack of theological issues and very simplistic arguments that had no hint of a fuller understanding of eschatological issues. This is the problem when these type of people try to make arguments from their presuppositions of the “possibilities” of how their proposals are true. How could he have argued the way he did without consideration of the status of the resurrected body and its immortality? I could make the very same argument he made saying that people, animals, plants, etc. will die in the eschaton. But the real issue is people, not foxes or cells. And the real issue of death has to do, theologically and physically, with two things that are interdependent: 1) Spiritual death – the breach in our relationship with God that is rectified in regeneration. 2) Physical death, the breach of our compositional unity between the body and the soul.
Now if you are a creationist with regards to the soul, then you might be able to get by with SOME of this stuff, but I believe that the traducianist arguments are the most systematically coherent and avoid the Gnostic dualism that separates the body and the soul essentially.
In other words, once again, there are some serious theological issues that you are not recognizing with regards to the issue of evolution (not so much OEC).
I think it comes down to which pill do you want to swallow. (Didn’t you use this?).
Pill 1: Believe in evolution. Once this happens you will have to reconstruct a theology of creation, nuance your understanding of redemption, reconstruct your eschatology, adopt a creationist view of the soul (which is very difficult), see the “second Adam” in a much different way, and view the necessity of the recapitulation theory of Christ and the incarnation with a new pair of sunglasses called scientific evolution. All these reconstructions essentially are reconstructions on how the Bible, in constructing a theology in all these areas, has been read for hundreds of years.
Pill 2: Do not believe in evolution. Assuming that there is evidence that I have just not seen, then you will have to deny the prevailing scientific view in favor of a mystery with regard to why it looks like evolution has taken place. You would probably have to either say that there is evidence that we don’t yet know about that will eventually overturn the theory of evolution or adopt a gap theory with a previous creation motif of some sort that does not involve the current state of humanity in relation to the first Adam. As well, you may have to deny the validity of a uniformitarian principle when applied to the past.
In the end, as a theologian who takes from the various sources of revelation (Scripture, experience, creation, emotions, and tradition), I would have to say that I will take the second pill any day. I have said before and I say again, Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ, so my faith is not threatened by the theory of evolution. Yet I just don’t see the need for its serious consideration with regards to systematic theology.
If it simply comes to the issue of YE or OE, then I would say that the pills are a little more balanced. While there are virtually no theological issues effected by the adoption of an OE view, there are some minor issues of hermeneutics that seem rather odd. Yet, comparatively speaking, they are very easy to deal with and move on. Yet I could still very easily, as a theologian, swallow the YE pill. While I very much see why people would believe in an OE, I would be hesitant on my dogmatics about even this. Why? Because it assumes a uniformatarian view of history. While I believe scientists must assume such for their current observations, they need to be very careful. Unless they are atheists, they cannot say what God has done in the past and how things have worked.
Swallowing a YE pill for OEers should not be that difficult if they simply say that we are not sure that the way things measure now is the way they have always collected information.
Swallowing a OE pill for YEers should not be that difficult if they simply say that we don’t know what happened prior to the creation man or we should not take the early chapters of Genesis too literally with regards to these issues.
In the end, the explanation given by this gentleman seems very weak to me. It also seems that he has not studied systematic theology much…I could be wrong though.
Once again, we are left with your principle. We see in a mirror dimly. I am not going to be too bent out of shape if I get to heaven and it is a YE or OE. I will be somewhat confused if evolutions were true. But as I have said before, I have yet to see anything that compels me to even consider it as a valid scientific interpretation of things, much less to consider it theologically.
Michael,
As for Morton’s positions, no, I don’t find all of them compelling, I was just showing that there are many different angles on this. The point in particular that I think he is right about is on the concept of “no death before the fall” being a non-starter because even the most ardent YEC would agree that there WAS plant death before the Fall, and so it begins to unravel from there. There are a lot of his approaches I don’t go along with. As I said, he tries to get to evolution from a literal reading of Scripture, which I find odd.
Getting to your more important issues, let’s start with the latter choices first, between OE an YE creationism. I think that if you are choosing between these two, then the choice is dramatically clear for YE simply because of the scientific evidence. Every single thing about the earth screams “old”. And this is not just speculation about things in the past. If the earth was young, then everything would have to look different than it does. And, all the clear evidences of the age would have to be God having created with the “appearance of age”, which carries with it a lot of theological baggage.
If you remove any religiously based presumptions regarding how old the earth is, then absolutely no person would ever come to the conclusion, upon reviewing the evidence, that it is young.
So, really, it comes down to whether there IS a Scriptural or theological reason why it has to be young, since that is the only thing that could push in that direction, and even then it had better be a pretty strong push to get over the hump of SO much evidence. And I just don’t see much evidence at all, since I don’t see Genesis 1 and 2 being literal historical narrative. Unless you go that route, there is simply no reason to choose a young earth that I can see.
As for evolution, I did not have to reconstruct very many of those things at all, as it turns out.
The theology of Creation was still the same: God created everything and did so with a purpose, and did so with a systematic plan. He created Mankind in His image, breathed His Life into Mankind in some mysterious way that distinguished Him from the rest of creation, and put him in stewardship of the planet. He discusses the relations of Man and Woman together, and how He wanted to (and still wants) to commune with us in full fellowship. Satan works to deceive and Mankind’s selfish nature caused it to rebel against God, and disobey and sin entered the world, causing Man to lose full communion with God, and is now in need of redemption.
So, all of the THEOLOGY was the same, all that had changed for me once I saw that Genesis was better read figuratively was the literary genre it was told in, and thus whether it was necessarily a literal Adam, etc. No theological differences there.
I see nothing in the eschatology at all, since I never really perceived the New Heaven and New Earth as somehow a return to Eden, but rather God finishing the work that had gotten derailed.
I am not sure what you mean by a Creationist vision of the soul, but I don’t really have any particular view on how Man came to have a soul, but I suspect that God infused Mankind with a soul at some point in accordance with His overall plan. Not a big issue for me, really.
The transition to thinking of Jesus as a second Adam when Adam was figurative also really did not involve much angst since I understood how the ancient mind viewed these past typologies, and it really did not matter to me even if Paul DID think Adam was literal by that point, since the theology is the same either way (and that is an important point).
And recapitulation for me remains the same: God sent Jesus to put the world to rights, to overhaul and complete. I am with NT Wright on this one.
And, really, what you still don’t seem to be seeing is that the REAL theology is the same. The important, Gospel, redemption theology is not impacted. As I have stated, how do you think all of these millions of Christians who accept evolution (including the major denominations who are entirely open to it) do so without coming to a skidding halt because of these theological constructs? Do they just not consider these issues?
All that gets shaken up is some ‘ways of looking at things”, ways of talking about them, and ways of systematically labeling and categorizing them. You have spent a great deal more time analyzing all the various taxonomies of theological constructs, pondering, evaluating, and determining which must be the most correct, and so you are invested in those choices to some degree. Along the way, maybe you forgot that none of them are really entirely correct, since they are just human ways of talking about “God things”.
I refuse to hold to such things so tightly that I squeeze the true life out of them. And, ultimately, I have heard you say the same things over and over. Hold to things only to the degree that they justify being held.
There are essentials doctrines, and there are doctrines which provide ways of thinking about those essentials, ways of classifying them, intellectual pursuits of “how to get there from here”. That is fine and I find that an interesting mental exercise. But lets say X is an essential doctrine (Jesus died to redeem us), and Y is not. We both believe in X and for me that is all that matters. For too many, though, the response becomes, “well, how can you believe in X if you don’t believe in Y?” But the reality is that I DO believe in X, and as strongly as they do. Their supposition that you Y is a prerequisite belief to X is simply wrong.
With all of that in mind, I will go ahead and provide you with my version of the “second pill”, since we have never really discussed it (there has been no need to, since we both agree entirely on the important fact that was the topic of my original post and your post here, that we need not be dogmatic about these issues, for fear of damaging evangelism). But, here it is in a nutshell.
I think the evidence from nature for the evolutionary development of life on this planet over billions of years is overwhelming. This is one type of acceptance of “evolution”. In fact, it is the same type of acceptance that even the Intelligent Design scientists, like Behe and Denton, accept as well. This is just an historical statement of “what happened”, not a statement of “how it happened” (which is where the ID scientist disagrees with the mainstream of evolutionary biologists). I have studied it extensively, and feel very comfortable with this. I would say my “certainty factor” here is well into the 90% range. The other 10% or so could be filled with an Old Earth view of Progressive Creationism, like Hugh Ross describes, but I think this is less likely.
Now, that is just what happened. There are two remaining, and interrelated issues: how it happened, and the degree to which God created the process to happen naturally. This is where the “theory of evolution” comes in, as opposed to the “history of evolutionary development”. The theory describes the mechanics of how that development took place: natural selection, genetic drift, etc. At the moment, I am perfectly comfortable with the concept of God having created a process that can run entirely on its own in these ways (since it would fit his pattern in the rest of His Creation), but then at some point, at a time chosen by God, He stepped in a did “something” which “created Man in His Image” and “breathed life” into Mankind, whether that was a process or a one-off event I don’t know and don’t care.
Yet, if the ID folks are successful in establishing that it could NOT have happened entirely naturally, and that God DID have to micro-manage it, and make things happen all along the way, that is fine as well. Again, it is not a big deal to me.
Or, if they came up with an entire refutation of the Darwinian explanation of what happened, or came up with a better explanation, that would be fine as well.
I guess I am with the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Evangelical Lutherans, and all of those others in the list I set out above. We just don’t see an absolute conflict between evolution and Christian theology or Scripture, so have no more reason to disbelieve what science is describing here than where it describes things like how gravity works or how stars are formed.
Yikes, I meant to say in that second paragraph that the clear choice was for an Old Earth, not YE! Sorry about that.
Vance, thanks for the take. I do see where you are coming from. I am just trying to get you to see where others are coming from so that you don’t do the same thing to them that you don’t want them to do to you.
In the end, the degree of certianty about these issues will be fed by the discipline of study. This is why I encourage people to go through a serious systematic theological development program and make this the norm for the church. Informed decisions must come from all areas.
My views are heavly influenced by my biblical theology that, as you have said, I have worked on quite a bit. While I certianly don’t hold my views to be perfect, to varying degrees, I believe they are correct. This is why I, personlly, don’t think that an evolutionary view is likely. I most certainly would not put myself at 90%. I don’t think there are many things I would rate that high :).
Yet my reasons are very strong and not easily dealt with, even if you do choose to swallow the other pill 🙂
I know what you meant! 🙂
Yes, I want to assure you that I don’t hold to anything dogmatically in the way I was warning against. Degrees of confidence are not the same as dogmatism. I can hold something with a 99.99% degree of certainty, but still not think it is that important, and would not hold it out as an essential belief. That is where dogmatism goes, as opposed to just intellectual certainty levels.
And, even more important is the “stumbling-block” issue. The greater the danger there, the less one should be dogmatic about thing that are not essential (my original point).
As far as certainty levels, it definitely comes down to areas of study. I have studied the ANE cultures in detail, and my confidence levels are high there. I have studied the sciences in great detail, and my confidence levels are very high there. I have studied the early Church in great detail, and so much theology was involved, but I have avoided studying systematic theological issues until recently, so I am not going to cling to very many of the competing doctrinal constructs very tightly.
But I still suspect that we probably CAN know the details of the ways of nature with more detail than many of the theological issues. The essentials of our faith, as the Westminster Confession says, are made clear, but much of the rest is not as clear. We are natural beings in a natural world, and I think we are somewhat fish out of water when discussing the things of God. I think the “dimly” obtains more to theology. I think back to the Byzantines, for whom theology was a major societal hobby. The butcher and baker would dispute on the corner about the Christological issues. Ultimately much of it was “angels on the head of a pin stuff”. While levels of confidence rise with study and knowledge of the issues, is that confidence as justified in human constructs of Godly things?
But, of course, those theological issues are far more important and so are worthy of greater study, which is why I listen to you for hours on end! 🙂 I have studied Scripture forever (having spent more time in Scripture than most theologians!), but I have avoided reaching conclusions on systematic issues beyond the basics for a long time, since I have always felt that attempting to define things that tightly was a bit like herding cats. But knowledge of what people out there are thinking I find fascinating. Before finding RMM, I began the Covenant Seminary series of lectures, of course starting with Old Testament History, New Testament History and Church History! 🙂 The Psalms class was good as well.
BTW, since confidence one way or the other does follow education, you might want to consider this overview of evolution from a Christian scientist so that you can more confidently reject it! 🙂
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
The ideas on the start of this thread are what I have had to contend with from my fighting fundie’ friends. It seems that if you don’t hold to their interpretation of a 6 Day creation then you are supporting Darwinism. This automatically makes you a compromising-evolutionist supporting Christian. With the formula of evening-morning meaning a twenty-four hour cycle each day is supported by this hermeneutic to explain the basis to this “infallible” doctrine. 6000 years, take it or leave it.
The idea of even angels were formed from the Gen. 1:1 suggests to them that there are no other places in God’s economy of the universe for anything other than this interpretation of beginnings. I personally find it especially difficult to reconcile the age of the universe and the diversity of life that would have had to live in the short span of time the young earthers insist on. This is why I don’t hold to the young-earth position. Although I am not trained in the theology of hermeneutics I do believe that there is room for error on their part of using the 24 hour “day” they insist upon.
To be accused of being a Darwinist for trying to understand God’s methods of how He does things is in opposition to what true science only looks at. It takes the evidence and then makes its conjectures. Truth will stand one way or the other. We may not know the mechanisms for all of what God has done in creating the universe but astrophysics has done a fair job of explaining some of it. It will show a longer period of time than 6000 years for the age of the cosmos.
We know evolution side of sciene is a fairy tale for adults, having the frog change into a prince given “x” number of years but the age of the cosmos has direct and verifiable evidence as to what can be measured in terms of time.
To explain this to a young-earther as being anything other than what can fit into the six thousand year earth is met with very ugly and accusatory blasting that makes one feel he has committed blasphemy.
It concerns me on the level of evangelizing a thinking person. If someone is truly seeking truth(an unbeliever) it must be discouraging to deal with such dogmatism in Genesis then having saving grace explained to you from New Testament by a young-earther.
Actually Ken, most scientists would agree that the evidence for common descent is far more conclusive than the case for the Big Bang theory. In other words, even though our best understanding of the earth’s biological history is like looking at a billboard up close through a drinking straw, there are far more missing puzzle pieces to the cosmological puzzle than there are to the biological puzzle. Even the age of the cosmos (13.7 billion years) depends on some very big assumptions about dark matter and dark energy; two things that have yet to be directly observed or accounted for.
The problem is that while there is nothing too offense about Big Bang theory, common descent seems – on the surface – gross and contrary to sound doctrine. So we are much more prone to dismiss it as a “fair tale for adults”. Moreover, some evolution’s most vocal defenders are miserable atheists, who would probably still believe it even if there were mountains of evidence against it (which there is not).
It sounds like you have invested a good bit of time studying astrophisics and the amazing story of cosmic evolution. I would also invite you to spend an equal amount of time reading some good books about evolution written from a Christian perspective. I spend two chapters discussing the fossil record and molecular genetics in my book, “Beyond the Firmament”. But if you really want to dig into the scientific details from the really smart guys, try “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller, “Comming to Peace with Science” by David Faulk or “Perspective of an Evolving Creation” edited by Keith Miller. Each of these have their strengths and weakness, but they are all good places to start.
-GJG
GJG,
I understand (fairly well) the methods of
Ar-Ar
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Re-Os
Lu-Hf
Actually, my post was in concordance to the Gage R&R calculations (in which I performed on these methods mathematically). But again, the meteorite data comes from rock formation, some samples where from Chondrites and other variations. The repeatability variation is about 8.48% (according to my studies so far), and a Gage R&R variation of 39.79% which is not enough for a definitive conclusion (based upon a Sigma distribution width of 5.15). In fact, the range I found (mathematically so far) was 3.45-4.97 Billion years for Chondrites, and 4.22-4.88 billion years with meteriorites (i.e. Allende, Guarena, Shaw, Olivenza, Saint Severin, Indarch, etc). Based upon Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6 and Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To “Scientific” Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
One also has to figure in what is called maximum uncertainty levels (for the +/- % and the scaling and of the data collection devices, in which I do not have all the data collected).
My point was that some of the accuracy (from my sources) is not up to NIST compliancy for laboratory standards, but maybe at best guest scenarios. While being at 39.79% It is acceptable in some instances 10-30%. Typically the norms are 5% and below. Even when comparing a Gage study isolating each method of isotopic ratio plotting, the variances seemed below what I would call as definitive that everyone could conclude as repeatable for Gage purposes. (Not so much as saying C-14 is used for the dating of the earth, but that it is comparable to C-14 as far as accuracy). While some have suggested the figure of 4.55 Billion +/- 1% I would find that acceptable (dependant on the sample size and methodology employed).
Carry on…
Hawke, my apologies. I must have misunderstood your post (wouldn’t be the first time for me). I thought you were relating C-14 dating to methods for determining the age of the earth. It’s clear now that you know too much about radioisotopes to have made that connection.
Keep up the good work!
-GJG
Gordon, you raise a good point. The theory of evolution, as a scientific explanation for the observed evidence, is as solidly supported as just about any theory in science, and yet it is virtually the only one that people seem to have a major problem with. As it turns out, the only reason for this problem ends up being the seeming conflict with religious beliefs. While those who oppose it DO come up with scientific reasoning, it is clear that these are ultimately apologetic.
The reason I say that is that, as far as I have ever been able to discover, there are not working scientists in the relevant fields who disagree with the basic tenets of evolution who do not ALSO have a religious reason for doing so.
And this would be very odd if the concepts of evolutionary development from common ancestors was just unsupported by the evidence. Given the intensely competitive nature of science and the inherent desire to overturn accepted thinking for better explanations (and thus become famous!), there should be at least a significant percentage of secular scientists in those relevant fields who would be up in arms. The idea of blackballing, etc, does not explain enough of it, since there has been a long history of scientists bucking the system when they see current concepts just don’t work.
There are many disputes over the details of the mechanics, and these are often “quote-mined” to sound as if the speakers actually doubt evolution itself, but that is just good science at work.
Thanks for the references Gorden.
“The Language of God†by Francis Collins
“Finding Darwin’s God†by Kenneth Miller
“Comming to Peace with Science†by David Faulk “Perspective of an Evolving Creation†edited by Keith Miller
Seeing as how I missed the boat on the evidences for evolution in all my science classes, I would like to–no, I guess I need to–get more familiar with some of this. To tell you the truth, there are not many more subjects that I dislike more than Creation/Evolution (too much passion on both sides). But I suppose that I should read up more.
Vance, is there any that you would ad to this list?
I have read the Collins book and the Kenneth Miler book and they are both worth reading (I do not have that Keith Miller book, so I ordered it and am very excited to get it). “Finding Darwin’s God” is a very good read and it explains the science very well, but you may not find his theology very palatable in many areas.
Another I found very useful is called “Random Designer”, by an evangelical professor at Olivet Nazarene University:
http://www.amazon.com/Random-Designer-Created-Connect-Creator/dp/0975390406
As for just the evidence regarding evolution itself, that link I gave in an earlier post is a good primer:
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
Michael,
What I have found, in general, is that the really smart scientists are not very convincing theologians. And the very good theologians are not very convincing scientists. In fact, in some of the references I gave, I got the feeling that they were quickly running through the biblical case just to get to the scientific case, where they are most comfortable operating. Even though the science is impeccable, they typically do a poor job in handling Scripture – although some better than others. “Perspectives…” is probably the best of the one’s I gave you, especially if you tend toward Reformed theology like I do.
Except for “Perspectives…”, which is hundreds of pages and gets very technical, I rarely recommend these books to my really conservative friends becasue, even though the scientific case is well articulated, must of us don’t really care about that. What we really care about is how do you square it with the Bible, or if we don’t have to square it with the Bible, how does that impact those doctrines that our foundational to our faith (inspiration, biblical inerrancy, the fall/redemption model etc…) To put it bluntly, I think most of these books fall short of making the complete case and are really only convincing for folks who approach the issue with a VERY open mind toward science.
So now I will use your Blog to shamelessly plug my own book: “Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation”.
Rather than bombard the reader with the scientific case right away, I make every attempt to meet them exactly where they are, and walk with through the journey, sharing with them the same thoughts and reservations that I had when traveling this same path. Part I of the book is a primer on the basic principles of epistemology, what we can reasonably know and how we can reasonably know anything with certainty. I try and disarm the skeptical reader by showing that science is really a very limited enterprise, and its only descriptive power lies in the material realm. It is completely useless when trying to address questions of ultimate meaning and purpose. The goal here is to “take the edge” off of science, and encourage the reader to adjust thier spiritual expectations when reading scientific literature – and to know when science is being abused by atheists to promote religious agendas (and also by fellow Christians). I also demonstrate how science itself is worthless without the principle of the uniformity of nature. An idea that has no rational basis from within a godless universe, but is to be expected in a universe created and sustained by God, who governs the material real with order and precision as part of His covenant faithfullness. The conclusion here is that while science operates with the “atheist premise” it is actually rooted in a theology of creation, and can be trusted, as long as we ask it the appropriate questions.
Part II looks at the nature of Speaical Revelation – specifally the incarnational prinicple of Scripture (fully a product of God, yet fully a prduct of man). Again, the goal here is deal sensitively with the very real concerns of conservative Christians in a way that preserves, and even enhances, our doctrine of Biblical infallibility. Thus the Bible, like science, can be trusted – as long as we ask it the appropreate questions. Once we have made these very practical adjustments in our expectations of both Natural and Special revelation, only then can we fully appreciate the scientific case.
The second half of BTF does exactly this (Part III – Big Bang/Old Earth; Part IV – Common descent). But rather than try and speculate on exactly how all of this happeneded and get lost in those details, I simply state what we do know, and what we don’t know. I show that creation science is really only the “science” of zeroing in on what we don’t know and capitalizing on the most challenging aspects of scientific theories specifically to reject them in their entirety. Creation science rarely deals with the positive evidence up front. However, if we fully grasp the significance of what is known and can be clearly demonstrated, then we really have very few options at interpreting the rest of the unknown data. In fact, if we interpret it according to the creation science model, then the pieces of the puzzle that we do know with a high degree of certainty point to a very theologically unacceptable picture of God. So we need think carefully about how we respond to the scientific case – ideas have consequences. In the end, I recognize that there are still difficulties. But we should expect this, since we are finite and fallen, and God is infinite and perfect. We seem to tolerate spiritual mysteries in other areas of theology (calvinism, eschatology, the trinity, etc…) So why not add creation to this list?
All of that is to say that if you want to really dig deep into both the scientific and hermaneutical cases, you really need to take 6 months and study a whole stack of literature. But if you don’t have time for that, and you are willing to get the “gist” from one who is an expert in nothing (myself), then I would actually start with my book – since I wrote it specifically as an introductory text.
Thanks for the free advertising 🙂
-GJG
Gordon,
Thanks for the Kudos, I hope I didn’t come across negatively to you or the scientists. I appreciate your work with the new book.
I always cherished Science and mathematics, but reading from the likes of Dawkins, his dogmatism left a bad taste in my mouth. I really haven’t taken a stance either way on OEC or YEC, but I do believe that the majority of Scientists would agree with OEC.
Maybe I have my hands in both cookie jars trying to figure out (intellectually) which camp to enlist. I always try to place a well formed exegetical Christian theology (though I fail at times) when it comes to investigating secular views of nature. I am not sure at this point, on how much of the naturalistic view I could fully understand towards creation and the age of the universe. I read from both Ham and Ross and find both arguments well placed, but often times I disagree with their interpretation of scripture and the cultural view of scripture during the actual writings. I also agree that the study of literary forms is necessary. I enjoy Robert Stein’s view of literary forms within the Bible.
I am not so sure about the Big Bang theory and Norm Geisler’s (SURGE in “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist†book) procurement for this use of the Big Bang theory to argue for a creator. Maybe I misunderstood his arguments. Although I do believe, he was trying to be honest with his data, whereas some may not relate to both sides of the argument. I think that is why I like C. Michael Patton so much, is because he seems more even-handed in his discussions. Although, CMP would most likely bump me on the noggin for not being a 5-Pointer, and being an Amillennialist. LOL Although some state that DTS is a 4-point supporter?
Wayne Grudem seems to have an even-handed discussion between the two views (OEC/YEC) through scripture interpretation. So I guess the question is, do we focus on correct interpretation (authorial intent), or do we look first at the scientific data, and then let it interpret scripture? (As some [not all] may imply indirectly). I think this was covered already, the fact that when using the forms of literary genre, one should not place too much emphasis on taking the verse literal (as a scientific description).
Gordon,
Oh a friendly suggestion…. Since you were having problems with some posts, I recommend typing a reply in word or wordpad, then pasting into the blog. It saved me plenty of countless hours retyping.
I am going to have to get your book, too, Gordon!
BTW, I just came across this great quote by Galileo. How did I not read it before?
“It would be a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that it was made then a sin to believe.”
Thanks Hawke – no offense taken. I get the sense that you are not satisfied with either the YEC or OEC approach. If so, then I think you might be on to something becuase they are really just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called “concordanism” – the view that somehow the Bible, although written in prescientific times to a non-scientific audience, is supposed to contain information about the “heavens and the earth” as understood by modern 21st century christians. Of course, science is always changing its mind, so this view either shackles science from being able to adapt to new discoveries (YEC), or it forces us to continually reinterpret the Bible (OEC).
What I think is so powerful about the incarnational view Scripture, sometimes referred to the principle of accommodation, is that we can accept a contemporary understanding of scientific questions without having to reinterpret the bible everytime science changes. If we understand that the only possible intersection of science (always changing) and the Bible (timeless) is ancient Near-Easter science (the “science” of the day), then we are free to understand the Bible quite literally (the firmament is solid, the heavens are a vault, the waters above the heavens, the moon is greater than the stars, a mustard seed is the smallest seed, the heart controls our thoughts and emotions, etc…) just the age that committed it to writing would have understood it, and yet not get too wrapped up in trying to try and use this ancient “science” to solve contemporary problems. It’s actually quite liberating.
Theologically, I’m post-mil and Reformed (with strong emergent/missional leanings), even though reformed Christians irritate the heck out of me! I also tend to reject the idea that we can “systematize” doctrine. I actually think once we try and stuff God into a “system” we take all of rich mystery out of God’s Word, which often get’s me in trouble with my reformed brothers.
-GJG
Gordon, I would nuance that even a bit more (although I agree entirely with your point). I would say that we go one step further and not even worry about whether the ANE cultures would have read it entirely literally, even given their current understanding of science. The analysis of most ANE scholars I have come across is that that they would have considered it real history, but with much figurative language, like the use of the literary construct of the “day” motif.
So, it would be a combination: they DID believe that there was a solid firmament, for example (they would believe that was a literal truth), but the entire point of the text was not really to tell strict literal history. It was telling about what happened in the past using figurative, symbolic and typological language, while many of the details that are given along the way (firmament, moon being a light, all being created FOR the earth particularly, etc) were literally how they thought of these things.
Does that make sense?
By the way, one example of how they read things as figurative constructs is the way the ANE cultures would often hold to two or more literary constructs of the same events. Stories that were mutually exclusive regarding the factual details, but were both considered “true” in a sense that we have a hard time getting our heads around today. If we get away from our own biases long enough, we can see the two creation stories in this light and they make a LOT more sense. Rather than having to jump through complex exegetical hoops to make them harmonize, it is much simpler to recognize that they DO conflict on a factual basis, but they are in complete harmonization when viewed as figurative literary presentations of true past events.
Speaking of avoiding convoluted exegesis, consider all the problems with Cain, etc, that could be avoided!
I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the micro-evolution aka adaption amongst the various kinds, or species. No creationist, young earth or or old has a problem with this. It is the macro-evolutionary theory which purports the molecules-to-man, common descent idea that creationists have the most difficulty with. And I would disagree with those who say that the evidence for such macro evolution is “irrefutable”, or 99.999999% or whatever. I would agree if you were make such statements about adaptation via natural selection within the created kinds. But those aren’t the claims being made.
The evidence for macro evolution is specious at best. I have done plenty of my own research on this. While there may by unanimous agreement amongst the secular scientific community that macro evolution is true, that is born out of necessity due to their uniformitarian and naturalistic starting points. Because of his thoery, Darwin predicted that there would be countless examples of “transitional forms” found in the fossil record. Nearly two hundred years since the publishing of his book, the fossil record isn’t repleat with the transitional forms that he expected. It is rather lacking in that regard, with very few fossils that could even be possible candidates, and even those candidates are hotly debated as to whether they are transitional. This has led to these neo-Darwinian theories like punctuated equilibrium, which was first posited by palentologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould (both athiests by the way). The theory is born out of the LACK of evidence for gradual change within the fossil record. But because of their godless worldview, evolution has to be true, so they came up with a new thoery to explain the observed evidence. In my opinion, secular science has already so heavily invested itself in evolution, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. It isn’t too dis-similar to the Ptolemaic view of astronomy which was geo-centric. With the deferents, epicycles and retrograde motions, it was the scientific paradigm for millenia. But as technology progressed and more and stellar observations were collected, the charts of epicycles and retrograde motions became non-sensical. It just didn’t enter the mind to change the theory, they just squished the evidence to fit the theory. I see similar behavior when it comes to macro-evolution. There are more holes in the theory than swiss cheese. But because the vast majority of science has already accepted evolution a priori, scientists (lead by fallible men don’t forget) adopt new explanations for the lack of physical evidence for evolution.
At least Eldredge and Gould admit that the fossil record doesn’t show these gradual changes over millions of years. Rather species remain static.
From wikipedia,
“In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr’s theory of geographic speciation, Michael Lerner’s theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”
But since they have already accepted evolution to be true, they devise a naturalistic theory to explain the evidence. A theory mind you for which by its very nature, you will never find compelling physical evidence for. Remember, the theory was born out of a lack of evidence, not because of the preponderance of it.
I have heard calls for humility on the side of Young earthers, saying we are fallible and that we certainly can interpret the Bible fallibly. When will there be calls for humility on the side of science? There isn’t the irrefutable evidence that has been touted. There are many divergent theories to explain the stasis observed in the fossil record. These 99.99999% claims smacks of science propoganda more than factual assertion.
One last morsel of food for thought. Assume for the sake of argument that the literal reading of Genesis is accurate. Would a doctor traveling back in time on the 7th day to do an exam on Adam think that he was but a day old? Would not the doctor think that Adam was a robust man at least 20-30 years of age? That is what all his scientific and doctoral training would have told him. God created a mature man, why is it so difficult to believe that God also created a mature creation, especially considering that is what He said he did?
Vance, I would agree with that. Just consider the difference between Genesis 1 and 2. I would think, that if the goal is a literal understanding of Genesis as science and history, then you would need to reconcile 1 and 2 before tying to reconsile all of Gen with natural history. Just one example…
-GJG
Vance, I would agree with that. Just consider the difference between Genesis 1 and 2. I would think, that if the goal is a literal understanding of Genesis as science and history, then you would need to reconcile 1 and 2 before tying to reconsile all of Gen with natural history. Just one example…
Nearly every commentary I have read on this says that this follows the typical Hebrew literary style of the day, chapter 1 is the overview, and chapter 2 focuses on the specifics of the creation of Man since we are special in God’s Creation.
Marvin, a few points:
1. macro-evolution is not just held by those scientists who have a naturalistic worldview. In fact, the large majority of scientists in the relevant fields who are Christian also accept macro-evolution as entirely compelling and well-established.
2. I can give you a TON of transitional fossils, if you like. One problem lies in the fact of what people want to define as “transitional”. Evolutionary theory does not propose any species would ever be merely “a transition” between two others, since every species is entirely itself. “Transitional” merely means one that shows the development between any two other species in that “line”. Hominids, ironically enough, are some of the best examples of transitionals. We have many examples of species that are so transitional between “ape-like” species and modern man, that Creationist experts have disagreed over which they were!
3. PE, as presented, has been improperly “quote-mined” by creationists for years. It is merely a refinement of evolutionary theory to fit the evidence as we see it. That is just good science. And it is a very good explanation for the data, so good job, guys!
4. As for Adam, if God DID create specially, and He chose to create Adam as a mature man, that would well and good. But would God create Adam with scars from injuries that never occurred? Would He imbue Adam with memories of a life he never lived for the benefit of the psychologist? Would God create an Adam that looked and acted in dozens of ways as a man who HAS lived 30 years in ways that would not be required?
In short, when talking about the planet, and the universe, if it IS young after all, then God did much more than just create it all “in maturity”, such that it would be fully formed for His purposes. It would mean that God created it with uncountable “scars” and evidences of past existence that never happened. He would have “planted” things in the earth that would speak of ages past that never happened. He would have created fossils of animals that never lived, and laid down annual varves in lake beds that show yearly transitions that never happened. He would have caused things to have aged in dozens of ways beyond the life they had actually lived. And all unnecessarily for the purposes of life on this planet. All of this is much harder to swallow theologically than much of the concerns that young earth creationists present.
Marvin,
The problem is that once you are convinced of evolution (macro-evolution) then Bible takes a back seat
and the stage of truth is now skewed so reason and tradition (at least the tradition of some enominations) are now at the front of their stage. Evolution is not reconcilable with Scripture, the death question, the sin question, the redemption question and the restoration question. Marvin, you cannot convince someone based on commentaries. In their case, you have to rearrange their stage of truth.
OK Marvin, let’s talk science. First of all, there is no such thing as macroevolution per se. According to the theory, all evolutionary change proceeds in microevolutionary steps, summed over very large periods of time. Macroevolution is just something that anti-evolutionists invented so they can still accept the obvious (microevolution). But make no mistake, microevoluion+time (and God’s providence) = speciation – according to the theory.
Secondly, transitional forms are so frequently found in the proper layers, that it rarely makes news outside of the scientific community. In fact, the ape-to-human record is one of the best, with the dinosaur-to-bird, reptile-to-mammal, and hippo-to-whale transitions being some of the most well documented. The theory of PE that you refer to mainly concerns the precambrian explosion of multicelluar life and your understanding of what Gould and Eldredge said is inaccurrate. Since Phillip Johnson and others have this same misunderstanding, I can only assume you have been reading them. Try reading Gould and Eldredge if you really want to know what PE is all about.
The only glaring “holes” in evolutionary theory have to do with the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc… These are speculative at best, but the evidence for common descent IS overwhelming weather you want to acknowledge it or not. This doesn’t mean that it is absolute truth. But in science, a theory is accepted to be true if it can make testable predictions confirmed by evidence – which evolution has been doing for 150 years. If there were any solid evidence to refute evolution, then scientists would come up with another theory and call it something else. That’s what they do.
I’m afraid your accusations against the scientific community are unfair. The only thing in science that is accepted a-priori is the continuous operation of the laws of nature. And this is very reasonable assumption since you couldn’t even have science without it. Evolution is simply the best explanation of the facts of natural history to date (like the geological and geographical distribution of plants and animals in the fossil record, and the similarities and differences in morphology and molecular genetics between the species) in terms of the continous operation of the laws of nature (aka the patterns of God’s providence).
And finally, evolution was not borne by a lack of evidence. That is absurd. It was formulated based on a very imcomplete fossil record, field observations of the geographical diversity of the species, and basic principles of taxonomy. The true test was over the next 150 years, as more and more fossils were discovered that fit the theory perfectly, and then the science of moloecular genetics, which could have overturned Darwin’s ideas once and for all on so many levels (since evolution was formulated in complete ignorance of DNA and the mechanism of heredity), enabled scientists to trace genetic markers through the differnet taxonomic groups, confirming the theory with a greater precision than we can measure most physical constants!
And when you travel back in time and talk to Adam, ask him about his childhood memories, and if he begins to tell you all about his mother and father, try and catch God while He’s still walking in the Garden and ask why he would go to create false history. And why He would go to such great lengths to create a universe that obviously looks one way, but then require us to believe an alternate reality for which there is no evidence. But if Adam can’t remember anything past one day, then ask God why he would go to such great lengths to create 14 billion years of coherent natural history, leave clues of it scattered throughout the universe, but not top of the charade with 30 easy years of apparent memories for Adam.
Are either of these views of God acceptable to you?
Like you, I like thought experiements. So now let me ask you one: If your same doctor came and visited my elderly grandfather, he would estimate his age to be approximately 85 years, give or take two or three. Unfortunately, even the best medical science could only nail is down to a range of about 5 years or so. We just can’t know for sure – that’s the nature of science! But if the old man took out a birth cirtificate that claimed he was only 20 minutes old, would you then believe him or the doctor? That is about how far off YEC estimates are when it comes to the age of the earth!
PE, as presented, has been improperly “quote-mined†by creationists for years. It is merely a refinement of evolutionary theory to fit the evidence as we see it. That is just good science. And it is a very good explanation for the data
Nice spin. Although it should say “it is merely a refinement of the theory to fit the evidence we expected to find but didn’t”. BTW, I was quoting wiki-pedia, not some creationist web site. Your explanation doesn’t change the fact that PE is born out of a lack of evidence, not the preponderance of it. A theory that is born out of a lack of physical evidence isn’t a theory, it is mere conjecture.
All of this is much harder to swallow theologically than much of the concerns that young earth creationists present.
Except for YEC, the Flood accounts for the fossil record and the “countless scars”.
and laid down annual varves in lake beds that show yearly transitions that never happened.
This is a perfect example of the assumptions made by science today. This assumes that because stuff occurs today at x rate, that it must have always occured at x rate. Is it so difficult to believe that a global catastrophic flood could account for massive sediment laying (and the creation of the fossil record for that matter) in relatively short periods of time, giving the appearance of age (especially with the assumption that deposit rate has been uniform and constant through the ages?
We have many examples of species that are so transitional between “ape-like†species and modern man, that Creationist experts have disagreed over which they were!
Secular experts disagree even more so. What is your point exactly? If it is that there is no consensus over whether some pile of bones found in Africa is more like an ape or a man, then I concede.
I am tired of being made to feel like I am a dolt and am willfully ignoring science that is as settled as 2 + 2 = 4. I ask a simpley question. Why is it so hard to admit that science just might have things wrong? Frankly, the arrogance displayed in support of “settled science” is quite unnerving.
I admit that I don’t know. I am not a scientist. I admit that I might be wrong, I have been on both sides of this, first as a theistic evolutionist, now as a YEC. I admit that in the end, I choose to accept the Word of God over the word of science. Just please stop making me feel as though I ignore settled science, to fit my faith, when it really isn’t settled.
“The only glaring “holes†in evolutionary theory have to do with the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc… These are speculative at best, but the evidence for common descent IS overwhelming weather you want to acknowledge it or not.” (GJG)
versus
“God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good…”
“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. …”
“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1:21, 25, 27
As for me and my house, I’ll stick to Scripture! Thanks
Marvin, Science is ALWAYS tentative! Evolution is no different. As soon as data is discovered that doesn’t fit the predictions of the thoery, it dies a slow death, just like steady-state cosmology of the early 20th century, or the geocentric universe of the middle ages, or Lararmkian (sp?) genetics or whatever. But as we speak today, and as has been the case over the past 150 years, the theory of evolution still works.
So you can’t really blame scientists, or get too upset at them for using it. Creation science, on the other hand, is completely useless to them. None of the predictions are borne out by the evidence, and you have to keep throwing miracles at your problems to make them go away. I’m sorry, my friend, that you don’t like this, but this IS how science works.
tnahas, I will stick to the Scriptures as well. I just don’t think they say what you think they say. I believe in Scripture every bit as much as you do, and it is that type of dialogue (“I am the one that really trusts what God says, while you trust what Man says”), which brings these discussions to the level they usually end up at.
To my mind, evolution is entirely consistent with Scripture, so rather than address it as a “trust Scripture or not” question, the only way to properly discuss it is to take each other as they present themselves and discuss the issues. If you believe Scripture says something differently, then debate that point, without simply resorting to “you just don’t believe what it says”.
Marvin, a lack of a particular type of evidence IS DATA. That is then fed into the mix and theories are fine tuned. That is good science.
And, no, the flood does not explain any of that. If a global flood had occurred, everything would look entirely different than it does. We can discuss that fully if you like.
The definition of a transitional fossil would be something that has features of an earlier and a later species, and is located in time and geography between the two. The point of the transitional hominids is very simple. Creationist scientists make the point very adamantly that every seeming “hominid” fossil is really either human or ape. Which means it would be clear which it was, but they can’t agree! Some say it is an ape, some say it is a human, which is exactly what a transitional would look like. Secular scientists may disagree over exactly how old, or which branch of the tree, etc, but none would say it was either wholly ape or wholly man.
And, of course science isn’t settled and isn’t always right. But Creationists like to treat the theory of evolution as if it is like “String Theory”, or concepts of abiogenesis, which are very speculative. Evolution is not like that, and is dramatically well-supported. Even the intelligent design scientists, much touted by creationists, agree entirely with the idea of evolutionary development over billions of years. They just insist that it could not have happened entirely naturally.
This is not just pie-in-the-sky theorizing to fit a worldview and an agenda. It is that type of characterization that gives the creationist movement such a bad name. They don’t approach the subject fairly or reasonably, but too often with more zeal than argument.
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever participated in a discussion that is 137 comments long. (Maybe I’m
just new at this). No time to even read all the comments, let alone digest and respond to them.
Anyways, Michael, you’ve obviously hit a nerve.
On trying to catching up with the science required for the understanding of origins, even at
a very high level, i agree with Gordon; it’s right near impossible. And the books
by Evangelical scienctists recommended above are the ones I’d choose too. I’d also add
David Wilcox’s “God and Evolution: A Faith Based Understanding”. He talks a little bit more
about human evolution than the others. But I wouldn’t try to read all of them – choose one of
the falk, colling, collins, wilcox books and then follow it up with “Perspectives” – and if you
have only time for one chapter of this, choose Chapter 5 by Loren Haarsma’s titled “Does
Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles and Scientific practice”. For the intro
books Collins’ book is by
far the most popular so you might choose that simply because it’s the one you may have
to discuss most frequently. I prefer Falk’s because he capture’s the gut wrenching conflict
of growing up as an Evangelical interested in Science. Collins grew up an atheist & the
science / faith relationship was much different for him.
I also agree with Gordon’s comment that you just can’t find an accessible book that deals
thoroughly with the science, theology, and biblical interpretation. I highly recommend
anything by John Polkinghorne and also George Murphy’s “The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross”
but these are definitely NOT starter books. So I too am looking forward to Gordon’s
book. From what I’ve seen its going to fill a huge gaping hole – and its pretty good to boot!
(Disclaimer: I am not related to Gordon in any way, only met him over the internet a
few months back, and am getting no compensation for any kudo’s).
Thanks Steve. Dr. Loren Haarsma told me a few weeks ago that he has co-authored a book with his wife Deborah (also a scientist at Calvin College) called, “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution” in which his table of contents is almost identical to the one I chose. So I am very much looking forward to His book as well – due out sometime this month.
Also Steve, you must have a bunch of friends up there in Canada because my book hit #7 on the Amazon.ca “Hot New Releases” list in the general Christian catagory earlier today.
This will probably be my last post on this thread, as I start a new project tomorrow that will consume most of time for the next two weeks. It’s been great, I always enjoy the dialogue. Steve and Vance will have to cover for me.
Great Blog Michael – thanks for being patient with us!
-GJG
You all ever heard of Walt Brown? What are your thoughts about him?
[…] past week, I’ve been having this great discussion about creation/evolution over on the “Parchment and Pen” blog. I would encourage anyone who visits this site to head over there when you’re […]
Michael, Walter Brown would not be the place to go for science. He is not a scientist and his claims are pretty outlandish and unsupportable. Even Answers in Genesis had to (probably reluctantly) conclude that his “hydroplate” theory was just not workable. He is not a scientist (he was an engineer), and his approach is pure apologetics. He starts with his presumptive answers then goes in seek of evidence for that. When he can not find it, he develops concepts for how it could have worked which gets ripped apart pretty thoroughly (which is why even AiG had to back away from it).
What I find most frustrating with him is that he plays the sophist every bit as badly as Dawkins on the atheist side. He picks and chooses the evidence he wants, ignoring the rest, he takes quotes out of context to make it sound entirely different than the speaker intended.
There are worse Creationists, like Hovind, but if you want a reasoned argument and good science (even if I don’t agree with him on every point), I would check out Hugh Ross. On the ID side, Michael Denton may thrash evolution, but I don’t mind that coming from a real scientist. Here is his latest:
http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Destiny-Biology-Purpose-Universe/dp/0743237625/ref=sr_1_2/002-9561545-9979252?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189521539&sr=1-2
His previous book “Evolution: a Theory in Crisis” got a lot of press from Creationists, but contained some problems, so his latest book provides a better argument against Darwinian evolution.
Some of you might be interested in my latest post, “Paley’s Casio” on my blog. Check it out at http://www.beyondthefirmament.com/
-GJG
Gordon, I really liked that story! I wanted to comment there, but for some reason, WordPress would not let me log in. I think the analogy gives a good summary of the positions.
Thanks Vance. Try and register first before logging in, it should work. I would love some comments over there.
He starts with his presumptive answers then goes in seek of evidence for that. When he can not find it, he develops concepts for how it could have worked
This sounds remarkably similar to what happened with Darwinian evolution leading to punctuated equilibrium. Funny how the evoltionary side is called “good science” but the creationist side is called “outlandish”.
On the ID side, Michael Denton may thrash evolution, but I don’t mind that coming from a real scientist.
Are the many Creationist scientists like the folks at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research not also “real scientists?” Are their doctoral degrees in biology, chemistry, astrophysics, astronomy, etc not equally “real”. Does their denial of billions of years and evolution negate their being called “real scientists”? I would argue that this type of veiled condescension is also a contributing factor to why the debate gets as heated as it does, not just the Creationists taking the “I am the one that really trusts what God says, while you trust what Man saysâ€.
And, no, the flood does not explain any of that. If a global flood had occurred, everything would look entirely different than it does.
How do you KNOW this? I am assuming that you have eyewitnessed a massive global flood and it’s catastrophic results firsthand? How do you KNOW that the evidence we see i.e. the millions of fossils the world over, which require rapid burial in muddy conditions so the water can replace the minerals in the bones, isn’t a result of the Flood? How many mudslides would there have to have been in your world view to account for the vast fossil record we do have? I would posit that if the Flood wasn’t mentioned in the Bible, then it probably would be taught in science as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the fossil record.
But science speaks with such certainty on these issues. Perhaps the Word of God to Job in chapter 38 should be considered:
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.”
No, real science does not just start with presumptive answers, since none of the current answers are sacrosanct and can be changed if they just don’t fit the evidence. Evolutionary development fits the evidence perfectly, but absolute gradualism did not (even Gould accepts that gradualism is still the norm, just doesn’t provide the full answer). So, gradualism had to be reconsidered, it was NOT sacrosanct, it was not clung to in spite of the evidence. They were willing to see whether a different explanation was available, and the current time, PE is just that, the best explanation to explain the data. That is good science.
The evidence for evolutionary development over billions of years was just as strong, it was merely the mechanics that needed some tweaking. And the ID folks agree with this, but they insist that it needs even more tweaking, so much so that God is needed since it couldn’t not have happened entirely naturally. Yet even they accept the basic premise of the development in the first place.
What too many Creation scientists do is very different. They start with absolutes from which they will NOT budge no matter what the evidence says. They start with a young earth and special, immediate creation based on a particular reading of Scripture and then go out and look for evidence that supports that conclusion. This is the opposite of science.
As for who is a real scientist, I was referring to Brown in particular, not all Creation scientists. He is not a scientist, and definitely not one who specializes in anything in these areas. Over at AiG and ICR they definitely have people who are real scientists, but even then they are only real scientists when they are doing real science. Just as an atheist scientist is no longer doing science when they start spouting philosophical naturalism, a creation scientists is not longer doing science if they start with a presumption from which they will not budge if the evidence points the other way.
We do not need to be present to view the history to be able to see that a global flood did not occur. The evidence is all over the place which shows things that would not be there if a global flood had taken place, and, at the same time, things that WOULD be there if it had are not there. This is as supported by the evidence as a hundred things you accept from science without question. And, absent your conclusion that a global flood occurred based on your particular reading of Genesis, you would not have any problem with this either.
I am perfectly open to all of the Creationist concepts and proposals and I have read them all in great detail for a VERY long time. I just find them utterly without any validity, and the end result is that the only people who accept them are those with religious beliefs that presuppose those conclusions. You would think that at least a small percentage of secular scientists would cry foul against the prevailing conclusions from the evidence if they were really better answers out there. At least a few percentage would be willing to buck the system and point out the errors of the general scientific community. But that is not what is happening. The last I saw, less than 1/10th of 1% of scientists in the relevant fields accept these Creationist propositions like flood geology. That means that very large majority of Christian scientists reject them as well. So, it is not a worldview issue.
We can get into all the data if you like in great detail, but this is not the best place to do that.
Over at Christian Forums, there is a great forum for these very issues. It is open to non-Christians as well, and the science is discussed thoroughly and reasonably, for the most part. You can find it here:
http://foru.ms/f70
Funny enough how a blog on “How not to be dogmatic” has become just that.
Funny too that only real scientists and those that discuss science “thoroughly and reasonably” are only evolutionist yet Scripture has no record of evolution being the instrument that God used.
Because God was the instrument and all the glory belongs to Him. There is a multitude of Scripture references to Him as the sole creator and all of the OT and NT writers agree.
Soli Deo gloria.
(sorry Vance bro, I saw enough of your posts at bible.org, same stuff different day)
Well, I do have to agree with you on that. It seems that this type of apologetic has a way to make the dividing lines clearer than they really are.
All I can do is say it again. Humility is the key. It will keep you from being humiliated later 🙂
tnahas, degree of confidence is not dogmatism. I have reviewed the evidence to be confident up to a certain level of confidence, that is all. And this level of confidence is always tentative, able to change given the degree of evidence. That is why I would never make dogmatic theological statements based on these issues and why I call for others not to do the same.
I never said that a young earth creationist should abandon their scientific conclusions that the earth is young. And if they want to debate those scientific conclusions, that is fine, even though that is not my primary goal. My goal is that neither side of this debate should allow their conclusions regarding the timing and nature of God’s creative work to be PRESENTED dogmatically in the manners I describe in my article. If you want to believe in a young earth with 100% confidence, that is absolutely fine, and I would not expect you to discuss it with any less confidence than that. But, to go that extra step and say that if your conclusion is not correct, Scripture is worthless, or say that EITHER an old earth is correct or Scripture is correct, but not both, etc, is where we must not go, since that is putting our conclusions, however strongly held, at the level of Christian Essentials, where it does not belong.
I will go on record and say that, no matter how confident I am of the scientific issues, I could be wrong. But regardless of whether I am right or wrong, Scripture is true, the Gospel is true and all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are all fully valid.
Are you willing to say the same? If so, then you are not taking a dogmatic stance.
We can both be equally confident in our scientific conclusions, and there is no reason to back off of that level of confidence unless the evidence requires it (and I don’t, and neither should you). But that should not allow us to draw dogmatic lines in the sand over issues that are, ultimately, non-essential.
Let me put it this way. Let’s say you were confronted with a “Flat-earther” who insisted that the Bible describes the world as flat, and that there was good science to back this up. He began to assert that if you did not accept a flat earth, then you were not trusting Scripture, you did not trust God, you were placing man’s science ahead of God’s word. And lets say you saw that he was gathering a following and influencing a lot of young people with that belief. First and foremost I would assume you would want him to avoid such dogmatic statements such that if the world was not flat, you might as well throw Scripture away, etc.
But if he then really wanted to discuss the science involved, and insisted that the evidence was clear that the world was literally flat (a disc), and lets say you chose to discuss the issue. Now, I know that you are 99.99% sure that the earth is not a flat disc. So, how would you present your position? Would you act as if there are two reasonable positions here and discuss it as if there was equal and supportable evidence on both sides, etc? Or would you say, no, that is simply not what all the evidence indicates, let me show you why . . .?
I think you would be perfectly justified in taking the latter approach.