In the past I would have been known as a hard Intelligent Design advocate, now I could probably be identified as either a soft ID advocate, or even somewhat indifferent (but I will say that I do have 
problems with the assumptions of a neo-Darwinian conception of macro-evolution, grounded in metaphysical materialism, as it is). This issue of Creationism/Biblicism V. Evolution/Science continues to fuel the culture wars in America at fevered tempatures, in certain tribes that is. My indifference on the topic is probably related more to the fact that I am worn out, at this point, in arguing about it; and the fact that I just don’t pay that much attention to it anymore. David Fergusson, Scottish Theologian at New College, Edinburgh (TF Torrance’s school) writes this:
Recent cultural conflict has been generated, particularly in the USA, by attempts to present Genesis 1—2 as offering an alternative cosmology to that of the modern scientifc world view. Instead of galaxies, planets, and life forms emerging from a violent explosion from a point of infinite density around twelve billion years ago, ‘creation science’ has attempted to maintain a ‘young universe’ only thousands of years old (Frye 1993). While allowing for some changes that are attributed to the effects of the flood, the world is perceived as created in much the same condition as we observe it today. The intellectual impossibility of this movement is evident from its attempt to challenge not merely biological evolution but the confirmed theories of other well-established scientific disciplines, including cosmology, astronomy, physcis, geology, and palaeontology. From the theologian’s perspective, it is an unnecessary fight to pick for the reasons outlined above. As Steve Jones, the distinguished geneticist, has often said, the conflict between science and religion resembles a fight between a tiger and a shark. Each will prevail on its own proper territory, but it will be hopelessly defeated by encroaching on the domain of the other. [David Fergusson, The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology: Chapter 4, Creation, 74]
When push comes to shove, I think my ‘ID’ sensibilities are still present. There is too much ofΒ a quidΒ pro quo[ness]Β to this whole game sometimes—i.e. if the theologian will scratch the scientist’s back, the scientist will scratch the theologian’s back, or vice versa, etc. ID has been collapsed into creationism, when in fact ID is clearly not creationism, as it seeks to offer an active working scientific model (like Dembski’s ‘specified complexity’ etc.). I think there is more to this than Fergusson lets on. Someone no less than famed atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, converted to theism (no small feat), in no small part to the arguments presented by Intelligent Design scientists—clearly this is circumstantial, and not an argument for ID; but it helps to illustrate the kind of force that ID has to offer, to the point of helping clear the intellectual and evidentiary hurddles that heretofore had prevented an antagonistic atheist like Flew to reject his life’s work, to state that he was now a convinced theist.
Anyway, this is something that, ultimately, I don’t think Christians need to divide over (I mean fellowship); but it is something we can disagree over. I don’t think Fergusson and those like him have considered that there are actually quite a few reputable scientists who have rejected neo-Darwinianism in favor of ID. Alas, the public smear campaign has by and large worked to relegate ID to the quagmire of so called ‘Creation Science’.
This is one thing that I actually disagree with TF Torrance on; TFT would have been in the Fergusson camp. Or more to the point, Fergusson is actually in TFT’s camp on this.
What do you think?
I should note, that because of TF Torrance’s position (which I do agree with) that the world has been ‘created’ with a certain taxis and rationality precisely because the God who created it is a God of taxis and rationality; thus there is a coordination between the creaturely contingent world, with the God who created it and sustains it thus coordination is only provide bridge through the telos of creation in the hypostatic union of the Divine and human in Jesus Christ. But there is also a contingent independent createdness to creation; such that the integrity of this creation has its own (albeit contingent) knowable order that gives itself to those who would so inquire (like the Scientist, or for TF Torrance the priests of creation). This is why TFT would affirm a form of macro-evolution as explanatory of the universe as it is observed under the natural and independently created order that emperically gives itself to ‘natural observation’ — or so the tale goes.
I am simply not convinced — as of yet — that this is altogther satisfactory. I understand the claim that ID presents us with a god of the gaps; thus effectively making the bridge between God and man, man’s own intellectual prowess instead of the God-man Jesus Christ. Thus injecting an ontic and epistemic dualism into the mix that ought not be the case if we are going to honor the unitary and singular reality of God’s creation for himself in Christ; and the independent integrity of creation that God imbued upon it as ‘creation’.
So I am still thinking these things through … again, what do you think?
The controversy over ID is that it’s philosophy, not science. ID is just Thomism. The validity of ID should be debated in the philosophy lecture halls, not the scientific laboratory.
As Steve Jones, the distinguished geneticist, has often said, the conflict between science and religion resembles a fight between a tiger and a shark. Each will prevail on its own proper territory, but it will be hopelessly defeated by encroaching on the domain of the other.
I love that! I always pick on Al Mohler, and this quote perfectly captures how Mohler is so confident in his denunciations of modern science. He is entirely — self-admittedly — working in the field of biblical exegesis.
Hi Bobby,
As you probably know, I fall squarely in the Genesis camp, perhaps not verbatum, but very much for the special creation of Adam, and Eve from Adam, a very brief tenure in the Garden, and the curse of The Fall.
What I find curious from the Christian liberal (even conservative liberal) perspective, is that government is utterly cursed and fallen (especially the American government), business is cursed and fallen, and with it the medical industry, the food industry, the environment is going to hell, but, But, BUT, by the Torrancean account, the high priests of creation, the scientists, are sacro-sanct, they have side-stepped the fall. If we follow this logic out, they are also the high priests of progressive revelation, and if we stick with them long enough we get to God by natural law. Natural law dictates to us the real genesis, and all others are creation myth. The truth is evolution science history is fraught with deceit, deception and outright fraud. As in EVERY other human endeavor, people have axes to grind, in this case, Darwin may fit at least three of the very human motives in play: a justification of his own doubts about the Creator, justification for his own lack luster performance, and a ladder to climb socially. Scientists as fallen humans often seek, yes, seek to justify dismissing God. As fallen humans, scientists often seek to justify their own sinful lifestyle. And scientists will very often go to great lengths to get the next “Academy Awards” of science. Like Sally fields, they desire to be liked by their peer group and their public. They want to be toasted at the next cocktail party, not jeered in the classroom.
So the questions remain, why American Christians continue to be patriots in light of how wicked America is [just for the sake of argument], and why Christians in general continue to be evolutionary science patriots, when there are ample examples of the fallenness of that science, plenty of defectors, countless millions of dead in search of the uber mensch, and a very plausible alternative account in-spired by God?
Though I don’t know the precise definitions of all the terms, I -think- I fall on the ID side, but not the literal-Genesis side. Do I believe that God created the universe, set it in motion, and continues to give it life? Yes. Do I believe the creation happened in 6 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago? No. I’d also put the Adam and Eve tales in the myth category as well, because for me, the exact details aren’t important. That God did it, that’s important.
Is evolution on-going, and do we then regard the human Jesus as sub-human to us as a human specimen, or did evolution miraculously cease at some stage?
Even if you answer, “no, 2,000 years is too brief to have significant impact”, the steady state assumption has to be that eventually should the Lord tarry, that He was not as good a human physically as we will one day be.
Ken, so Jesus having limited info, bought into the myth of Adam and Eve, Ape-man was not created to leave his father and mother monkeys and cleave to his troglodite ape mistress, and Paul was a heavily duped by myths as well, as he wrote of Eve having been the one who was deceived. Or maybe these words were just put into their mouths by later scribes of the gospels and epistles?
How on Heaven or Earth do you personally separate myth from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I have no confidence at all in my ability to so judge wisely. I could throw the whole baby out with the bath water, or I could pick the conveniently agreeable portions, like say, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones. I know that we pride ourselves in being much better educated, and wiser than our forebears, who were, incidentally, closer historically (in time) to the Source of all Truth.
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no βvalid supporting dataβ for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to βproveβ the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only βcommon ancestorβ that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove βCreationismβ, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You canβt do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”, which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
@Kevin,
Yes, but of course it remains mostly in the philosophy hall because it’s never been allowed out by the gatekeepers. Behe and others self proclaimed scientist became such because of the “science” that they have done as scientists, not because of philosophy or creation science, so called. But, yes, I do have a problem with a Thomist god of the gaps approach. You hold to neo-Darwinian science, right?
@Duane,
You have many different layers to your comment. I’ll just respond in general then. The food industry and big pharma are corrupt, destructively so. Our Federal American Gvt is corrupt. I mean all of those things are true. But I don’t know what that has to do with evolution, per se? I do agree, though, that prestige and money and grants and funding etc. motivate so much of this industry and intellectual pursuit. But it seems like we need to critique some of the data too, if we are going to make a substantial critique against evolution; no?
@Ken,
I definitely hold that Adam and Eve are historical figures, persons; I think that the details are the symbols through which God communicates himself as trustworthy to us. So you reject neo-Darwinian evolution?
@Herman,
Hello, thanks for commenting. I’m a little confused by what you believe. Because, really, what you’ve stated would mirror what many, like at Biologos would hold (at least one half of it). You state “The correct opposing view to evolution is the βObservations of Mosesβ, which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.” But this seems either to mimic something like a theistic-evolutionist position (by emphasizing the literary nature of the text V. its intention towards engaging cosmological or scientific truths); or your position mimics the Fundamentalist Creation Science position that holds that Gen 1 does indeed intend to give us “God’s science” on how he created. How do you differentiate, other than asserting that you do?
Pingback: Culture Wars: Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design … | churchoutreachministry.net
I’m sorry Bobby, I thought I communicated pretty plainly. The problem I have is that for many conservative theologians, science is the only discipline that has side-stepped the fall. They (theologians) are not scientists, peleontologists, geneticists, and the like themselves, so the best they can do is take the scientists’ word for it, OR take the Bible’s word for it. Face it, there are highly educated people on both sides of the argument in every evolutionary discipline. If they can not prove their case to each other, neither can we prove our point. Practically, the best we can do is take sides, or shrug our shoulders and say “I guess it’s not for me to know”, which seems to throw in the teeth of God the revelation He has given. Salvation by grace or by works? I guess it’s not for me to know. Trinity of God in three persons, or God in three modes? I guess it’s not for me to know. One God? Oh there conservative theologians draw the line, Genesis trustworthily concludes that one god created the universe one way or another. C’mon! Science definitively declares that all of this god-talk is unnecessary. The universe could have brought itself into being and birthed everything that is [so science argues].
So my question is not, how scientists can believe what they believe?, no mystery there. My question is, how can Christians believe anything other than the Biblical account, to whatever degree particular points are taken literally? How can a Christian mince out Holy Scripture to say: That is the revelation of God, and that is not.
I anticipate one argument: that Jesus Is The Word of God, and Jesus Is The Revelation of God, and that is true, but if the Scripture is supposed to be that which points to Him, and it is untrustworthy, how can we possibly know that He is indeed the one we were waiting for, and even if He is, how can we know the way to Him, if Scripture is not trustworthy?
Regarding the many layers to my comments, Torrance often writes longer sentences than my paragraphs, with more clauses than I have words, and more jargon than my total vocabulary π
You hold to neo-Darwinian science, right?
Yes, also known as science. π
In actuality, I’m open to special creative acts within a general evolutionary framework, which is basically how a lot of Old Earth Creationists talk (but not all, since many OEC are virulently opposed to macro evolution of any sort). This basically means that I’m not quite certain that the Darwinian “survivalist” paradigm (survival of the fittest) can explain everything, but I am otherwise thinking within an Old Earth and evolutionist program. In regard to the origin of humans, I’m more willing to appeal to a special creative act in the recent past, which is certainly not Darwinian by any means. Otherwise, Adam and Eve (and the covenant genealogies) will have to be jettisoned, and I’m still very hesitant to do that.
@Daune,
I think that your question is the point though; things aren’t as straightforward as you are seeming to presume. And I mean that Christians obviously have different hermeneutical schemas through which they read scripture; so it’s never as simple as saying that we just believe what the Bible says—we have a web of interconnected beliefs that are informing something like exegetical and interpretive conclusions. So I think we have to go further than saying that “My question is, how can Christians believe anything other than the Biblical account, to whatever degree particular points are taken literally?” I mean, that is THE question, what does the Bible intend to say about such things?
@Kevin,
Yeah, I understand where you’re coming from; we’ve had this convo more than once before π … we don’t ultimately agree about what the physical sciences are (maybe I’m more intent on what I’d like the sciences to be V. what they currently are … which you seem to be working at constructively … but I don’t buy the mechanisms of natural selection survival of the fittest—I don’t think they can do the heavy lifting (like speciation) that they are purported to do).
In the end I had to move on from IDT. Is God the creator? Absolutely. Is he intelligent? is there evidence of design? Absolutely. But those things are different than what the IDT camp has come to represent.
Genesis is theology, not science. It is ‘world view’ genre. Asking what the original hearers would have understood, given their historical/cultural context (ANE) rather than imposing our questions onto the text is (always) paramount. God is telling them who He is and who they are, contra those views from the surrounding cultures.
Learning that science is not the ‘enemy’, that this is not a question of creation ‘or’ evolution, but that evolution could be of God’s creation, God’s mechanism, was particularly freeing.
Trin,
You should read this post of mine: http://growrag.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/reading-genesis-1-11-as-scripture-and-not-science/ you’ll see that I don’t ultimately disagree with you about Genesis 1–11. But I don’t agree that ID has come to necessarily “represent” things beyond the questions you open your comment with. The media may have recontextualized ID, their opponents may have done the same; but that does not mean that this represents ID’s self-announced intention of simply answering your above questions, in principle.
I understand that folk, even folk I respect (like TF Torrance) want to make this distinction between two distinct disciplines; i.e. one studies metaphysics, the other physics etc. But at the end of the day, I don’t buy the supposition that ‘scientists’ are simply interpreting the brute facts through brute empirical lenses; in fact ’empirical’ itself presupposes philosophical premises, that are themselves not empirical—in other words there is a philosophy of science (i.e. naturalism or metaphysical materialism) that undergirds the articulation of what folk consider to be the physical sciences today. I don’t buy that this is simply ‘science’; to me this seems naive, or triumphalist … I have as of yet to be persuaded otherwise. Thanks, Trin.
Bobby –
For me, the issue drilled down to ‘how do we know.’
It is, as you note, an interpretive question: how do we know evolution is ‘unguided’ vs. teleological? If it was teleological, what would look different? Would anything look different? There is nothing in the observable science, at least at this point, to prove one way or the other. ID says there is via complexity of design (disproven) and the nature of complex information. But at those points they are not engaging with science. They said over a decade ago that they would move onto the science table, and they have been unable to because this is not about science.
At the core, however, I could no longer deny what science had learnt and was putting on the table. They cannot prove the process is a-teleological.
Further, I could no longer ignore the large number of bright, evangelical, Christian scientists that endorse evolution. They have no problem holding both science and faith – it is not, for them, a question of either/or. Creation AND evolution are not antithetical; the evangelical church painting evolution as the enemy is most unfortunate, and is I believe a political issue, not a science issue. A-theistic evolution cannot be substantiated; that does not disprove evolution. The American evangelical church is exacerbating the problem by conflating issues.
I appreciate your time in replying, Bobby.
Blessings on your day.
@Trin,
you wrote: … “But at those points they are not engaging with science. They said over a decade ago that they would move onto the science table, and they have been unable to because this is not about science.”
But, and this is the important piece to me, that’s the point. ID has offered critique where critique, methodologically (by order), ought to begin; at the philosophical level or philosophy of science level of things (i.e. first order). Whether or not ID has met their mission as an alternative active scientific model seems to be moot; viz. relative to the soundness of their observations about the mechanisms that ‘supposedly’ do all the heavy lifting and make the so called hard sciences work. This is why I am still prone to ID; not because I am happy with the theology of gaps that they operate from, but simply because I think they have raised questions about the mechanisms of neo-Darwinianism (i.e. natural selection etc.), that heretofore have not as of yet been answered (which can be attributed to the politics of this whole morass). Further, ID has posited positive points for consideration as well; such as the obvious point on information in DNA etc.
It is certainly plausible to believe that God used macro-evolution to create, but as of yet, I am not convinced that the mechanisms that define what we call macro-evolution today have empirically been proven; again, I think, as you’ve brought up, that much of this comes back to politics and posturing (a PR campaign by those who have the tenure, money, and power).
It is true that Fundyism has exacerbated things by setting up either/or binaries; but then, that, in and of itself does not mean that we should swing to the other side (like mitigating critical discussion) simply because this is so. I think the American Evangelical church almost is not the church anymore; that is fodder for another discussion.
Where did you get your MA in apologetics? And what is your real name, Trin?
Thanks as well.
Hi Bobby!
I unfortunately, do not see any explanation to how people process,, compartmentalize or just pidgeon hole objections like the ones I raise.
As you so perceptively, and intelligently wrote: ” what does the Bible intend to say about such things?”
Trin, unfortuantely, I do find creation as Scripture tells it, and macro-evolution to be totally antithetical. The only way I think one could dismiss the creation story in Genesis would be to have an ala-carte belief in Scripture: to choose to believe what suits me, in which case one would have no way of knowing what is true and what is myth beyond the same stuff that makes you you according to the materialists. I was reading a re-counting of the Abraham – Isaac story yesterday, and it struck me that there was no question of the veracity of the story. These were real people under real circumstances, who were really encountered by the Living God. This isn’t “The Brothers Grimm”, where I try to guess the moral of the story, but no-one really believes that there was a “pied piper”. To argue that this whole Genesis Aesop’s fable in all it’s detail was set up to fool people (or relate to people) into believing that there is one only one God who created the universe, is like adding a Kipling “Just so” story to the Bible to prove…what? What differentiates Genesis as myth, versus the virgin Mary as myth? What about the resurrection?
The same author who wrote that Jesus appeared to Thomas after He had been dead 3 days, also wrote “Jesus, being the son (as was supposed [stipulating by the way the half-truth in this particular statement for technical accuracy] ) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,…the Son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” This geneology was as I have been educated at least, a technical presentation of the pedigree of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, to prove to the faithful that He qualifies to be Messiah. This would not be nearly so pivotal to we, who are so far removed from the Judaic structure. Then was Luke just throwing in some slick marketting? Was he equally deluded with the other “American Evangelicals” of his day who believed that the bloodline through David and Abraham directly to Adam was critical to the acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah? Is the Adam mentioned a required link in the geneology to God the creator, and if so, is this The Adam of the Genesis account? I believe it is.
Bobby, I have a friend in Australia who does some mini blogging about Genesis creation on a social website linked to a large Christian charity. This person, makes it clear that it is not souly American Christians who regard the Genesis account as a true story. Persuing the 158 member list confirms my suspicions: Members including people from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, Canada, and Malaysia just toward the top of the list. I doubt that each of them believes in the Genesis account as written, but I’m sure many do. Probably, not too many wealthy, or powerful or wise. I would propose to you that it may be possible that part of your problem with “American Evangelicals” is not really with us, as it may be with the great unwashed of the larger Christian Church. The vocal, uneducated masses are an embarrassment to the elites who have to breath not only each other’s aire but also that of the elites on the edges of and outside of Christendom. Seminarians, and post-graduate types the world over live for peer acceptance and adulation. The truth is, a large portion of the population, Christian or not, is amenable to the creation story. It is mainly the educated discerning elites who dismiss it out of hand, or look with jaundiced eye. If the creation story is a stumbling block to Kenya born, Oxford Fellow, Brit Richard Dawkins, it shouldn’t be, it should be barely on the radar, because as you have stated, being creationist is peculiarly american.
@Duane,
You’ve read way too much into my point on American Evangelicalism; I qualified that by saying that is fodder for another discussion—which I meant that I don’t see this as totally related to the current discussion.
I also don’t think creationism is a uniquely American reality. I have friends in the UK, for example, who are straight up Creationists.
I reject neo-Darwinian thinking, because I don’t think it offers a coherent explanation of things relative to the mechanisms that make it work. Those who follow neo-Darwinism seem to think that just because this is the only thing that has come to count as science, today, that this in and of itself makes it true—to me this is an argument from silence.
Btw, Duane, I am an American Evangelical.
@Duane: Given the genre and context of Genesis 1-11, I do not find creation and evolution at all antithetical. I would encourage your perusal of Waltke’s Genesis commentary, Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis One” and also his “Ancient Near Eastern Thought & the Old Testament,” Francis Collins’, “The Language of God⦔, Denis Alexander’s, “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?” and given your Reformed views, “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design & Evolution” by Haarsma and Haarsma, scientists and profs at Calvin.
Key regarding scripture, as I hope you would agree, is context and genre. For outside of context we could understand scripture to condone suicide: “Judas went away and hanged himself”; “go ye and to likewise.” And neglecting genre, we would read the comics section of the paper as we read the front page or the classified ads, but we know better. It is no different with scripture: context and genre are key. Neglecting this we misinterpret scripture.
A case can be made that those interpreting scripture outside of context and genre have the “ala-carte” approach to scripture, that those twisting it to fit the questions and concerns of the 21st century are the ones in error. Written over 2000 years ago it addresses the questions and concerns of the original hearers, not of us.
Numerous OT scholars note the differences between Gen1-11 and the rest of the book, note the similarities and differences between the biblical creation story (and other stories in ch.1-11) and those of other ANE cultures, and what God was teaching Israel about himself and themselves.
Myths can contain, can teach truth. In fact, a myth can be the best way to convey truth. The fact that truth is ‘packaged’ in story does not impact the truth. Do you think Jesus’ parables were all factual accounts of historical events? Do you think the story of the prodigal is factual, that there was a real father with 2 sons? Does the fact that these were ‘fiction’ change the truth they contain? Is truth dependent on historical occurrence? You ask what differentiates Genesis as myth versus the virgin Mary or the resurrection? Genre does.
I believe we need to listen seriously to the experts in given fields, particularly those that have given a lot of time to their study. I take Waltke seriously when it comes to the OT and I take Christian scientists seriously when it comes to science. I also think we need to read/think cross spectrum – creationist, IDT, TE/EC – to understand different pov’s. All truth is God’s truth. There is nothing to fear here.
When thinking together about his topic it is so important to be clear about what we mean. We can easily assume we understand one another when we are thinking very different things; or we can really be saying the same thing and think we disagree! Also, it is easy for a number of issues here to be conflated, leading to further misunderstandings.
In that light, by evolution I mean βa scientific model that says the mechanisms of evolution, operating over the long history of life on earth, explain common ancestry and the pattern of change over timeβ (Haarsma & Haarsma, 149). This says nothing about whether or how God may have been involved in those processes. Evolution is not evolutionism, the βattempt to use the theory of evolution to support atheistic claims,β a philosophical view all Christians reject (ibid).
By creation I mean βeverything to which God has given being,β (Miller in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 3), and include both Godβs creative and sustaining acts. All Christians believe God is the creator and are therefore creationists, small βcβ, and they all also believe the cosmos is intelligently designed, small βiβ, small βdβ.
By science I refer to a process, to our human attempt to study and understand Godβs world, the natural world, sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism (H&H, 41, 46, 59, Miller 7). As such, βscience is simply silent on the existence or action of Godβ (Miller, 7).
By naturalism I refer to the philosophical view that the natural, material world is both a closed system of cause and effect and all that exists. This is currently referred to as philosophical naturalism, and no Christians are philosophical naturalists.
By Darwinism I mean an atheistic interpretation of evolution, and finally, by chance, or βrandomβ, I mean unpredictability (H&H, 41-42), like saying tomorrowβs weather holds βa chance of showers.β When someone says βLife evolved by chance, not by God,β they are using chance to indicate their dysteleological view. For Christians, nothing is random, or dysteleological.
I am one of a number of Christians concerned that brothers and sisters who make it their mission to attack evolution, in the mistaken assumption that it is anti-God, are bringing the gospel into disrepute. For, βusually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion of the stars and even their size and relative positionsβ¦.Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situationβ¦. [T]he shame is…that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scriptures are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.β Sound relevant? That is Augustine, writing over 1500 years ago.
@ Bobby – I did the MA (Apologetics) at Biola.
@Trin,
Thank you for all of that. I am aware of all of these definitions too, I used to spend massive amounts of time reading all of the apologetic stuff, and esp. in regard to this particular issue (but I haven’t for awhile now, so I rely on what I know from my past on this). I also know that Augustine wrote that; Calvin has plenty to say on such things as well.
My approach apologetically is not grounded in the analogia entis (in fact my personal chapter for our forthcoming book is on this very topic) or analogy of being; so I am not necessarily going to argue apologetically with people in classical form (although I do see the importance of being aware of the issues). I don’t think I attacked evolution with my post, and I also don’t spend all of might nights contemplating this problem; I think there are much bigger theological problems to be wary of, Trin (like the classical doctrine of God that plagues Evangelicalism etc). Neverthless, we need to be people of the truth in all sectors; I am not convinced, as you are, that macro-evolution is the mechanism that God has employed to create (I don’t see the proof, yet). And I don’t see, as of yet, how methodological naturalism and/or methodological materialism have been entangled from the interpretive conclusions that macro-evolutionists have made in their present body of work. You have demonstrated that to me either. I understand this is a blog, so I don’t expect that; but I also do expect that it is important for you to realize that people can disagree with macro-evolution and not be dilettante when it comes to engaging in critical thought.
pax.
ps. what’s your real name, and where’d you get your MA in apologetics?
Excuse the typos in the comment above, I have to run to eat or I’d fix them π .
Cool, Biola, I grew up around Biola and have many friends who did their MA in Philosophy at Talbot (I have one friend still there Joe Gorra who is editor for Philosophia Christi journal). I myself was accepted to their MA in philosophy but I went a different route. What’s your name?
@Bobby – agreed. I was talking with Duane in those posts; sorry I was unclear. And I’m unclear given what I said why you assume I don’t realize people can disagree. That is definitely not my thinking! Apologies.
pax.
Hi Trin,
I do appreciate your responses, and your congeniallity, except for the assertion, again, that believing in the inspired stories of Genesis 1-11 is an embarassment to the Church and a potential stumbling block to the unbeliever.
There are many creation myths the world over. Probably several of them could be substituted for our creation story, if all that need be taught is that there is one creator and a few moral lessons. Nice reading, but of little consequence to my faith. Still does not explain why the rest of the Bible, right through Jesus and the Epistles seem to affirm the factual nature of Genesis. The truth is probably simpler than that. It is more likely that the similar creation stories are simply decendants of the original, either removed from Moses, or their own oral traditions passed down from the sons of Noah.
I certainly believe that we can agree to disagree. This is not a problem I have in talking with the unsaved. We don’t go into detail there, the problem I have is them accepting that they are sinners hopelessly lost, in need of The Savior. Maybe if I practiced a little more, I would see different outcomes.
Peace, out
@Trin,
Yeah, sorry, I just took when you wrote: “I am one of a number of Christians concerned that brothers and sisters who make it their mission to attack evolution, in the mistaken assumption that it is anti-God, are bringing the gospel into disrepute.” That you were somewhat placing “your number” of Christians over and against other Christians in a way that somewhat sees the other Christians as somewhat Fundy in orientation (which may or may not be true). Maybe I’m overreading you though. Sorry about that. Glad to have your voice hear, brother/sister? What’s your name? I usually don’t like anonymous comments here π .
I wonder how many times I can say “somewhat” in a sentence … wow π .
Thanks for getting back, Duane and Bobby.
@Duane: “It is more likely that the similar creation stories are simply decendants of the original, either removed from Moses, or their own oral traditions passed down from the sons of Noah. I certainly believe that we can agree to disagree.”
Except the other ANE creation stories pre-exist the Genesis account, i.e. Genesis is a rewriting of the commonly understood creation stories of the time (Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Uggarit, etc) in light of God’s recent actions in freeing the Israelites from Egypt.
@Bobby: thanks for letting me post anonymously, Bobby, considering its not your normal policy. I am a sister. I have just started blogging and am uncomfortable putting personal information “out there” in the world wide web. That is probably silly…and down the road I may ‘come out’ or be ‘outed’… but for now at least, I hope Trin will be ok. Having said that you can find out quite a bit about me on the ‘about’ page at my blog.
And can you PLEASE tell me how you do italics in these posts!???!?! It’s driving me nuts…I need my italics!
Blessings, brothers. I appreciate your thoughts and patience.
@Trin,
Okay, I’ll make an exception for you … I usually only dislike anonymous commenters when they become pretentious … so be careful π . If you use your real name you can be pretentious, and that way I can dislike you by name π π kidding. I’m not friends with you on Facebook, am I? I am friends with a female from Canada who is doing the MA in apologetics at Biola (but I think she is still in process in her program)?
Italics? Like this [em]then whatever you want to italicize, and then close your tag like this[/em]. Except, of course, in place of my brackets use the greater or lesser sign so that on either side of the ’em’ the pointy side is facing out, pointing away from the ’em’. Let me know if that makes sense.
I look forward to further interaction. Blessings to you!
Many thanks.
Another Canuckian woman doing apol at Biola?! Amazing. Not me. I don’t facebook, or facespace as I call it. I am addictive enough to know it would be really, really bad for me.
Here’s hoping I understood your formatting info (thx for that).
Trin.
It worked! YAY! π
I also forgot to say thank you for introducing me to Torrance. His “Trinitarian Faith” was most helpful for my thesis.
Trin,
Yeah, you must be a trend setter for Canuckian women π .
Okay, we’ve had contact before then, in the past; right?
I’m glad you found TFT useful; I sure have π !
Glad italics worked.
Blessings.