There is a peculiar American tendency to bifurcate public debates into two sides, one “pro-” and the other “anti-” (e.g., abortion, climate change, homosexuality). The science and religion debate is no exception. BioLogos has a helpful feature on their website that shows multiple constituencies with leading figures.
Which constituency best describes your view, and why?
The BioLogos position on origins sits partway between two fundamentalisms: on the “left” end of the spectrum is the fundamentalism of people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who are committed to the belief that the only reliable form of knowledge comes from science, and that alternate ways of knowing must be either rejected entirely or completely subordinated to science. On the “right” end of the spectrum is the fundamentalism of those who insist that reliable knowledge can only be found in an ultraliteral interpretation of the Bible, and that alternate ways of knowing must be completely subordinated to this way of reading the Bible.
BioLogos takes both the Bible and science seriously and believes that since God authored both, they must complement each other and be in harmony. We reject the two fundamentalisms mentioned above. Science is not the only way of knowing, but an ultraliteral interpretation of the Bible must also be rejected. To understand how BioLogos relates to other positions “in play” in our cultural conversation on origins, we have created the following categorical scheme into which most participants can be readily placed.
We have produced labels for the groups that help to show how they span the range of possible viewpoints. Our labels indicate what we think are the critical and defining characteristics of the group, rather than the name that the group has chosen for itself.
- YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS: Young earth creationists believe that a “natural” or “plain” reading of the English text of the Bible provides a completely accurate account of science. Any scientific ideas incompatible with this – no matter how well-established – must be rejected. BioLogos rejects this position because it denies the revelation of God in nature and the gift of science. Leading figures: Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry M. Morris, Paul A. Nelson, Kurt Wise.
- STRONG CONCORDISTS (OLD EARTH): Strong concordists, of which old-earth creationists are the best example, believe that God placed modern scientific ideas in the Bible, sometimes using secret language that could not be understood by the original audience and even the actual writers of the texts. BioLogos rejects this viewpoint because we believe that God worked within the worldview, culture and language of the Biblical authors and since they would not have known, for example, about heliocentricity or the Big Bang, we do not think that God encoded those ideas in the scripture. Leading figures: Hugh Ross, Gerald Schroeder.
- INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Intelligent design (ID) proponents believe that much of modern science is wrong and must be rejected because of its naturalism. The term Intelligent Design, although appropriated by these science critics, is used in many ways and is embraced by the first 5 groups on this list. ID proponents highlight mysteries within science, arguing that science will never explain mysteries like what caused the Big Bang, or how life originated. They then argue that we must use non-scientific explanations like “Intelligent Design.” Favorite topics include the Cambrian explosion, complex structures, and the origin of biological information. BioLogos rejects such “god of the gaps” reasoning. Leading figures: Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Phillip A. Johnson, Stephen C. Meyer.
- BIOLOGOS: BioLogos takes both the Bible and science seriously, and seeks a harmony between them that respects the truth of each. By using appropriate biblical and theological scholarship BioLogos believes that the apparent conflicts that lead some to reject science and others to reject the Bible can be avoided. Leading figures: Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Denis Alexander, John D. Barrow, Simon Conway-Morris, Ted Davis, Rodney Holder, Howard Van Till, Timothy Keller, Denis Lamoureaux, Ernest Lucas, John Schloss.
- LIBERAL CHRISTIANS: Liberal Christians encompass a diversity of thinkers who have reinterpreted many of the traditional Christian ideas in ways that sometimes disconnect them from their history. Some in this category attach little to no significance to belief in the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, or the reality of miracles. Others have simply found ways to interpret those beliefs that may not be entirely appealing to evangelicals. BioLogos is more firmly rooted in the Bible than most that hold this position. Leading figures: Ian Barbour, Francisco Ayala, Phil Hefner, Arthur Peacock.
- NON-RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONISTS: Non-religious accommodationists do not necessarily have conventional religious beliefs of their own but do believe that personal religious beliefs—variations of Christianity in particular— are compatible with belief in scientific explanations of origins. Leading figures: Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Schermer, Ron Numbers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott.
- ANTI-RELIGIOUS NON-ACCOMMODATIONISTS: Anti-religious non- accommodationists believe that religious and scientific beliefs compete with each other in such a way that only one can be true, which they believe is science. An important part of their agenda is to show that there are scientific explanations for religious phenomena. Leading figures: Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Vic Stenger, Steven Weinberg, Edward O. Wilson.
August 12th, 2010 | 7:23 am | #1
Whether one divides a world of thought into THREE camps and posit oneself in the middle, or SEVEN camps and posit oneself in the middle, it is among the most common tendencies of modern man to posit himself in the middle of any debate.
No, no! I’m not an extremist! I’m not like THOSE GUYS over there, nor am I like THOSE OTHER GUYS over there! I’m friendly! See!
Whatever the merits or demerits of BioLogos as a concept (and I’m still reading my way through the links you posted yesterday) it’s amusing that seeing oneself in the middle of opposing views somehow seems novel. :o)
August 12th, 2010 | 7:35 am | #2
“BioLogos takes both the Bible and science seriously and believes that since God authored both, they must complement each other and be in harmony.”
Since contributors to BioLogos like Ken Sparks, Peter Enns, and Paul Seely openly reject the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of science, this claim is demonstrably false.
August 12th, 2010 | 7:58 am | #3
I would say that I fall somewhere amid ID and BioLogos, if such a thing is possible.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:12 am | #4
That seems to be a very self-serving breakdown, BioLogos’ attempt to place itself in the middle position, as in the place of “balance,” not extreme in any way, and thus suggesting that everything that is not BioLogo is thereby off-kilter.
I find myself in the YEC camp. In Bible college, and for years afterward, I held an Old Earth view — first, under the “Gap Theory” then later under the “Day-Age Theory.” Gradually I migrated to the “Framework Theory” and for a couple of years believed in theistic evolution. Feeling that I had it all nailed down at the point, I put it on the back burner. When I came back, I found myself, quite unexpectedly, much more persuaded by the Young Earth position.
In addition to the self-serving nature of the BioLogos breakdown of positions, and making my own position out to be an extreme, I also find the the BioLogo breakdown misrepresents the YEC position. YEC does not deny the revelation of God in nature, not does it reject science. However, it does reject some of the assumptions, presuppositions, extrapolations and interpolations through which many scientists view the data of nature.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:26 am | #5
I’ve contacted Biologos about their inclusion of Van Til, since he’s not a Christian. Toward the end of his time at Calvin he started questioning the possibilty of miracles, then the deity of Christ, then the existence of God. He continues to attend a liberal church on ocassion, but considers himself agnostic. He continues to see science as awe-inspiring, but ultimately incompatible with Christianity.
The first time I asked Biologos why he was included, they said they were unaware of his change. I sent them links to an interview and they said they have decided to keep him listed because his written works from twenty years ago are similar to the Biologos position.
August 12th, 2010 | 9:17 am | #6
“The BioLogos position on origins sits partway between two fundamentalisms:”
And thus Biologos positions itself as dogmatic, synthetic middle-of-the-road fundamentalism.
Biologos is lukewarm Laodicean spitwater, neither hot, nor cold.
No thanks to your offer to drink from your faucet of fundamentalism.
August 12th, 2010 | 9:42 am | #7
In fairness to the BioLogos folks, the breakdown was partially due to the way in which others have reacted to their blog. In particular, one blog brought out criticisms from Richard Dawkins, the well-known atheist, and Phil Johnson, who as most of you know, is part of TeamPyro and also directs Grace to You, which features John MacArthur.
So, when two clearly opposing sides offer critiques of the very same blog post, it is difficult not to see yourself as somewhere between them. Normally, the word we associate with “in between” is middle.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #8
I can appreciate that, Dale. And as Denes noted, it is natural for each of us to picture ourselves as being in the balanced position, not extreme in any direction. Especially when we picture it as a single line with two fixed end points. But that flattens everything out into one dimension. The only one who is really going to be happy is the one who has laid out the line and placed himself at the center of it. But the much greater problem is when one has misrepresented the other positions in order to make his own position the balance point. I don’t find that sort of “balance” or “middle way” to be very persuasive.
August 12th, 2010 | 11:32 am | #9
Let’s address “first things.” Of course the BioLogos taxonomy is situated. Duh! They even admit as much: “We have produced labels for the groups that help to show how they span the range of possible viewpoints. Our labels indicate what we think are the critical and defining characteristics of the group, rather than the name that the group has chosen for itself.”
No taxonomy is without its situatedness. If the ID folks produced a taxonomy, it would be situated. If anti-religious accommodationists produced a taxonomy, it would be situated. And so on. This complaint is boring.
The apoplectic reaction to this taxonomy from the fundamentalists on the right only reinforces, in my mind, that BioLogos is rightly positioned in the middle.
Mr. Hays needs to providence evidence for his claim that “contributors to BioLogos like Ken Sparks, Peter Enns, and Paul Seely openly reject the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of science.” I’m unable to comment about whether Howard Van Til remains a Christian. His theistic evolution contribution to Zondervan’s Three Views of Creation and Evolution is still worth reading regardless of his current status.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #10
“Situatedness” is to be expected — everybody is somewhere on the map. But when one misrepresents the positions of others in order to flatten out the line and place themselves in the “sweet spot” … well, that’s a different story. It’s fine for a group to identify itself with its critical and defining characteristics — but not at the expense of mischaracterizing other groups under consideration. It’s much better to have a fair and balanced treatment of all concerned, even if it adds more wrinkles to the map.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:10 pm | #11
I find the term ‘anti-religious accommodationists’ confusing. I’m assuming that you’re using the term in its socio-political sense and not its theological sense. If that assumption is correct, then your description of their position suggests that they are non-accommodationists. Some of the most bitter invective comes from that group against the one right above it, the ‘non-religious accommodationists’.
In my experience, the term ‘accommodationist’ in its socio-political context usually concerns issues of public policy, especially science education. Accommodationists are theists, agnostics and atheists who, at least implicitly, recognize that some versions of the others’ positions are intellectually respectable and agree to support curriculum that teaches “mainstream” science and oppose legislation and standards that seek to interject creationism or ID.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #12
Another lesson in hermeneutics. Not only is every taxonomy situated, all knowing is partial and perspectival. That means it is not possible to be perched above all the major constituencies in the science-religion debate with a perspective-free evaluation. I guarantee that young earth creationists and ID proponents would have a slanted take on BioLogos. Epistemological perspectivism is unavoidable, folks.
Like Joel, I think the labels of “non-religious accommodationists” and “anti-religious accommodationists” are not readily accessible. I would guess that BioLogos devised “anti-religious accommodation” as a less pejorative label than “atheist fundamentalism.” I am not sure why Joel has claimed “the most bitter invective comes from… the ‘non-religious accommodationists.’” Exposure to the charitable posture of non-religious accommodationists like Michael Ruse, author of Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? and Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in an Age of Science, and Ronald Numbers, editor of Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, would change his opinion.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:55 pm | #13
You’ve misread me in two ways. First, I said *some* of the most bitter invective…yadayadayada. Second, since I was offering what I thought was a more accurate name for the final group (they are non-accommodationists in the way I described), I was referring to *their* hostility toward the non-religious accommodationists (Ruse, Numbers, et al).
I don’t know why you think that the labels are “not readily accessible” (not even sure what that means). I simply think that the name given the final group is mistaken. I think the correct name would be (following the preferred terms for this taxonomy by its author) ‘anti-religious non-accommodationists’.
August 12th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #14
Joel: Which non-religious accommodationists have offered a “bitter invective”? Not Ruse or Numbers.
I agree conceptually with your change of label from “anti-religious accommodationists” to “anti-religious non-accommodationists” because Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Edward Wilson offer no accommodation to religion, although I wonder if there’s a simpler and less confusing label.
August 12th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #15
Christopher: I shall try one. more. time.
Some of the most bitter invective comes FROM/BY the anti-religious non-accommodationists (Grayling, Dawkins, et al) AGAINST/TOWARD the non-religious accommodationists (Ruse, Numbers, et al).
The former group doesn’t care that many theists support the same teaching and funding of “mainstream” science as they do; they don’t want any cooperation with theists because that would, in their minds, be treating theism as an intellectually respectable position.
Some non-religious accommodationists may also believe that theism is not intellectually respectable, but they are still willing to cooperate with them for pragmatic and strategic reasons on public policy, education standards, and the like. In my experience, most non-religious accommodationists think theism is wrong but nevertheless an intellectually respectable position. It would improve civic life and discourse if all theists would repay the courtesy.
August 12th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #16
Christopher, thanks for the hermeneutics lesson, but when a group is mischaracterized on a chart, then the taxonomy becomes invalid, at least for that group. Condescending defenses of the chart do not restore legitimacy to the taxonomy, at least where that group has been misrepresented. What does help, though, is acknowledging that the chart has not fairly presented that group, especially when that has been pointed out by a member of that group. Then amend the taxonomy, even if it throws your own group out of the sweet spot you wish to occupy. But ignoring the misrepresentation of the YEC in your chart does not win any points. I know of many YEC groups and individuals, none of whom would deny that something of God is revealed in nature or would reject the gift of science as a legitimate way of exploring the world.
August 12th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #17
Jeff: What you call “misrepresentation” from your point of view might be “fair” from another point of view. Why don’t you provide “fair and balanced” (cue the music for The O’Reilly Factor) descriptions of the constituencies that you think are misrepresented?
August 12th, 2010 | 2:01 pm | #18
Jeff,
Why don’t you or someone else indicate where you would place YEC on the taxonomy, or even offer a different taxonomy. I think it would be instructive, at least for me, to know how different the taxonomy would be. And, I am saying this with sincerity here, which I think you know.
This will provide a different kind of “situatedness” that will help me know how you and other YEC think of the layout among the various positions.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:02 pm | #19
Howard Till is no longer an orthodox Christian. For BioLogos to include him because of work that he wrote 20 years ago—and now rejects—is an embarrassment.
The problem I have with the BioLogos crowd is the same one I have with all theistic evolutionists:
1. They claim to believe in the exact same theory as their non-religious peers. Yet as has been pointed out to them many times, the completely naturalistic account of creation is incompatible with theism.
2. I suspect not one of them can adequately explain the evidence for the theory of biological evolution. The actual theory of modern synthesis—not the popular understanding of Darwinism. Ask them what evidence convinced them that naturalistic processes are solely responsible for the creation of all species. I bet not a one of them could give you a better answer than, “Because some other scientists believe it, I do too.”
August 12th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #20
Joel: If there are bitter invectives between non-religious accommodationists and anti-religious accommodationists, I’m not surprised. It’s the same kind of infighting that we see among creationists, ID proponents, and theistic evolutionists. Why does this debate go on? Well, Keith Thomson provides a compelling answer: “It has to do with the ways, and the extent, to which humans have the power to control and shape their own world. And with who gets to exercise those powers. Because power is involved––institutional power and individual empowerment––inevitably so is fear. And fears can be exploited by the unscrupulous.”
August 12th, 2010 | 2:16 pm | #21
In what category do people fall who A) believe in a young earth and B) don’t have any scientific pretensions about it and C) don’t really care where the scientific consensus is?
August 12th, 2010 | 2:17 pm | #22
To describe ID as “God-of-the-gaps” is tendentious and misleading. Surely you are aware that this term functions better as a pejorative slogan than anything else. The anti-religious non-accommodationists swear by it. If they saw the Red Sea parting with their own eyes they would tell you they couldn’t infer God’s action behind it. It’s just some unexplained phenomenon, after all, and yes, there are gaps in our understanding, but to infer God would be God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
Well, maybe not all of them would do that. But conceptually it calls for the same kind of reactive reasoning as your sweeping dismissal of ID as “God-of-the-gaps.” It takes it as a rule that whatever gaps there may be in our understanding of natural phenomena, we mustn’t ever embarrass ourselves by proposing God as the explanation. That has the virtue of being an easily accessible principle to keep handy: “Did God do it? No.” Works every time, not much thought—make that no thought—required to apply it. Oh, and it does make a nice slogan, thank you very much. One needs slogans these days, doesn’t one? They’re so very helpful for labeling people we don’t think very much of.
You used the term in a short descriptive paragraph, and you might want to say, “Hold on, I wasn’t trying to write a treatise. I was just trying to be brief.” But brevity is a virtue only where it does not distort. If it were me, I would be embarrassed to do what you’ve done here: to present someone else’s position so misleadingly. It’s a violation of standards of careful thinking. To the extent it was done intentionally, to the same degree it might also be dishonest.
I think you know as well as I do that Meyer in particular makes a positive case for ID. We see information in nature, and in our experience we always infer intelligence or mind behind instances of information. If you’re going to take the time to represent ID’s position, you ought also to know that it stakes its claims not primarily on what we don’t know but on what we do. Referencing Meyer again, we know that life requires a massive quantity of actively useful information in massively improbable (on chance and necessity alone) fine-tuned conditions to get started. We know these things, and from them we draw certain inferences.
I don’t believe in one-dimensional dichotomies as descriptors of the real world. There is no straight line from accommodationists to creationists, with BioLogos in the middle. Even if there were, it wouldn’t mean BioLogos was more virtuous than the extremes. The Golden Mean and the moderation principle came from the Greeks, not from the mouth of God.
By the way, though I hesitate to say it because I’ve just told you it was irrelevant, I can’t see why ID doesn’t get the middle position. BioLogos takes the Bible seriously, you say, while ID is really a philosophical/scientific program, not biblically dependent. In that respect it seems to me BioLogos should sit closer to the creationists than ID.
But there are so many more interesting dimensions to explore than what you’ve presented us with here. There is a triangle (not a line) describing the spectrum of dogmatic naturalism, biblical supernaturalism, and openness with respect to naturalism/non-naturalism. Maybe if you include the New Agers it would be a quadrilateral. It’s more interesting than a simple line, for certain. I’d love to know where you think BioLogos sits on that plane. Does its rules say that biblical supernaturalism can never enter into explanations of natural phenomena? How does that apply to origins?
You wrote,
You are pessimistic about anyone producing a non-situated taxonomy. Maybe you should take your own pessimism to heart. Ultimately any one-dimensional taxonomy—yours included—is boring. It reveals nothing in its true complexity.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #23
A quick check of the BioLogos website shows that the last group is ‘anti-religious, non-accommodationist’ making some of the earlier comments non-relevant. I see the BioLogos position not as the middle, but as a third way when compared to the extreme fundamentalists on the two ends of the sepctrum. Thus, there could be a fourth way or a fifh way. Lastly, Mr. Carter’s comments seem full of opinion and not fact.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #24
Again, Douglas, (see my prior comment), if BioLogos is a third way, not on the spectrum between two fundamentalisms, could not ID be seen in exactly the same way?
August 12th, 2010 | 2:42 pm | #25
Christopher,
Who has been misrepresented by your taxonomy? I don’t think it fairly represents John Mark Reynolds. Or how about the ones listed by name: Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, Henry M. Morris, Paul A. Nelson, Kurt Wise. None of these deny that there is a revelation of God in nature, and none of them reject science as a valid means of learning about the world. They reject certain assumptions and presuppositions through which many scientists today interpret data about the world and the organisms that inhabit it. The basic methodologies of science are a fine way to learn about how the world operates; theories of origins of the world and its inhabitants tend to move away from what is observable and repeatable into something more speculative, where one’s presuppositions have more influence on one’s conclusions.
Dale,
There problem is not really where YEC is place on someone’s continuum, but rather how it is represented — or misrepresented. BioLogos wants to contrast itself with YEC by portraying YEC as rejecting science and denying any revelation of God in nature. There is certainly a difference between the views of BioLogos and YEC — and it is fair to note the difference — but that ain’t it.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #26
Christopher,
The “evidence” in regards to Van Til can be found in recent interviews. There was also an audio lecture he gave at a Michigan atheist society about his journey from Calvinism to “freethought.” I was raised to accept TE, but stories like VanTil’s make me wonder about the tenability of the TE position.
As for evidence in regards to Sparks on inerrancy, all you have to do is ask him. He openly rejects traditional formulations of the doctrine. His position is that the authors made errors and the text has errors, but that God did not err in what He intended to say. His position is very similar to the early 20th century neo-orthodox position that Evangelicalism rose out of response. I’m not sure on Seely, but I am pretty sure Enns no longer uses the language even though his positions are generally more conservative than Sparks.
I’ve got no problems with Biologos as long as they are doing their science, philosophy and theology in submission to our Lord.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:55 pm | #27
I agree with Tom about ID being in the middle with Biologos closer to the Creationist side. I’D is very generic on theology and never makes use of Scripture. I think this is to their shame and it’s one of the reasons I struggle moving from my TE upbringing to such a position. The unnamed mysterious mind or intelligence behind things posited by ID who ocassionally tinkers in Creation seems far from the named God revealed to Moses, taught in Scripture and proclaimed from Augustine to Calvin to Bavinck. The latter creates, sustains and has frequently made Homself known. He is not cornered into abiogenesis or bacteria. The concepts may be similar, but one must stretch the ID concepts pretty far to get to a biblical doctrine of God.
August 12th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #28
Kyle,
As a Bible-believing Christian, I consider that one of ID’s strengths. We know that there is both general revelation and special revelation, and that general revelation cannot uncover a full biblical doctrine of God. It can do as Paul wrote in Romans 1:20, which is to demonstrate God’s eternal power and divine nature. To try to show more about God than this apart from special revelation is to embark on an errant mission. I’m glad ID isn’t trying.
“Cornered into abiogenesis or bacteria”? Come on.
August 12th, 2010 | 3:10 pm | #29
Don’t you think it’s kind of weird that you think of science in political terms?
Science is a method we use to learn about the physical world, as well as the body of knowledge produced with that method.
August 12th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #30
Until I see Christopher’s explanation of how to harmonize Exodus 20 and Genesis 1 and his retraction(s) for misusing Augustine to make his points earlier, I think this discussion is at a standstill. If one position in the spectrum can prove factually that the other side his made a significant error in its word — hermeneutically, historically, syllogistically, etc. — and the postion proven incorrect is allowed to reframe without any comment on its own previous errors, there is simply no sense pretending this is an intellectually-honest discussion.
So I put it out there:
1. Is it or is it not true that Augustine did not hold to a 7 day creation, but in fact an instantaneous creation, per the book of Sirach? If it is true, is there any legitimate way to compare Augustine’s orthodoxy to the alleged orthodoxy of BioLogos — except that one is to the exclusion of the other?
2. How does Exodus 20 reinterpret Genesis 1? If the only way to read these two passages is to say that only days passed in creation so that there is a consistent reading between them, is it proper to label the ones who read it that way “ultraliteral”? What’s the proper label for those who cannot reconcile these two easily reconcilable passages becuae of prior intellectual or academic/political commitments?
3. Why must science compete with the Bible? Does the Bible exclude legitimate inquiry into the world and how it works — or does the current orthodoxy of science demand that faith be excluded from legitimate inquiry into the world?
It seems to me that Christopher is avoiding answering these three questions. It would make the road-map to his alleged “middle way” a lot more clear if he’d address these issues.
August 12th, 2010 | 5:12 pm | #31
While I think this issue is largely a dead one from a Christian perspective…I’d probably say that I personally lean in the ID’ers direction (and I’m fairly agnostic after that).
I also greatly disagree with fundamentalists (though being happily Reformed) who use YEC as a litmus test for salvation. I also think biologos is headed for some stiff winds and some very tough moral decisions when it comes to their attempts to reconcile modern scientific dogma with the Scriptures.
August 12th, 2010 | 5:34 pm | #32
“I’D is very generic on theology and never makes use of Scripture.”
Yes, when it comes to scientists who accept and advance the label. But let’s not assume that those who embrace ID (particularly as a placeholder) necessarily have a low view of Scripture. That stereotype is what is burning up the blogosphere in wholly unhealthy ways these days.
And to that end, there are those of us who think it best to sidestep faux-controversies like Biologos altogether in favor of advancing more necessary things.
August 12th, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #33
Tom,
I know you are a bible-believing Christian and I’ve respected your site and work for years. It’s among the best on the web.
With that said, per your recommendation and Doug Groothuis, I read all of Meyer’s book and then soaked up a ton of other ID books and papers online. I actually liked Meyer’s book a lot and wrote a review at Amazon titled “A Former ID Skeptic?” that was the top review with hundreds of positive votes before being spammed with hundreds of negative votes in about a two hour period.
Let me share some thoughts and show you where I am coming from. Let me begin by saying that I am Reformed, and therefore have an aversion to natural theology in general, but that will be evident as I discuss these points:
1. In Christian theology, there is no supernatural/natural divide. You know well enough that this was created in the 17th/18th century Deist controversy. To a Christian, there is no fact of nature that you can point to and say, “This is natural” or “This is supernatural.” Every moment of existence is held up and sustained by God’s hand. Every fact of nature belongs to Him. Nothing happens apart from His Providence, and nothing was created apart from His decree and will.
2. With that said, every one of us by nature repulses the things of God. Not just this event here or that event there, but every fact of nature belongs to God and by our sinful nature we despise it from birth. There are noetic effects of sin that affect our spiritual and mental lives. The unbeliever cannot reason rightly, because they reason autonomously and refuse to reason in submission to their Lord. Only by God’s illuminating work in our hearts can we be made to interpret facts as they were meant to be interpreted.
3. I could take a blade of grass and show it to my unbelieving friends. I could point to its irreducible beauty, its symmetry, it’s appealing aesthetic qualities, the way that it can nourish certain animals and all other sorts of things in order to show God’s hand in every aspect of nature. He will simply see a blade of grass. We may agree on the basic history of how this blade of grass made it to this spot, but we differ greatly on its inherent qualities and meaning.
4. To quote Kuyper, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which. Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” Therefore, all knowledge must submit to Christ’s lordship. You may see ID’s rejection of this as a positive aspect, but I cannot. I believe that Christian’s cannot give up their worldview to submit to a false neutrality in order to make their case.
5. By focusing heavily on only a few aspects of Creation it seems to many (not just myself) that ID has given away too much ground. It’s as if Meyer is saying, “Yeah, that could have been natural, and yeah that as well…but specified information? The only known source of information is mind…QED.” Does he discuss the method of inserting that information? Not so much…Does he discuss the characteristics of such a mind? Not so much…Do you see how this gives up too much? Of course it came from a mind. A theistic evolutionary scenario would agree that the information in DNA originating in the creative schemes of God. If ID wants to be taken seriously as an acceptable project within a Christian worldview then it must be more robust.
6. A Christian may hold to YEC, OEC or TE as long as they are submitting every aspect of their knowledge to the Lordship of Christ regardless of the domain of knowledge (science, theology, philosophy, et. al.). How could a redeemed person turn back to the faulty reasoning of the world and expect to be pleasing to Christ?
So from my perspective, they are cornered into these issues because they have already (1) compromised to the fallen reasoning of the unbeliever by not submitting all work/research/methodology to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, (2) attempted to argue as though facts and/or reason were neutral, and (3) seemingly admitted that certain aspects of Creation are purely “natural.”
I agree with you that it may show the unbeliever that they are without excuse, but from the Reformed perspective (and most Arminian perspectives), they are already actively engaging in a suppression of this knowledge. Unless God illumines their hearts to Himself, the arguments of ID will simply be something else to heap onto the piles of their self-delusion and suppression.
I hope that helps you to better understand my position.
August 12th, 2010 | 5:55 pm | #34
Tom Gilson: For clarification, I didn’t write the taxonomy. BioLogos Forum did. Why don’t your produce your own “non-situated taxonomy”? It can’t be done. You’ll describe one or more constituencies who won’t recognize themselves in your descriptions.
August 12th, 2010 | 6:32 pm | #35
G. Kyle Essary: In principle, I agree with your point – “a Christian may hold to YEC, OEC or TE as long as they are submitting every aspect of their knowledge to the Lordship of Christ regardless of the domain of knowledge” – but I am concerned about its vulnerability to relativism. Not every aforementioned view is equally valid. We should be pursuing the most truthful view – truthful theologically, truthful biblically, and truthful scientifically.
August 12th, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #36
Frank: You have the prerogative of defining the terms of engagement on your blog posts, just as I do with mine. I have already addressed your query in comment #53 of “Dryer-Fresh Smell.”
Additional resources for you to independently explore your query:
Augustine
• St. Augustine: Taking Scripture Literally
• How was the Genesis creation story interpreted before Darwin?
Creation Story and Exodus 20
• Richard Carlson & Tremper Longman, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins
Relationship between Science and Religion
• What is the proper relationship between science and religion?
August 12th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #37
G. Kyle Essary: “I agree with Tom about ID being in the middle with Biologos closer to the Creationist side.”
I agree with both Tom and Kyle that ID is in the cherished middle.
BUT! I’d place Biologos closer to the aiding-and-abetting side of atheistic evolution, morally culpable and complicit with atheistic goals.
August 12th, 2010 | 6:52 pm | #38
Anyone who claims that BioLogos is “closer to the aiding-and-abetting side of atheistic evolution, morally culpable and complicit with atheistic goals” is ignorant and fearful, thus perpetuating the religion-science debate in American public life. Sadly, there are Christians who choose willful ignorance over studied knowledge, who perversely indulge their fear rather than confidently rest in their faith.
Speaking in generalizations that risk oversimplification, it seems that creationism denies science and ID proponents distort science. Despite these apparent shortcomings, I would never make an absurd statement that they are “morally culpable and complicit with atheistic goals.” Why do some creationists and ID proponents become so exercised by BioLogos? Power. They want the power to control the message from the church pulpit and the power to control the message from the school classroom. Their highfalutin rhetoric will concern “doing the Lord’s work” and “upholding the integrity of the Bible,” but this masks an unscrupulous grab for power.
August 12th, 2010 | 7:04 pm | #39
Frank,
I still do not see how the charge about Augustine sticks. If you are Reformed, and you are, then you claim some continuity with Augustine (some). For example, you can say that Augustine held to single predestination and I do as well. Or, you can say I hold to double predestination and Augustine held to single predestination so there is some continuity. However, Augustine also held that all infants who were baptized received the Spirit at that point, which you, as a Baptist could not hold to. This is why Augustine talked about the gift of perseverance as a genuine gift given to the elect.
So, why, not continuity between Augustine’s view of creation and BioLogos given the following:
1. Augustine argues for the simultaneous creation of time and matter in City of God 11.6 in order to guard against any view that would suggest the eternal existence of matter
2. Augustine argues in On the Trinity 3.9 that there are seminal reasons embedded within matter that serve as causes to bring forth certain created realities as time unfolds. Augustine likens it to a pregnant woman. Creation is pregnant with these causal reasons.
3. The Big Bang posits a simultaneous creation of matter, energy, and time. Thus, on this point there is continuity with Augustine.
4. Evolutionary explanations that connect natural selection to genetic indicators serve as continuity to Augustine’s seminal reasons. In other words, genetic indicators are the seminal reasons that act as causal agents in the unfolding of the grand design.
Are there still differences? Of course. Is there continuity. Yes! At least, as much continuity as you a Reformed Baptist can claim with Augustine’s soteriology it seems to me. So, the argument does not work.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:27 pm | #40
Dale: 3 and 1 are not the same. Augustine argues for a simultaneous creation of everything at once — fully formed. That’s not the big bang. That’s not even close.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #41
Tom Gilson #24 – exactly correct.
I will add an amen to Christopher Benson’s comments #34-38. For me, much of the science/faith controversy is completely tangential to the gospel as understood by many of us from the anabaptist tradition. Science will never have anything to say about the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, 30 and ff; nor will it conflict with Jesus’ command to love God, love our neighbors, and yes, even love our enemies. I believe that Jesus spoke of judgement only once, and his ultimate blessing is on those who treat all others as they would Jesus himself.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #42
Christopher:
The difference between you ad me, Christopher, is that I usually go to great lengths to identify with my position by answering the questions others ask myself — and you point to others’ work which, one hopes, actually answers the question.
One of these is engagement, and the other is (at best) disengagement (at worst, it looks like actual obfuscation). The link you provide here for understanding Augustine of Scripture generally, for example, doesn’t even brush against the problem one faces when reading actual Augustine on Genesis 1. How should we read that? I suspect you want us to read it generously, but it seems to be you are not yourself that generous — not by half.
I would be glad to read any of the books you list — when you show at least half as much respect in return by replying as if you want to interact with real objections to your point of view.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #43
I also like it, btw, that Christopher makes a plain play to postmodern sensibilities when he describes one side’s striving for truth as the will to power, and the other is just an objective attempt to find the middle ground.
It would be funny if it was no awfully self-deceived.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #44
Regarding comment #53 from the other thread & how to make Genesis 1 and EXodus 20 make sense together:
Anyone reading that essay at BioLogos and not saying to himself, “yes, but the fact that God assigns a day of the week for the Sabbath, and that this understanding was the common belief for almost 2000 years never makes the first appearance in this explanation,” has to be completely unconscious.
Really — it’s just about 7 words as they align to 7 days? This is how God made the sabbath day holy? Anyone reading the essay can decide for himself.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #45
Reconcile Exodus 20 and Genesis 1?
How about reconciling Genesis 1 with Genesis 2? Something which simply can not be done by a “literalist”.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #46
And with that, sadly, I am out of here.
Note to Joe Carter: please close my Evangel account. If this is the sort of thinking FirstThings wants to represent as “Evangelical”, we are all shamed by it.
God be with you all, and may he shine His light of grace on you.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #47
I guess John Piper and Tim Keller are not evangelicals. Who knew?
August 12th, 2010 | 9:05 pm | #48
Frank,
What you have done is taken a passage from the earliest commentary Augustine wrote on Genesis and tried to make it the interpretive grid for Augustine’s entire perspective on creation.
Never mind that Augustine wrote another literal commentary on Genesis, then took a second crack at it in the final books of the Confessions, then took a third crack at it in On the Trinity, then took a fourth crack at it in City of God. No, the earliest work, this is the one that is determinative.
August 12th, 2010 | 9:15 pm | #49
The question of whether Gen 1 is about “days” or “periods” has not yielded a uniform answer in Christian exegetical history, and in the past 2-ish millennia it has not often been the high-sign of apostasy.
yet it is now….
August 12th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #50
Frank,
What type of “thinking” displayed here would you characterize as non-evangelical? Everyone here holds to inerrancy, the necessity of salvation through Christ alone, the solas, etc. The topics of discussion are not outside the bounds of evangelical Christianity, as I’m assuming you would allow TE guys like John Stott, Tim Keller, Bruce Waltke (and countless others) to take the Lord’s Supper with you…or would you not? Are Wenham, Walton, Longman, Sailhamer, etc. to be excluded too since they all claim to be evangelical Old Testament scholars and come to vastly different interpretations of Genesis 1 than you?
It seems to me like there is a large umbrella for Evangelicalism, and that you have no justification for writing off those who don’t agree with you as having poor thinking (comment 46), self-deceived (43), completely unconscious (44) and intellectually dishonest (30) for coming to different conclusions.
Truth Unites,
I think that ID falls further to the atheist side in things theological, since they very proudly embrace (and trumpet) their agnostic/atheist members. They intentionally do not want to be seen as religious, whereas Biologos intentionally does.
Christopher,
I do not mean to accept all as true. I think there are serious issues that need to be dealt with hermeneutically, before even relating the text to the natural sciences. I don’t think most people involved in the discussions have a clue about the genre issues in Genesis 1. Is it a hymn (Sailhamer), poetry (Wenham, Ross, Hamilton), or a myth that teaches about the functions of Creation (Walton), or something of a mix (Waltke). These are the options offered by the world’s best evangelical scholars and they aren’t even in agreement…yet we talk dogmatically as though our uninformed perspectives are right!
August 12th, 2010 | 11:48 pm | #51
I appreciate Mr. Benson’s recognition that the “two sides” description of the debate over origins is inadequate. However, he calls the BioLogos taxonomy “helpful” when in fact it pretty badly misrepresents ID. BioLogos is welcome to have an opinion about ID and it’s welcome to disagree with ID. But if they wish to give a dry description of what ID is and what it says, it would be “helpful” if their description was accurate. Unfortunately, their description isn’t very accurate. Rather, what purports to be a description is really just a recapitulation the critics’ version of ID, with subtle framing of terms to exclude ID and its proponents from the scientific community. It does not describe ID as its proponents have actually formulated their position. Let’s look at BioLogos’s statements in the “taxonomy”:
1. “Intelligent design (ID) proponents believe that much of modern science is wrong and must be rejected because of its naturalism”
Response: ID primarily finds its supporting evidence in two main areas: cosmology/physics and biology. In cosmology, ID accepts essentially all tenets of the standard Big Bang cosmological model and finds many lines of evidence that point to cosmic fine tuning and intelligent design. In fact, some leading thinkers at BioLogos like Francis Colllins agree with ID with respect to cosmology and find that arguments for cosmic design hold merit. So when it comes to physics and cosmology, it’s definitely wrong to say that ID proponents “believe that much of modern science is wrong.” What BioLogos doesn’t give any hint of is that individuals like Francis Collins or Ken Miller have endorsed cosmic fine-tuning arguments, which have long been a mainstay of ID thinking (for example, see The Privileged Planet).
What about biology? Of course this is where BioLogos disagrees with ID—which it is welcome to do. But unfortunately BioLogos very inaccurately describes ID’s interface with mainstream biology. This is because even in biology, ID’s disagreements with mainstream biological thought are very limited in scope. ID’s only major disagreements with the consensus is the claim (1) that natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin of life, and (2) the neo-Darwinian claim that natural selection acting upon random mutations can serve as the primary driving force generating the adaptive complexity of life. Of course there are other more specific disagreements which follow from these two, but even within the topic of origins ID accepts evolution as ‘change over time’ and does not challenge common ancestry.
It seems to me that BioLogos’s claim that ID rejects “much of modern science” is a bit of an overstatement designed to make ID look extremist. What is more, BioLogos’s comment implies that the only view within “science” is the consensus neo-Darwinian view. This is unfortunate, and reflects the typical ‘no concession policy’ among the staunch partisans of the Darwin lobby who refuse to acknowledge the many Ph.D. scientists in the scientific community who dissent from the neo-Darwinian paradigm.
Finally, BioLogos’s framing suggests that ID’s disagreements with the consensus are based upon a philosophical view that certain ideas “must be rejected because of its naturalism,” and thus not on scientific arguments. Again, this reflects poorly on BioLogos if they are trying to accurately describe ID: Whether you agree with ID or not, you can’t deny that ID proponents have spent a lot of ink making scientific (not merely philosophical) criticisms of neo-Darwinism. BioLogos tries to frame ID as an entirely philosophical critique, which is as inaccurate as it is unfortunate.
2. “The term Intelligent Design, although appropriated by these science critics, is used in many ways and is embraced by the first 5 groups on this list.”
Response: Again, this framing of ID is most unfortunate. BioLogos seems intent on subtly framing terms to imply that if you disagree with neo-Darwinian evolution then you are a “science critic”—and thereby not a part of “science.” BioLogos’s refusal to even acknowledge that ID proponents are promoting an alternative “science” to neo-Darwinism shows that they wish to frame the terms of the debate so they can win the debate without actually having one.
Also, this statement misses the fact that creationists (such as ICR, and other groups) have been highly critical of ID, largely because it doesn’t endorse their preferred theological positions. It seems that BioLogos’s statement needs severe qualification, and doesn’t need BioLogos’s subtle claim that ID proponents are merely “science critics” who have no “science” in their own right.
3. “ID proponents highlight mysteries within science, arguing that science will never explain mysteries like what caused the Big Bang, or how life originated. They then argue that we must use non-scientific explanations like ‘Intelligent Design.’”
Response: This dim description of ID misrepresents the way ID proponents have framed their argument because it does not recognize the positive argument for design made by ID proponents. What we see in both cosmology and biology is fine-tuning of nature to allow for life. ID argues that at the informational level, this fine-tuning represents the exact kind of information that we understand, from observation-based experience, comes from intelligence. This argument for design is not based upon unexplained “mysteries” in science, but rather it’s based upon finding in nature the type of complexity that we know comes from intelligence. It’s a positive argument.
To summarize this argument, some of the most important discoveries of the 20th century in biology – discoveries which ID wholeheartedly embraces — found that life is based upon:
Where, in our experience, do things like language, information, programming code, or machines come from? They have only one known source: intelligence. As Stephen Meyer writes in Signature in the Cell:
Unfortunately, BioLogos misframes ID as a merely negative critique of natural processes.
So what does ID really say? The reality is that ID uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is often described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Using such methods, ID explains and unifies a wide variety of data from a number of scientific fields, including:
ID is not merely a negative argument against neo-Darwinian evolution or other material causes. Again, whether you agree or disagree with ID, you can’t deny that ID proponents have framed their argument positively.
By calling ID a “non-scientific” explanation, BioLogos’s taxonomy is not just inaccurate, but moves from being purportedly descriptive to being expressly partisan. They are entitled to their anti-ID view but let’s not pretend that this taxonomy is a neutral dry description. BioLogos innocently asks “Which constituency best describes your view, and why?,” but then who wants to agree with descriptions that are then labeled “unscientific”? In the law, this is called asking a leading question.
Make no mistake: this “taxonomy” is a highly partisan treatment. If you’re looking for the dry objective facts about ID, you won’t find them in this BioLogos description.
Discovery Institute, which admittedly has its own bias and perspective, has also created a website that discusses the various views on this issue. If would like to see different perspective on the theistic evolution position, please visit Faith & Evolution. Please forgive any typos I’ve made here and thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Casey Luskin
August 13th, 2010 | 12:03 am | #52
Frank: The difference between you and me is that I don’t pretend to be a know-it-all. If I don’t know the answer of a question posed to me, I try to find a resource that can answer the question. That’s why I referred you to the BioLogos articles that I’m reading. I’m not an Augustine scholar and the last time I checked you aren’t either. I’ve only mentioned one passage from Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis, as quoted in Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. I’m not in position to evaluate anything more at this point. Furthermore, I’ve never said that BioLogos is “an objective attempt to find the middle ground.” Stop making sloppy inferences. Stop putting words into my mouth. I’ve only said that BioLogos, of the constituencies above, seems to find a middle ground in a highly contentious public debate (Exhibit A: Evangel) between those who say “atheism trumps faith” and those who say “faith trumps science.” My determination is partial and perspectival, just like yours.
Dale Coulter: Thank you for valiantly maintaining a voice of reason and civility, bringing nuance where there is hyperbole, complexity where there is oversimplification.
G. Kyle Essary: Thank you for robustly affirming divine sovereignty and charitably showing grace to interlocutors who represent various constituencies.
Here’s a quotation that I’ve been reflecting on this evening from Bruce Waltke’s Old Testament Theology:
August 13th, 2010 | 12:20 am | #53
A small correction to my comment:
My comment above mistakenly attributed the words: “Which constituency best describes your view, and why?” to BioLogos when I’ve now realized that they were written by Mr. Benson, and not by BioLogos.
My apologies for the mistake and the confusion. Hope this clarifies.
August 13th, 2010 | 1:06 am | #54
Christopher Benson: “Anyone who claims that BioLogos is “closer to the aiding-and-abetting side of atheistic evolution, morally culpable and complicit with atheistic goals” is ignorant and fearful, thus perpetuating the religion-science debate in American public life. Sadly, there are Christians who choose willful ignorance over studied knowledge, who perversely indulge their fear rather than confidently rest in their faith.”
Christopher Benson engages in name-calling, while also nastily imputing wrong motives.
Furthermore, the charge of “ignorance” doesn’t fly since opponents of the BioLogos agenda can be just as well credentialed as anyone at BioLogos.
“Why do some creationists and ID proponents become so exercised by BioLogos? Power. They want the power to control the message from the church pulpit and the power to control the message from the school classroom. Their highfalutin rhetoric will concern “doing the Lord’s work” and “upholding the integrity of the Bible,” but this masks an unscrupulous grab for power.”
Well, to take one obvious counterexample, look who is running to the courts (e.g. Dover trial) to control the school curriculum? Not the ID-theorists, but the anti-ID theorists, the atheistic evolutionists. And, of course, BioLogos has gone out of its way to pick a fight with ID-theory even though ID-theory is compatible with theistic evolution, and Michael Behe is both a leading ID-theorist and a theistic evolutionist.
For all of Christopher Benson’s talk of fear-mongering, why is he lashing out as if he’s running scared? He’s the one who evidently feels threatened by everyone from YECs through OECs to IDers. Sounds pretty paranoid to me!
August 13th, 2010 | 1:31 am | #55
Christopher Benson: “Why do some creationists and ID proponents become so exercised by BioLogos? Power. They want the power to control the message from the church pulpit and the power to control the message from the school classroom. Their highfalutin rhetoric will concern “doing the Lord’s work” and “upholding the integrity of the Bible,” but this masks an unscrupulous grab for power.”
Frank Turk: “I also like it, btw, that Christopher makes a plain play to postmodern sensibilities when he describes one side’s striving for truth as the will to power, and the other is just an objective attempt to find the middle ground.
It would be funny if it was no[t so] awfully self-deceived.”
I’d have to agree with Frank on that one.
Frank Turk: “And with that, sadly, I am out of here.
Note to Joe Carter: please close my Evangel account. If this is the sort of thinking FirstThings wants to represent as “Evangelical”, we are all shamed by it.”
While I agree with Frank that we are all shamed by BioLogos and theistic evolution, I wholly did not expect him to quit Evangel.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:11 am | #56
Joe Carter: With respect, I don’t think you’re being fair, vis a vis the Biologos position. This position, accepts the neodarwinian account, of biology, because of the rich, empirical evidence, that supports it. That is, that all life arose, as a result of natural selection , working on genetic information. That is, genes often mutate. Some of these mutations, by chance, happen to be conducive with survival, and flourishment, in the particular environment that these genes are in. Therefore, these genes (which are inclosed in living cells) are able to reproduce, and these productive genes are maintained. Bad mutations, result in the genes dying off. This process, can best be explained without the need for a creator. This evolutionary process, is believed in by atheistic scientists, and Biologos supporters.
But the sameness ends here. Biologos, believes that God is necessary to start the evolutionary process, and will “direct” it toward humans eventual emergence. But this is an extrapolation, beyond what the empirical data support. But it’s no different, than the extrapolation, that the atheists make, that, the natural selection process, came about “by itself”, and is completely contingent, meaning there’s no goal or direction toward humans eventually resulting.
The evidence, in a nutshell, that’s empirically and deductively based, is, random mutation of genes, that make or break, an organisms chances of survival (those with good genes, that coincide to survival in a particular environment, will be passed on, those whose genes are not conducive with survival, will die), and the genetic and morphological similarities, among the species of the earth. That is, the genetic similarities, that have been empirically demonstrated, to exist among species, corresponds with the notion that some species arose first, second, etc. That is, humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA. But we share very little with, say, an amebea. this makes sense, if one argues that the chimps and humans arose last, and are derived from a common, although now extinct ancestor. Domestic cats, for example, have more in common with lions than us, and this makes the most sense, if one see them arising from a common ancestor. So, we can “map” the different species emergence, on the earth, and correlate it with their genetic similarities. Also, we have the “graveyard” of fossils, of intermediate species, such as neanderthals, that can best be explained as species, between us and other lower primates, that died out.
Of course, this is the “popular account”. But the “popular account” is based on sound empirical research, that’s beyond the scope of this forum to delve into. Nearly every biologist believes this, and it borders on the conspiritorial, to think that they don’t “really” believe it, ot they’re duped.
Biologos people, including Stephen Barr, the catholic physicist (I think it’s fair to but him here, he certainly believes in the current evolutionary account), and, moreover, Francis Collins, who possesses a PH.D in physical chemistry, and an M.D., can certainly give a scholarly account, not based on your, frankly, unfair assertion, that they only believe it, because other scientists do. I’m sure you don’t mean this, but some, could, not unreasonably conclude that you’re slyly casting doubt on their intellectual integrity.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:16 am | #57
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among
BROTHERS.
God has made Frank Turk, TUAD, Christopher, Tom, et. al. brothers. He has joined you all together. If any of you put it asunder, you fall under his condemnation. All repent of your hastiness (which I have read from ALL of you) and be reconciled.
Frank and TUAD… if you feel shamed by Biologos and theistic evolution, do you feel it possible that some in that camp may have felt shamed by your camp? If so, consider them better than yourselves for 3 seconds. Outdo them in showing honor and make the first move in a godly direction. That’s how you’ll prove your orthodoxy–not by arguments.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:26 am | #58
Steve Heys: Biologos beleives that scripture is inerrent, in what it talks about. Certainly, it would be absurd to say the bible speaks “inerrently” about brain surgery. The bible is not a manual on how to best remove a brain tumor. Likewise, it’s absurd, to conclude that the bibe speaks “inerrently”, regarding lfe origins, and biological interations. It’s was never meant to do that. Ironically, the one’s claiming to “read” biology, and other sciences in the bible, are misreading it, and not allowing its inerrency, WITHIN ITS SPHERE to properly manifest itself. Biologos, states that the bible is inerrent, within its sphere.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:50 am | #59
I see the Biologos approach, of recognizing the legitimacy of the findings of modern biology, and their compatibility, with Christianity, as analogous to what Thomas Aquinas, and to a lesser extent, albertus Magnus were doing, vis a vis the translations of Aristotle.
In the thirteenth century, there were these freshly translated works of this ancient, greek, pagan philosopher, that seemed to not be easily reconciled with orthodox christian faith. Aristotle claimed that the universe had no beginning, and that the soul may not exist subsequent to death. Clearly, these views contradict the christian view that God created the universe, and that one continues to exist, after death.
Some were, seemingly worried about this, and viewed it as a threat. St.Boneventure, although he utilized some aristotilean concepts, was highly suspicious of Aristotle, and could be, roughly, compared to the “young earth creationists, of today. Some, called “integral aristotilians” accepted pretty much all, oof Aristotle’s teachings, and seemed to not, or at least only in a small way, disagree with him.
Aquinas, and Albert, incorporated Aristotle, into their theology and philosophy, and saw him as clearly no threat to Christian belief. They’re similar to the Biologos community now, that accepts darwinian evolution, but disagrees on some points (such as when some evolutionists claim that humans were never, necessarily meant to arise), like Aquinas did, with Aristotle, on the beginning of the world. (although Aquinas, took a highly subtle view here, and was agnostic as to whether philosophy could settle whether the world had a beginning or not, but believed, based on Christian teaching, that the world did have one).
However, a danger could exist, if the attempt is made, to incorporate, in a fundamental way, the findings of evolution, into Christian theology. It’s better to point out their compatibility, which clearly exists. Otherwise, since science, in principle, is always revisible, one’s faith becomes vulnerable to the possibility, that evolution, will be superceded, by better empirical evidence, like Aristotle’s scientific views were.
August 13th, 2010 | 6:13 am | #60
Mairnéalach,
Thank you for your reminder. I am committed to staying in fellowship and working through any disagreements we have here.
I think it’s important for us all to bear in mind that disputes over origins have been going on for a very long time, and the final answer to the question just isn’t accessible to us in a form that can satisfy every Bible believer. We can all have our opinions and defend them as vigorously as we may, certainly, but we ought to do so charitably among fellow believers. There are so many good, godly, thoughtful people on various sides of the issue, it’s just impossible to go straight from “I think you’re wrong on this” to “therefore you are not a good Christian.”
Some aspects of this dispute are more accessible to fact-finding. We can produce recent, real data on taxonomies of positions, for example. It’s subject to interpretation, but we can talk about interpretations, too.
I took a strong stand toward Christopher with respect to how he represented ID, even to the point of saying that to the extent the misrepresentation was intentional, to the same degree it might be dishonest. I have no idea to what extent it actually was intentional. I didn’t put that out there to tell anyone they were lying. I have no idea how intentional the misrepresentation was; that’s up to others to recognize for themselves.
My position on origins comes down to a wait-and-see approach. Biblical and Ancient Near East scholars (I’m speaking of Bible believers among them) have not yet come to agreement on what we must make of Genesis 1 and 2, so I’m in no position to make a pronouncement for them. I have defended ID here, and I want to put that in context of the same wait-and-see position. I don’t know if ID will generate significant approval and agreement either scientifically, philosophically, or socio-culturally. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see what it can accomplish over the next ten to twenty years. I am not a strong advocate for ID’s conclusions; I think they’re on the right track, but again, I’m not a biologist, cosmologist, etc., so I’m willing to wait and see what comes.
I have long been a very strong advocate, on the other hand, for ID’s pushing forward in its inquiries. Possibly the chief obstacle it has had to overcome has been misrepresentations of its motivations and its reasoning. I think it is a serious thing, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ, to distort another’s position.
Kyle, your biblical critique of ID in comment #33 is perhaps the best I have seen in such a short form, and I’ll be continuing to think about it. Thank you.
Christopher, I note now that you were not presenting your own taxonomy but BioLogos’s. I accept your correction on that and I apologize for the error.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:33 am | #61
Frank: You are a good interlocutor for Christopher and the rest of the online Evangel community. Yes, you and I disagree (not all the time mind you), but the dialogue does advance. Your voice is part of Evangel, so I really hope that what you said was more frustration at the current shape of the debate and not a final decision. In other words, I am asking that you remain.
I honestly believe that a plurality of perspectives on evangelicalism is what we need to see the breadth of the movement. We need a Reformed Baptist at this blog who lets it all hang out, and you do.
Christopher: Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your attempts to push the conversation forward even though I have registered disagreement with you as well (recently I might add).
It is interesting to me that Christopher and Frank are both Reformed, and yet, on this issue there is a deep disagreement. When the debate runs hot, we need to remember what holds us together. You two have more in common with each other theologically than you do with me as a Wesleyan Pentecostal.
Let’s allow iron to sharpen iron here. I think we’ll all be better for it despite the pain we experience in the purgation of debate in the interim. While evangelicals don’t believe in a purgatory after death, we certainly believe in being instruments of theological purgation for our brothers and sisters.
I personally think Tom is correct on this matter in the sense that it’s going to take decades and longer to sift through all the scientific ideas that have been propagated. Brett’s post reminds us that it took centuries to deal with Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, and other “sciences” of the day for early Christians. They eventually ended up appropriating some from each of these areas, but just how much, and under what conditions were sifted out by a number of thinkers operating over the course of centuries.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:34 am | #62
As a YEC, I am very appreciative of the work the ID movement is doing and I view it as complementary. My understanding is that there are a number of young earthers among the proponents of ID.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:54 am | #63
It’s interesting that secular scholars of the Bible agree that Gen. 1-2 should be read literally. They are not squeamish about admitting that the Bible contradicts neo-Darwinism, since they have no vested interest in preserving the Bible as sacred.
Not that we should always follow the lead of the secular scholars, but in this case it is difficult to argue with their reasoning.
Is it heresy to take Gen. 1-2 metaphorically? No, I wouldn’t use such a strong term. You can believe the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle, and I’m not going to call you a heretic.
Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to honor Scripture and to be certain we are understanding it correctly. And as Frank seemed to hint at, when you re-interpret the Creation story as something other than its plain meaning, you open Pandora’s Box. The Sabbath issue is just one of many things that begin to unravel if we don’t accept the Creation story as real history. Our whole understanding of sin and death, and therefore also of the meaning of the gospel, is grounded in the literal history. Our understanding of sex, marriage, and why the world is the way it is…all these things hearken back to Adam and Eve. Adam is the first link in a genealogy that runs through the Scriptures, to Noah, to Abraham, and ultimately to Christ, showing God’s redemptive plan through history.
As someone mentioned earlier, you can say all you want about allegory and myth, but it is quite plain that the Hebrews, and later the Apostles, didn’t get the memo that Gen. 1-2 was just a fairy tale.
August 13th, 2010 | 8:15 am | #64
Unfortunately, ID has no scientific credibility. Unless one wishes to advocare the, well, less than mentally stable notion that most biologists are either incompetent, or part of some vast atheistic conspiracy, all Christians need to make peace with evolution. there’s no reason to believe that evolution conflicts with christianity, unless one either misunderstands the science involved, or has some sort of bias, that he’s bringing to the process.
August 13th, 2010 | 8:21 am | #65
Anthony,
Secular biblical scholars of the OT are just as diverse on the genre of Genesis 1. Some see it as being intended as a literal account of origins, but most see it as being written to push priestly ideals to a much later generation. Most secular scholars date the passage to the exile, but some date it as late as the Hellenistic period. In either situation the readers would not have viewed it as literal, but as polemical against their oppresors traditions.
You are absolutely right that the early church and apostles read Gen. 2 as historic, and I believe there are no good reasons that we should not as well. Dave Opderbeck has shown ways to do this and maintain the Biologos position. John Stott did this as well.
Chris and Tom,
Thanks for your kind words. Chris mentioned that passage from Waltke, and I would suggest his who chapters called The Gift of Cosmos and The Gift of Man.
August 13th, 2010 | 8:33 am | #66
Hmmm, comin’ in a day late and a dollar short.
August 13th, 2010 | 9:38 am | #67
Bret Lythgoe This position, accepts the neodarwinian account, of biology, because of the rich, empirical evidence, that supports it.
Here’s the problem I have with this claim: I hear it repeated often but no one every shows the actual empirical evidence. Why do you think it exist? Because someone else told you. Why do they think it exist? Likely because someone else told them. I have never seen anyone who can actually point out this “rich, empirical evidence.” I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just saying I’ve never seen anyone who can point me to it. The most that happens is that they point to some non-controversial example of minor change and say that from this we can make large-scale extrapolations (of course, we can’t do that).
Nearly every biologist believes this, and it borders on the conspiritorial, to think that they don’t “really” believe it, ot they’re duped.
No, I think the reason they believe it is because of a process similar to evolution. If you are a young scientist that doubts the process, you will be shunned by your peers, you won’t make tenure, and you’ll eventually be pushed out of the field or lumped in with the “creationists and other crazies.” Over time, the only people who are left are the people who affirm the theory, whether they have sufficient reason to do so or not.
Biologos people, including Stephen Barr, the catholic physicist (I think it’s fair to but him here, he certainly believes in the current evolutionary account), . . .
A few weeks ago I directly asked Barr why he accepts the theory. His answer: Because the scientists who have more expertise than he does on the subject believe it is true. He specifically mentioned Francis Collins.
What is interesting about Collins is that he is a chemist, not an evolutionary biologist. So unless he has examined the evidence for himself—which I highly doubt—then he is also taking the word of other people.
It’s like if you asked a theologian why he believed in God and he explained because other theologians believe in God.
Unfortunately, ID has no scientific credibility
Why? Because scientists who disagree say so? Theistic evolution also has not scientific credibility. Does that mean it isn’t true?
there’s no reason to believe that evolution conflicts with christianity
What about the belief in the historical Adam? If evolution (at least in the form that most biologist believe) is incompatible with the idea that Adam was a unique, historical person. But believing in a historical Adam is essential for orthodox Christianity.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:07 am | #68
Bret Lythgoe: “Biologos, states that the bible is inerrent, within its sphere.”
Where, precisely do they “state” that? I’d appreciate a reference. Because so far, what they have actually written on the subject of inerrancy seems to argue strongly to the contrary.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #69
From Tim Keller
Perhaps the strongest argument for the view that the author of Genesis 1 did not want to be taken literally is a comparison of the order of creative acts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 shows us an order of creation that does not follow a ‘natural order’ at all. For example, there is light (Day 1) before there are any sources of light–the sun, moon, and stars (Day 4). There is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any atmosphere (Day 4 when the sun was made) and therefore there was vegetation before rain was possible. Of course, this is not a problem per se for an omnipotent God. But Genesis 2:5 says: “When the Lord God made the earth and heavens–and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, because the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.” Although God did not have to follow what we would call a ‘natural order’ in creation, Genesis 2:5 teaches that he did. It is stated categorically: God did not put vegetation on the earth before there was an atmosphere and rain. But in Genesis 1 we do have vegetation before there is any rain possible or any man to till the earth. In Genesis 1 natural order means nothing–there are three ‘evenings and mornings’ before there is a sun to set! But in Genesis 2 natural order is the norm.8
The conclusion—we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way.
So, literalists, riddle me that – just be consistent in your hermeneutic. If we must read G1 in the “simple and straight foward manner”, then you must for G2 – which you can’t.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:36 am | #70
David C. said,
So, literalists, riddle me that – just be consistent in your hermeneutic. If we must read G1 in the “simple and straight foward manner”, then you must for G2 – which you can’t.
Steve Drake: Hang on, brother, let me get my Bible out, get my coffee, and get situated here. More in a moment.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #71
Joe Carter: “But believing in a historical Adam is essential for orthodox Christianity.”
And believing in a historical Adam is essential to claiming that one is a honest inerrantist possessing integrity.
If you deny the historicity of Adam, then you are not an inerrantist. Simple as that.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:51 am | #72
David Carlson,
Just to be on the same page, can you reference the quote to Tim Keller above please?
August 13th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #73
Dear Steve Drake,
Let me save you some time in refuting and rejecting Tim Keller and David Carlson on this particular issue. Read the following:
“So how does Keller establish that Genesis 1 should not be taken literally? His prime argument is that the order of Genesis 1 contradicts that of Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, Keller claims, “there is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any atmosphere (Day 4, when the sun was made) and therefore vegetation before rain was possible.” On the other hand, Keller argues, Gen.2:5 states categorically that God did not put vegetation in the earth before there was an atmosphere and rain. Since Genesis 1 and 2 contradict, they can’t both be taken literally. According to Keller, the natural order is the norm in Genesis 2. Hence, he concludes, it is much more likely that we should read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2, rather than in Genesis 1.
Keller sums up this section:
“It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. …it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old. We arrive at this conclusion not because we want to make room for any particular scientific view of things, but because we are trying to be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.”
What are we to make of this?
Suppose, for the moment, that Keller is right: Genesis 1 and 2 do conflict, with Genesis 2 having the historically reliable order of events.
On Keller’s own reading of Gen.2:5, there are two reasons for lack of vegetation: no rain and no man. This entails that Adam was created before vegetation. Following the account of Genesis 2, we would then have to conclude that also animals were created after Adam (indeed, how could animals exist without vegetation?).
Yet this, if anything, makes things much worse for anyone trying to reconcile Genesis with evolution. Not only is the order worse but also the timescale is even more condensed than that of Genesis 1: now all living things are created in just one day, rather than in four. Keller, perhaps prudently, says nothing about such embarrassing consequences of his exegetical logic.
But, do Genesis 1 and 2 in fact conflict? Most commentators think not. Let’s take a closer look.
Note, first, that Keller claims Genesis 1 has vegetation (Day 3) created before the atmosphere on Day 4. Yet Day 4 relates only the creation of the Sun, moon and stars, placed in an already existing sky. Surely the creation of the atmosphere occurs on Day 2, when God created heaven (sky or atmosphere) to separate the waters. Further, there is no specific mention of rain–or its absence– in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 we are told there was no rain but, rather, the earth was watered by an edh, an obscure Hebrew word which is usually translated as mist, spring, waters of the deep, or flood. Umberto Cassuto (Commentary on Genesis, 1961, p.104) argues it refers to springs.
Note, also, that Gen.1 and Gen.2:5 do not refer to vegetation in the same terms. Genesis 1 refers to the creation (Day 3) of “plants (eseb) yielding seeds” and fruit trees. Gen.2:5, presumably referring to Day 6, states, “when no bush (siah) of the field was yet in the earth and no small plant (eseb) of the field had yet sprung up.”
As Cassuto (1961:100-102) remarks, Gen.2:5 does not say all vegetation was absent. It refers only to two special types of plants. The siah of the field refers to thorns and thistles, which require rain to propagate, and which did not exist until after Adam sinned; the eseb of the field refers to grain, which requires human cultivation (it occurs again in Gen.3:18), and which had not yet sprung up or sprouted. James Jordan (Creation in Six Days, 53-54) takes a similar position. We note, en passant, that the fact that the eseb created on Day 3 had not yet sprung up or sprouted on Day 6 speaks against a day-age view.
In sum, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. The fact that Dr Keller goes out of his way to invent such contradiction belies his professed commitment to remain true to the text. It undercuts his denial that he is motivated by scientific pressures. Dr. Keller seems more concerned to deconstruct Genesis–to leave room for secular science– than to honestly exegete it. Given such a cavalier approach to Scripture, it is not surprizing that Keller sees no problem reconciling Adam with human evolution.”
Read it all at Genesis Versus Tim Keller
August 13th, 2010 | 11:32 am | #74
Truth Unites…and Divides,
Couldn’t have said it any better brother.
August 13th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #75
My experience has been that one does not need the sun, moon or stars in order to have light. For example, the computer screen you are reading this on ~ is it backlit by the sun, moon or stars? No. When you flip on a light switch, are you turning on the sun, moon or starts? Of course not. So when God spoke light into existence on day 1, that does not require that He must have created sun, moon or starts then. He is perfectly capable of calling light into existence apart from those bodies.
Genesis 2:5 should be read in the context of Genesis 2:4 and the rest of Genesis 2. Genesis 2:4 says “These are the generations [Hebrew, elleh toledoth] of the heavens and the earth when they were created. This phrase, elleh toledoth (“these are the generations”), is used ten times in Genesis and it always introduces what happens next, what proceeds from the subject, although it may offer a little explanatory recap.
For example, in Genesis 5:1, we read “This [zeh, a demonstrative, like elleh ] is the book of the generations [toledoth] of Adam,” then briefly recaps Adam was made in the likeness of God and that God created male and female and blessed them. Then it lists the generations that proceeded from Adam.
In Genesis 2:4, we find the elleh toledoth formula followed by an explanation of how God created Adam from the dust of the ground ~ that is, from the earth. Then what did God do? He placed Adam in the Garden. Genesis 2:5 is to be understood in that context.
Look at the language of verse 5. “before any plant of the FIELD was in the earth and before any herb of the FIELD had grown.” The word for “field” refers to cultivated land. IOW, a Garden. On day 3 of creation, God created grass, herbs bearing seed after their kind and trees yielding fruit after their kind. But that does not mean that God created every plant on that day ~ especially since the Bible goes on to explain that the plants and herbs OF THE FIELD (that is, the domestic, cultivated varieties) did not exist until the day God created Adam (day 6).
So Genesis 2:5 is not a contradiction of Genesis 1; rather, it is an expansion on Genesis 1. Just as every use of elleh toledoth in Genesis introduces a new section that expands on a previous section, so also, its use in Genesis 2:4 indicates an expansion upon Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is not to be in isolation from Genesis 1, nor is Genesis 1 to be read in isolation from Genesis 2. They are not two different accounts from two different sources that are then clapped together. They are both part of a unified whole, meant to be taken together.
If one has assumed a priori that these are two different accounts from two different sources, then they might appear to be contradictory. But taken as a unified whole, where one sections expands upon the previous section (as can be demonstrated throughout the book of Genesis in the use of elleh toledoth), and noting the context (the creation of Adam and placement in the Garden of Eden) and the use of the language (“field”, Hebrew sade in Genesis 2:5), I find there is no contradiction between the plain language of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2.
August 13th, 2010 | 11:48 am | #76
Phil Johnson: The Biologos website states, that one can: “safely accept scripture as God’s divine word”. It states this, in the context of how to reconcile the bible with scientific findings.
My interpretation of this, is that it’s inerrent, again, within its sphere. God did not, does not, intend for it to be a scientific text.
August 13th, 2010 | 11:56 am | #77
Jeff Doles,
My sentiments exactly.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:04 pm | #78
Bret Lythgoe,
The spelling of “inerrant” is i-n-e-r-r-a-n-t. It is not i-n-e-r-r-e-n-t.
Ironic.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:08 pm | #79
david carlson, it’s because G2 refers specifically to agricultural plants (bush and plants “of the field” [sadeh; Gen. 23:12-13, Ex. 9:22, Lev. 25:2-3]) which awaited the creation of man to tend in the Garden.
Keller misses the difference between “plants” and “plants of the field.” Hope that helps.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:10 pm | #80
If the BioLogos says we can “safely accept scripture as God’s divine word” it is merely an assumption that, by that, they mean that Scriptures is inerrant. And then there is the question of just what one means by “inerrant.” There seem to be about 33 different flavors.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:23 pm | #81
Atheist: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don’t know of any atheist who doesn’t believe in neo-Darwinian evolution.
Atheists promote neo-Darwinian evolution to show and demonstrate that there is no God.
Satan loves atheists and their promotion of neo-Darwinian evolution.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:34 pm | #82
Joe Carter: Certainly, in science, one must trust others, the specialists, to provide the rest of us with the evidence in favor, for their claims. There’s only so much time in the day! Biologists, for example, spend many years in graduate school, accumulating this evidence, and studying what other scientists have discovered. We, out of necessity, must trust them, or go into that field ourselves, to obtain the evidence firsthand, which obviously, cannot occur with every field.
For one to be consistent, one must doubt every science, that one is not an expert in. But, I’ve noticed, curiously, that those who doubt evolution, and cite its “lack of evidence”, are not doubting the evidence for quantum theory, or plate tectonics, or that the big bang happened, etc. they, quite sensibly, trust that the physicists, geologists, etc., have done their homework. But, due to evolution being perceived as possibly inconsistent with christianity, suddenly the sceptical, indeed, hyperbolic, sceptical glasses are put on.
i think that Barr, quite reasonably, and humbly, trusts biologists, because they’re the experts, when it comes to evolution. Likewise, they (hopefully) trust him, when it comes to the big bang, and quantum mechanics, because he’s the expert, in these fields.
but, there are biologists, like Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic, who has examined the evidence, and concludes that evolution did occur. Is he misinformed? Maybe, but I think we must not hubristically assume that.
I think that Collins, as director of the human genome project, and current director of the national institute of health, has examined the evidence for evolution. To assume that he has not, is just incredible. His popular books, clearly show someone with more than a mere cursory knowledge of the subject.
Obviously, you’re a highly intelligent person, Joe, so it suprises me, even more, that you repeat the tiresome complaint that, the reason biologists support evolution, is their fear of being declared outcasts. This, forgive me, does seem a little conspiritorial. I think, that if non believers, in evolution, who are biologists, are shunned, it’s more to do with the fact that evolution is so well established, empirically, that, they wonder what possesses someone to go against this, and they doubt their judgment. It’s probably the same with other fields. you seem to imply, that it has something to do with religious beliefs. But if this is true, how could a believing christian like Francis Collins, or Kenneth Miller, reach such prestiduous acclaim?
Certainly the evidence comes in the form of genetic similarities, among species, the microevolution of the beaks of finches, first documented by Darwin, in his Origin of Species, on the Gallapogos islands, indicating microevolution. Also, the intermediate species, fossils found. Why would neanderthal skulls, for example, with morphological traits of both lower primates and us exist, unless there’s a common ancestry, among species?
August 13th, 2010 | 12:36 pm | #83
Truth Unites…and Divides,
Satan’s first question to Eve was, “Indeed, hath God said….’ (Gen. 3:1)
The tactic has not changed. Satan seeks to convince us to question God’s word. Eve succumbed, Adam then succumbing as well.
The rest of the story, is history.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #84
Joe Carter: Clearly, in any scientific field, a large amount of trust is involved. How could it be otherwise? One would have to become a biologist, to see, firsthand, all of the empirical data, and evaluate it. Curiously, I don’t see this level of scepticism, in physics or geology. We trust the physicist, when he claims that quantum energy has certain properties, or that sedimentary rocks, have certain traits. There’s not enough time in the day, to become a biologist, etc., and obviously, to be consistent, one would have to become an expert in every field!
Joe, you’re obviously a highly intelligent person, so it suprises me that you’re bringing out the tiresome, and frankly, somewhat conspiritorial claim, that, the reason more biologists are not sceptics, vis a vis evolution, is that they’ll be shunned. Maybe, if they’re shunned, it’s because there’s so much evidence in favor of evolution, that the powers that be question their judgment, just like a prospective physicist would have his job prospects thwarted if he denied the big bang. You seem to be implying that it’s really religious belief, that the powers that be object to, but if that’s true, how do you explain, Kenneth Miller, Stephen Barr, and Francis Collins, devout believers, all, having prestegous jobs?
And, speaking of which, i think that Barr, quite humbly and sensibly, believes the biologists, because they’re the experts in that field, and he isn’t. It seems incredible, to say the least, that Collins, one time director of the Human Genome Project, and current director of the National Institute of Health, has not examined the evidence for evolution. And Kenneth Miller, is a biologist, and if he cannot assess the evidence, well, who can?
the evidence in favor, for evolution, includes the fossil evidence. We see neanderthals, for example, possessing morphological traits, that exist in humans and lower primates. How best to explain this, than that they, and us, share a common ancestor? Also, the portions of DNA that don’t have any functions. This is consistent with the notion that life arose randomly, otherwise, if God created it, directly, why these portions?
August 13th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #85
truth unites and divides: are you implying that those, on the Biologos side are doing “Satan’s work”?
August 13th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #86
Steve Drake: “The tactic has not changed. Satan seeks to convince us to question God’s word. Eve succumbed, Adam then succumbing as well.”
That’s historical fact.
First one succumbed. Then the other.
“The rest of the story, is history.”
History repeats itself.
August 13th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #87
Bret Lythgoe: The Biologos website states, that one can: “safely accept scripture as God’s divine word”. . . . My interpretation of this, is that it’s inerrent.
That’s a pretty callow interpretation. It ignores the historic terminology of the inerrancy debate (or rather turns the whole point of inerrancy on its head).
You are also making a claim I know for a fact many BioLogos regulars (contributors and commenters) would repudiate. Do you not read the articles there? Inerrancy as a concept is generally viewed as passe and intellectually unsophisticated by the BioLogos community.
More importantly (as I have pointed out elsewhere), contrary to your original claim, BioLogos doesn’t “state that the bible is inerrent.” Thy don’t have any formal statement of faith or doctrine. The “unity” they are striving for has nothing to do with biblical inerrancy or any other distinctively evangelical principle.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:02 pm | #88
Joe Carter,
If you haven’t met a theist who can “adequately explain the evidence for the theory of biological evolution,” then you need to meet more theists who either work in the relevant scientific fields or understand the literature and its implications.
The difficulty with responding to your demands for evidence is not that I can’t point it out to you, it’s that I’m not sure that it really matters to you. It’s really not worth discussing the empirical evidence with someone unwilling to change their convictions no matter how much evidence is given. It’s like talking to some non-theists about biblical evidence for Christianity–if they don’t regard theism as a live option from the outset, then you’re wasting your breath talking about covenants, sin, Israel, redemption, grace, etc. Nevertheless, I’ll provide some evidence for common descent below (usually the hypothesis that gives creationists the most trouble). But first I think it would be helpful for you and everyone in this thread to honestly evaluate whether they agree with the positions expressed by creationists Kurt Wise and Todd Wodd.
It’s really refreshing when creationists will admit that they’ll never allow any quantity and quality of evidence to overturn their claim about human biological uniqueness or other natural history they’ve read off Genesis. If you’re a priori committed to a view of the Bible such that it gives the final answers on questions of natural history, then we needn’t pretend that the scientific evidence is inconclusive, or waste time constructing pseudo-scientific counter-explanations for that evidence. Thus, Todd Wood is refreshing when he puts it like this: “Obviously, when the Bible clearly claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine…series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes.” I disagree with Dr. Wood that “the Bible clearly claims [ed: biological] discontinuity,” but his stand is a position I can respect. However, let’s be clear about the consequences of it: providing new evidence and verifying existing evidence is pointless. He can simply say, “That’s neat. The testable predictions made by evolutionary theory continue to be borne out by the data. Evolution sure looks like the best explanation for those results! So much the worse for evolution!” Please see his posts here and here.
So: if you basically agree with Dr. Wood, that no amount of evidence is going to change your conviction about the correct interpretation of Genesis, then you can stop here. Let’s have a beer and talk about something else.
Here are three mutually supporting lines of evidence supporting the common ancestry hypothesis (there are more, such as hominid fossils, but these three are more than adequate):
1. Chromosome number. All hominids have 24 chromosome pairs except sapiens, who has 23. Testable prediction 1: if these organisms share a common ancestor, then that ancestor had either 24 chromosome pairs or 23. Testable prediction 2: either the common ancestor had 24 and humans carry a fused chromosome or the ancestor had 23 and great apes carry a split chromosome. Results: genetic sequencing shows that human chromosome 2 was produced by a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes based on the location of active telomeres at each end and inactive subtelomere in the middle, as well as centromere locations, one of which is active and the other inactive (corresponds to chimp centromere from chromosome 13).
2. Pseudogenes (a non-functional gene that is functional in other species). The non-functional GLO sequence shared by primates carry similar mutations as those found in the human pseudogene. Indeed, human, chimp, macaque, and orang pseudogenes have been found to share a single nucleotide deletion in common. If this mutation to the GLO gene were harmful, it wouldn’t have been preserved; however, because our primate common ancestor had a ready source of vitamin C in its diet of fruit, the selective pressure to maintain the functionality of this gene was neutralized, and the pseudogene was passed down to its descendants.
3. ERVs (the genetic remains of an ancient viral infection–the virus’ RNA is reverse transcribed into the DNA of a host’s germline cell and thus passed down to subsequent generations). Common ancestry predicts that most of the 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are inherited from a common ancestor with primates, and that primates would therefore share those ERVs at the same locations. For even a limited number of locations, the odds that pairs of viruses would be inserted at perfectly matched locations across species are astronomical. The 16 matches between human and chimp in the K-class ERVs were demonstrated about 10 years ago. And that’s only the 16 K-class out of a total of 98,000 ERVs, but even those 16 demonstrate enough correlation to make their coincidence mathematically impossible. The ERV evidence only gets stronger, however. As you travel down the phylogenetic tree back to gorillas, orangs, and monkeys, you find ERVs at the same orthologous locations—a nested hierarchy emerges. The kicker is that this same hierarchy is created independently from the pseudogene evidence. These two lines of evidence for common ancestry converge. Either evolution–including and especially common ancestry–is true, or the ERVs were planted (specially created) there by God in the exact same locations in various species in such a way as to mirror what evolution predicts.
The multiple lines of evidence for common ancestry are, when viewed independently, strong. But when viewed collectively, it’s overwhelming. You may not be persuaded by this evidence. That’s fine. But if not, then you should be able to suggest an alternative mechanism and process that can account for the same data.
Some ID proponents agree with these conclusions; other ID proponents are YECers and do not. Thus, ID has no consistent position on the question of common ancestry. Some think it’s true, some think not.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #89
Bret Lythgoe I’ll respond to the rest linearly but I want to put two parts of your comment together in order to address them both:
This is circular reasoning. Here is what you are saying: You have to become a biologist before you can evaluate the data to determine whether evolution is sufficiently proven but before you can become a biologist you a have to believe that evolution is sufficiently proven.
If you wonder why their isn’t more social “trust” in the opinions of biologists, you don’t have to look much further than that.
Also, if the field is so complicated that to even understand how it fits together you need a PhD, then don’t expect people to accept the theory. Personally, I don’t think its that complicated. I just don’t think the evidence is there. As I said before, I have yet to meet one person whose belief in the theory is not almost wholly dependent on the idea that someone, somewhere knows how it all fits together.
Curiously, I don’t see this level of skepticism, in physics or geology.
The reason is because those fields are less dogmatic and open to inquiry. You won’t see a physicist shunned because he questions a well-established theory like the Big Bang. But question neo-Darwinism and you’ll be run out of the field of biology.
Joe, you’re obviously a highly intelligent person, so it suprises me that you’re bringing out the tiresome, and frankly, somewhat conspiratorial claim, that, the reason more biologists are not skeptics, vis a vis evolution, is that they’ll be shunned.
I don’t know how you can deny that is it a conspiracy, albeit an open one. It’s been established many, many times that if you are skeptical about evolution that you will be shunned. Can you provide five counter-examples? I can’t think of one.
Macroevolution may be true. But for us to accept it we should (a) understand it sufficiently to make a determination, and (b) be open to testing to see if the theory is true. Don’t tell us that we aren’t smart enough to understand it. That’s the primary reason that evolutionists aren’t taken seriously. Anytime someone points out a weakness in the theory they are told “well, you just don’t understand evolutionary biology.” Well, who does? Have them step up and explain it to us laymen in a way that is convincing. Doesn’t it seem peculiar that no one ever even makes the attempt?
You seem to be implying that it’s really religious belief, that the powers that be object to, but if that’s true, how do you explain, Kenneth Miller, Stephen Barr, and Francis Collins, devout believers, all, having prestegous jobs?
As I said, Barr has not evaluated the evidence for himself. He bases his acceptance on the theory on the idea that other people probably know what they are talking about. That is fine. But we all don’t have to take that approach.
It seems incredible, to say the least, that Collins, one time director of the Human Genome Project, and current director of the National Institute of Health, has not examined the evidence for evolution.
Why would he need to? He can do his work without reference to the historical science of macroevolution. He may understand it or he may not. But there is certainly no reason that he would need to in order to get to the position he is now.
And Kenneth Miller, is a biologist, and if he cannot assess the evidence, well, who can?
I hate to say it, but Miller has proven that he isn’t all that sharp. He repeatedly misunderstand the points made by his ID opponents. Either he is just not bright enough to understand what they are arguing or he is not arguing in good faith. If he can’t understand ID, how is he going to understand more complicated theories?
Also, Miller’s religious beliefs are completely superfluous. He trusts that science is right and religion is in a non-overlapping sphere.
the evidence in favor, for evolution, includes the fossil evidence.
The fossil record provides evidence of rapid evolution that is often incompatible with the biological explanations. Because the fossil record doesn’t support them like they want it to, most biologists claim that the true evidence is based on genetics. (They may be right, but it just goes to show that rather than address evidence that contradicts their claim, they tend to ignore or reinterpret it.)
We see neanderthals, for example, possessing morphological traits, that exist in humans and lower primates. How best to explain this, than that they, and us, share a common ancestor?
The way many scientists are starting to do: By considering that neanderthals are merely a race of humans rather than a distinct species. Also, common attributes in DNA are as much evidence of a common design as a common ancestor.
Also, the portions of DNA that don’t have any functions. This is consistent with the notion that life arose randomly, otherwise, if God created it, directly, why these portions?
I thought we had learned our lesson about assuming what function strands of DNA can play? Remember all the “junk DNA” that turned out not to be junk at all?
Here’s my point: We simply don’t know enough to make strong claims about the evidence. We moderns like to pretend that we are scientifically advanced—and we are relative to our ancestors. But what we actually know is so trivial that it is embarrassing that we claim to know anything. Only a few decades ago we thought the cell was a blob of simple parts. Now we know it is one of the most complex machines in the universe. We don’t even have a clue how a cell works and yet we are going to claim how every species in the world developed?
If some people want to believe that, it is their prerogative. But please don’t expect me to jump on the bandwagon when almost every advance in science shows that what we were so dogmatic about turns out to have been mostly wrong.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #90
Phil Johnson: thanks for your reply. The quote came directly from the Biologos site. It states that we can accept God’s divine word. Clearly, this implies that his “word” is not a lie. do you honestly believe that they think God lies?
I think that, they assume all would realize that, if you can “safely assume that scripture is God’s divine word”, that it would NOT contain errors.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #91
Bret: “do you honestly believe that they think God lies?”
That’s a false disjunction. Not one significant theologian who has ever denied biblical inerrancy would claim to believe that “God lies.” And thousands of errantists, Barthians, Socinians and others with low views of Biblical authority would nevertheless affirm that there is some sense in which “we can safely accept scripture as God’s divine word.” That’s hardly an affirmation of inerrancy, especially in light of the many things BioLogos has published expressly arguing against inerrancy.
But I can see that you don’t really want to address this topic seriously. So I’ll just reiterate my key point: The claim you made about what BioLogos “states” has been emphatically repudiated by several of BioLogos’s leading contributors, most of whom DO believe the bible contains factual, historical, and scientific errors.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #92
Joe Carter: I’m greatful for your intelligent response.
I should have worded things better. One comes to believe in evolution through one’s education. one certainly does not have to be a biologist to believe it. I’m not a biologist. my point was, to truly understand all of the nuances, in evolutionary theory, it only makes sense, that one would want to know as much about it as possible, and what couls be a better way, than to become a biologist? But it’s not essential. in biological training, and education, one evaluates the evidence, in favor of evolution, under the guidance of qualified instructors.
I do understand your frustration, with a certain dogmatism, that clearly exists, when evolution is brought up. One only has to look at Richard Dawkins, and his, frankly, religious bigotry, to see that. But, I think that Simon Conway Morris, is the best antidote to Dawkins!
I disagree with ID proponents, but I do respect them, and it’s possible that their claims will one day be verified. but I think that it’s fair to say, that right now, their assertions have not been scientifically substantiated.
I do think that Barr’s point is a wise one. The alternative, is that most biologists are somehow missing something. That seems unlikely. My biologist friends are not impressed with ID, and other non-evolutionary views. They could be wrong, of course, but we all should be careful before assuming that.
You, of course, have every right to not believe it. But I think that evolution, is God’s way of “creating”, and it makes more theological sense, than having God “micromanage” (I think that’s Edward Oaks, word) the intricacies of, say, protein synthesis. Not that He’s incapable, of it, obviously, just that he chose a different path.
One thing that Dawkins seems to believe, is that evolution has rendered belief in God “improbable”. Let’s show how false he is, by showing that evolution is not the enemy!
August 13th, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #93
Bret Lythgoe: “One thing that Dawkins seems to believe, is that evolution has rendered belief in God “improbable”. Let’s show how false he is, by showing that evolution is not the enemy!”
Thanks for confirming what I wrote earlier:
Atheist:</b. Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don’t know of any atheist who doesn’t believe in neo-Darwinian evolution.
Atheists promote neo-Darwinian evolution to show and demonstrate that there is no God.
Satan loves atheists and their promotion of neo-Darwinian evolution.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #94
Phil johnson: I’m sorry that you think that I don’t want to address this seriously, because I do.
If one believes that something is “safely God’s word”, it would seem odd, not logically impossible, of course, but odd, to then believe that God’s word has mistakes.
I think that, your interpretation, is that Biologos thinks the bible has mistakes. Do they explicitly state this? I don’t think that they do, but I could be wrong.
i think that you infer, that they believe the bible has mistakes, because they believe that one must read it in context, one must take into account the sociological, and historical influences on the writers, and try and decipher their intent. Is it your positon, that the bible is to be read literally?
Here’s an essential distinction to be made, between believing that the bible is inerrant, and believing it literally.
biologos’s point, I think, is that one must utilize biblical scholarship, not to become unbelievers, but to intelligently determine whether the writers are speaking literally, or metaphorically.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:58 pm | #95
Bret Lythgoe ***I disagree with ID proponents, but I do respect them, and it’s possible that their claims will one day be verified.***
I agree. I think ID has done a good job of raising criticisms about neo-Darwninism but they haven’t come close to providing a suitable alternative.
The problems is that everyone feels the need to take sides. My position—that we simply don’t have enough information to make dogmatic scientific claims—is favored by few people.
***Let’s show how false he is, by showing that evolution is not the enemy!***
I certainly don’t think evolution is the enemy. I think it partially right and mostly wrong. But not the enemy.
However, I do think there is a flaw in your approach (and one that the IDers have rightly identified). You say that we should trust the experts because they have enough information and knowledge to review the evidence and come to a suitable conclusion. But consider this statement by Jerry Coyne:
This is what many evolutionary biologists believe. They think proponents of theistic evolution are almost as wrong as other “creationists.” Now, either they are right or they are wrong. But if we have to trust them because they are the ones that truly understand the theory, how can we say that they are not correct? How can we say they are wrong when they are the only ones that can evaluate the evidence?
If theistic evolution is merely evolution plus the words “Gods nudged it”, then I’d say the atheists are right. That view is worthless and is not scientific. If there is no way to detect God’s action within the process, than theistic evolutionism is simply atheistic evolutionism with a some faith-based beliefs tacked on.
How can we say they are wrong if they understand the theory better than we do?
August 13th, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #96
Truth unites and divides: Tell that to Stephen Barr, Simon Conway Morris, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath, well, you get the picture. my guess is, they would probably be more than a little stunned to realize that they’re under the influence of Satan. (my other guess is, they might get a chuckle).
By, the way, how do you know what Satan thinks? Come on, now, you really have to keep better company.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #97
In the intervening silence, I’d like to return to the subject of the OP and point to an alternative model for situating the differing views on creation and evolution. The Biologos taxonomy basically follows the linear model of the NCSE’s continuum. See Steve Martin’s post for an analysis of that model and his (I think helpful) alternative. Jim Kidder also weighs in here.
August 13th, 2010 | 3:21 pm | #98
Joe Carter: i think that it’s important, to make the distinction, between evolution, as a scientific theory, and the theology, that many attach, rightly, or wrongly, to it.
These teachers, are stating their theological extrapolations, on top, of the scientific theory of evolution. Just like someone, who was asked, “do you think that gravity, came about on its own, or that God directed it”? would be going into theology, to answer “yes”. Clearly, the science of gravity, Enstien’s general relativity, and so forth, is silent, regarding God.
Analogously, the theory of evolution is silent, regarding God’s involvement, or lack thereof. Coyne, is doing the same as the teachers (and myself) except in reverse. he’s applying his own “antitheology”, if you will by claiming that evolution shows that no God is involved or no purpose in involved in evolution.
but he’s being inconsistent, by thinking that it’s all right for himself to play this game, but the other side cannot.
Jerry Coyne, is just as dogmatic, and intolerant, if not more so, than Dawkins, concerning religious beliefs, and he seems to consider the biologos people as repellent as anyone else.
He gave a particularly unfair review, recently, in The New Republic, of Behe’s latest book, the edge of evolution.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #99
Bret:
“Mistakes” carries only slightly less rhetorical baggage than “lies”; thus that terminology would also be avoided by most who deny biblical inerrancy. They’d call the supposed historical, scientific, and political discrepancies “factual inaccuracies” or the equivalent.
If you really want to deal with the inerrancy question seriously, you should read some of the background of the debate. It’s been going on for decades, and (regardless of how inconsistent it may seem to you), multitudes do in fact formally affirm a kind of inspiration without inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy is the definitive statement of the inerrancy position:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
Why not poll the key contributors at BioLogos and see how many of them would sign the Chicago statement? I’d be surprised if you’d get any who say yes.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #100
Joe,
Many TEs realize Coyne’s point and gladly concede that they are creationists. It’s much more common in England among Faraday and CIS scientists to refer to their position as evolutionary creationism. I’m not sure if the ASA guys likewise refer to themselves as evolutionary creationists.
You say, “If theistic evolution is merely evolution plus the words “Gods nudged it”, then I’d say the atheists are right. That view is worthless and is not scientific. If there is no way to detect God’s action within the process, than theistic evolutionism is simply atheistic evolutionism with a some faith-based beliefs tacked on.”.
Scripture is clear that Jeremiah was knitted together in his mother’s womb. I believe the passage lends itself to general application so that the point is that we are all knit together in our mother’s wombs by the Lord. Am I therefore a theistic embryologist? It sounds silly, does it not?
Do you know what else sounds silly? Labeling that same position as “simply atheistic embryology with some faith-based beliefs tacked on.” I know from your work over the last few years that you are well versed in Christian theology. None of us believes that gravity just happens apart from the will and decree of God. None of us believes that a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God’s plan. None of these are natural events from a Christian perspective, even if you cannot “detect God’s action within the process.”
Our faith is a revealed faith; a faith gifted by the Holy Spirit. God’s action is everywhere at every moment from my actions to the constants of nature to the physical properties yet to be discovered. Yet knowledge of this reality will continue to be suppressed by our sinfulness and therefore cannot be “detectable” by human means alone.
The Romans saw another criminal hanging on a cross, but we know by the Holy Spirit that God the Son was dying for the sins of His people. Was there any detectable way to test whether or not that sacrifice covered our sins? Of course not, for it has been revealed by faith to people who actively deny it at every opportunity.
Anyways, I hope that helps you see why some of us struggle with saying that Christians must believe that God’s actions are always detectable or that certain scientific processes are “simply atheistic” with some “faith-based beliefs tacked on.”
August 13th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #101
Joe Carter: “If theistic evolution is merely evolution plus the words “Gods nudged it”, then I’d say the atheists are right. That view is worthless and is not scientific. If there is no way to detect God’s action within the process, than theistic evolutionism is simply atheistic evolutionism with a some faith-based beliefs tacked on.”
Amen.
And amen.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #102
More Than a Mere Distinction excerpt by Frank Turk:
[W]hen someone is willing to take up for those engaged in activities in that sixth point, and call those activities orthodox and faithful, and to do so in a flippant way without personally engaging clear objections based on documented facts and rudimentary critical thinking, that person is himself working to damage the faith of others.
My opinion is that this is what Christopher Benson is participating in — he’s endorsing BioLogos as a “middle way” approach to mend fences with “science”, but he is in fact giving up what must be called the home field of orthodoxy to do so. In every way, he endorses the POMA approach to authority where “partially overlapping” turns out to be a cover for simply allowing Science to have the first and last word, and Scripture must have only a say which is consequential to the current findings and edict of science.
So the problem is not the lack of full-throated endorsement of a 6-day creation. The problem is not even a failure to endorse a robust doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. The problem is that there are members of the Evangel masthead who are, frankly, engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates — and not merely defending them, but endorsing them as faithful members of the larger church.”
[Emphasis mine. Do read his whole post.]
August 13th, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #103
Why am I not surprised that Frank Turk has engaged in a smear campaign at Pyromaniacs (see comment #99). A psychology of fear – not a noble defense of scriptural integrity – motivates Mr. Turk and his ilk to run a litmus test of orthodoxy whenever there are divergent views in the household of faith. For Mr. Turk, orthodoxy means uniformity. For others of us, orthodoxy means unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials (e.g., origin of life issue), and charity in all things. Mr. Turk would like you to believe that BioLogos gives up “the home field of orthodoxy.” Mr. Turk would like you to believe that BioLogos deifies the authority of science. And his breathless acolyte, Truth Unites…and Divines, would like you to believe that BioLogos serves the atheistic agenda of Satan. Only a stupidity would make a person so gullible to believe these scare tactics. Fear begets fear. What we need is more knowledge and less ignorance, more faith and less fear.
August 13th, 2010 | 6:57 pm | #104
TUAD,
Thank you for sharing what the Turk wrote elsewhere. Unfortunately, he decided to post it before his own readership instead of sharing with those with whom he was in discussion.
There are some things I disagree with in the post:
1. He refers to Biologos as “denying critical parts of Scripture,” (which they do not do), merely because he comes to a different interpretation. From their position, they would argue passionately that they are not denying any part of Scripture, much less the critical parts. Turk goes on to call their denying Scripture “an irrefutable fact.”
Biologos would be hard to pigeon hold since they offer such a wide spectrum of contributors from Waltke and Keller who are both strong inerrantists to guys like Enns and Sparks who are not so decidedly inerrantists at all anymore. They also offer a wide variety from their scientific contributors from conservative Christians like Ard Louis to men like Francisco Ayala who seems to only nominally remain Christian. I think this makes it difficult to aim any general criticism about their denying Scripture, because the contributors do not always represent the views of the forum as a whole or according to its stated positions.
2. Whereas I agree with his main (sixth) point, I am not sure that in the discussion thus far, he has not engaged in this very thing. Instead of discussing the text, he has frequently presented his interpretation of the text as though this were the authority (and thus “apart from or above Scripture” as he said). To discuss genre almost requires such a move since Genesis 1 does not come with an introduction from Moses about how we should read the text (poetry, hymn, myth of function, etc.).
3. These are not the major issues though, because he goes on to say that Chris and Biologos are “engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates.”
The problem is that others, even some in his own camp, do this as well. The ID movement constantly talks up their “rising number of atheists and agnostics,” and even AiG, whom John Macarthur (someone TeamPyro obviously supports) has written for and supported, will gladly endorse Moonies like Jonathan Wells as long as he will use his two Ph.D.’s to argue toward their perspective of Creation.
Whether it’s Biologos using Howard VanTill, ID trumpeting Brad Monton and Dave Berlinski or AiG using the academic credentials of Jonathan Wells…all are shameful for evangelical Christians. TE, OEC and YEC are none without example or excuse in this regard. That’s why I brought up VanTill in the other thread, because I don’t find it useful for him to be on that list under Biologos since he is an apostate.
4. Frank also says (which you quoted), “[W]hen someone is willing to take up for those engaged in activities in that sixth point, and call those activities orthodox and faithful, and to do so in a flippant way without personally engaging clear objections based on documented facts and rudimentary critical thinking, that person is himself working to damage the faith of others.”
I don’t disagree with his point, but I could give you the names of literally hundreds of people I have encountered over the years through apologetics encounters who either became liberals or lost their faith altogether whenever they found that the research and apologetics from certain YEC and even OEC organizations was not intellectually honest and didn’t fully deal with the facts. They saw this as hypocrisy and many left the faith altogether over it assuming that all of our “defenses” were a sham. Is AiG “working to damage the faith of others” by supporting books by Moonies like Wells or the heterodox like Michael Denton? Is the Discovery Institute “working to damage the faith of others” by promoting books by atheists like Brad Monton?
We all like sheep have gone astray, and all need to bring our total understandings of Scripture, science, theology, etc. under the Lordship of Christ. We should be humble in our interpretations, and confident in the teachings of orthodoxy. Does ones views on the genre of Genesis 1 or the material origins of the cosmos divide between orthodox/heterodox? I think not, and neither does Frank as he makes clear in the first few points of his post.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #105
Jesus’ command not to judge others is often misinterpreted, so frequently that I hesitate even to bring it up here. Clearly he did not say we should not evaluate others’ behavior against Scriptural standards. That was not the point of it.
In both Paul’s and John’s epistles we have warnings against false teaching, which must be identified and named what it is. So that’s not necessarily wrong to do, though without doubt it can be done wrongly.
The Matthew 7:1-5 passage does seem to warn against pronouncing personal condemnation, for when we do that we open ourselves up to the same.
Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 reminds us that only God knows the hidden things of the heart, from which I take it that judging others’ motives, when they are not clearly and unequivocally displayed, is a violation of the Scriptures.
So what do I see going on here? I plead intentional ignorance with respect to BioLogos’s position on inerrancy. I haven’t found it necessary to go search it out. Maybe I should have done so, and maybe I’m guilty of some carelessness there. At any rate the result is that I don’t know whether Frank’s pronouncement is on the mark or not. He has promised further explication in the near future at Pyromaniacs.
Now on the other hand, Christopher’s calmly confident assessment that there is a “psychology of fear” behind Frank’s work is easier to see for what it is. First, it is a rank putdown. Second, it is judging invisible matters that only God has access to (and perhaps Frank himself). Christopher, my brother, you don’t have any idea what emotions are motivating Frank, other than what he has expressed.
Besides being a biblically prohibited form of judging (if I read the relevant passages correctly), what you have done in your most recent post has also been profoundly unhelpful. It takes the discussion off the issues and focuses it on the persons and their supposed emotions. What good do you expect that to accomplish?
I realize Frank has made some very strong statements against both BioLogos and Christopher. Maybe that’s open to criticism, too. I’m not trying to be unbalanced in singling out Christopher here. I’m trying to avoid speaking of that of which I do not have sufficient knowledge. That’s a good policy, by the way, which I recommend to everyone here.
We need more knowledge, more faith, and fewer unfounded, unsupportable, and unscriptural accusations of fear. Christopher, if you really want to answer Frank’s “smear campaign” (a single blog post counts as a campaign?), the appropriate thing, rather than smearing him back with a psychologized putdown, might be to show how BioLogos represents a high standard of scriptural authority.
Kyle, thank you for setting a better example.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:48 pm | #106
Tom: Thanks for quoting the familiar scriptures about judgment, but are you ironically engaging in an act of judgment? Your criticism is lopsided, soft on Frank and hard on me. You write: “I realize Frank has made some very strong statements against both BioLogos and Christopher. Maybe that’s open to criticism, too.” Maybe? Frank has called BioLogos a cult!!!
Because I have been recently exploring BioLogos, I can say emphatically that the following charges from Frank are groundless:
•This is [BioLogos's] chief aim — as it is the aim of every cult, post-orthodoxy, which finds itself wanting to appease some other authority apart from or above Scripture.
• My opinion is that this is what Christopher Benson is participating in — he’s endorsing BioLogos as a “middle way” approach to mend fences with “science”, but he is in fact giving up what must be called the home field of orthodoxy to do so. In every way, he endorses the POMA approach to authority where “partially overlapping” turns out to be a cover for simply allowing Science to have the first and last word, and Scripture must have only a say which is consequential to the current findings and edict of science.
• So the problem is not the lack of full-throated endorsement of a 6-day creation. The problem is not even a failure to endorse a robust doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. The problem is that there are members of the Evangel masthead who are, frankly, engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates — and not merely defending them, but endorsing them as faithful members of the larger church.
What else drives these groundless charges other than fear? If you were setting “a better example,” you would insist that Frank stops his assault on Christians who identify with BioLogos.
August 13th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #107
Am I ironically engaging in an act of judgment? I would be glad to ask myself that question if you could give me some more help with it. It’s healthy to remain open to criticism. Here’s where I need help, though. There are acts of judgment that are biblically prohibited, and others that are not prohibited. I wish you had taken time to respond to what I wrote about that. I tried to lay out the distinction. If I have violated the principles as I laid them out, or if I have misunderstood the Bible’s teaching, please do something for me more fruitful than asking me a bare question like this, with no reference to the context in which I wrote to you. Please explain what I have misunderstood or misapplied.
Should I be surprised you think my criticism was lopsided? I said so myself! And I explained the reasons for it. I acknowledge that he called BioLogos a cult, or at least associated it with cults. Immediately afterward he added, “This assertion requires more than just saying it is so. Look for my exposition of this in the near future.” It seems more appropriate to answer after he has explained himself.
I’m gratified to know that you can say emphatically that certain charges from Frank are groundless. That you “have been recently exploring BioLogos” ought to give you grounds to go ahead and explain how he has erred. Simply to say once again that he has erred does not help me understand the matter any more than I do now.
You ask, “What else drives these groundless charges other than fear?” I answer, there could be many, many things. Maybe he thinks the charges aren’t groundless. Maybe he has seen some real error at BioLogos, according to his convictions of biblical teaching. Maybe it is fear, but if it is, I have no basis (nor do you) to present that as the whole answer. You’re concerned about “groundless charges,” right? “What else … other than” is hardly good grounding.
I am not insisting anything here, neither for you nor for Frank. I’m describing what I see, and letting you decide how you will respond.
But since you asked, maybe it would help if I filled you in on what Frank, quite appropriately, left unsaid in his post at Pyromaniacs: that email he quoted from came from me. He did not quote all of it.
Here’s another factor that might be of interest. I have a deep, deep appreciation for Francis Collins, not only as a scientist, not only as a Christian, but also as the physician who treated my big sister for a rare genetic disease many years ago. I have no interest in judging BioLogos, or the Christianity of its principals. I disagree with them on many points, but as I have already said in comment #60 above,
August 13th, 2010 | 10:13 pm | #108
Tom: To be clear, I have been recently exploring YEC, OEC, ID, and BL. I think all of these viewpoints on the origin of life are permissible for an orthodox Christian. Therefore, I would never describe an adherent of the aforementioned viewpoints as (1) belonging to a cult, (2) denying the authority of scripture, or (3) damaging the faith of others.
I emphatically called Frank’s charges groundless based on the literature that is posted on the BioLogos website. You said I should “go ahead and explain how he has erred.” Why repeat what can be found by visiting the BL website? Check it out for yourself. Do not take my word for it. But I am confident you will discover that BL is not a cult.
What I have expressed, so far, is a sympathy for BL because it seems to do the best job of showing how science and faith are in harmony. Naturalism obviously doesn’t satisfy me because science trumps faith. Creationism doesn’t satisfy me because faith trumps science. And Intelligent Design doesn’t satisfy me because science needs divine help. These are my opinions, and nothing more. I am sure adherents from the other viewpoints would disagree with these characterizations. So be it. I would likely disagree with their characterization of BL.
My sympathy for BL will likely turn into advocacy. You are right to point out “that disputes over origins have been going on for a very long time, and the final answer to the question just isn’t accessible to us in a form that can satisfy every Bible believer. We can all have our opinions and defend them as vigorously as we may, certainly, but we ought to do so charitably among fellow believers. There are so many good, godly, thoughtful people on various sides of the issue, it’s just impossible to go straight from ‘I think you’re wrong on this’ to ‘therefore you are not a good Christian.’”
In the Evangel debate, Frank Turk is the one who has gone straight from “I think you’re wrong on this” to “therefore you are not a good Christian.” He owes an apology to BL. Tim Keller, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Bruce Waltke, Kenneth Miller, and John Polkinghorne are not false teachers.
August 14th, 2010 | 4:00 am | #109
Anyways, I hope that helps you see why some of us struggle with saying that Christians must believe that God’s actions are always detectable or that certain scientific processes are “simply atheistic” with some “faith-based beliefs tacked on.”
I realize I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I’m certainly not saying that “God’s actions are always detectable.” But if a Christian takes the position that God’s actions in nature are never detectable (and can be treated as the process of an intelligent being) then they are being functionally atheistic.
There is no biblical or scientific reason why God’s processes could not be detected in nature and attributed to his intelligence agency. To rule it out before the theory can be tested is antithetical to real scientific inquiry.
If theistic evolutionists are open to the idea that God’s agency is (potentially) detectable, then they should be more open to ID. They may have strong agreements but they shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand.
Again, though, I want to reiterate that my position is that most of this debate is a waste of time. We are too scientifically illiterate to really make dogmatic assertions about what theories have been proven. For example, when science can’t adequately distinguish between common descent and common design, it is hard to take certain scientists seriously when they make claims that that to disagree is to be uneducated on the topic.
When science can explain how information arises in biology and how the complexity of the cell arose, then I’ll be convinced that we have an adequate base of knowledge to make more complex assumptions about how life on earth developed.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:28 am | #110
It’s funny all this worry about God’s actions being detectable in nature or not. Coming from a Pentecostal tradition, where God’s actions are detectable all around, it has never been a concern of mine. The issue, rather, has been discernment of divine activity: how is God at work, what is God’s purpose here, etc.
Maybe this is a fundamental difference in worldview–as Jamie Smith has said, Pentecostals hold to the re-enchantment of the world. The spiritual world and the physical world intersect in all kinds of ways.
I do think that defining the relationship between transcendence and immanence is part of the challenge for theistic evolution. But this is no more than other aspects of Christianity like say, certain interpretations of Reformed Christianity that are cessationist and seem in practice more deistic if not in theology.
August 14th, 2010 | 9:08 am | #111
Joe: Was comment #109 directed to me or someone else? Anyway, I’m not aware of any BioLogos figure that says “God’s actions in nature are never detectable.” Such a claim would be “functionally atheistic.” I’m currently reading Francis Collins’ “The Language of God,” and he’s not shy about detecting God’s actions in nature.
As I said in my original post on this topic, we need to get a handle on the vocations of science and religion. Alister McGrath and Francis Collins rightly promote what they call “partially overlapping magisteria” (POMA), “reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods” (qtd. from The Dawkins Delusion?). Where the biblical claim about the universe is primarily concerned with human redemption, the scientific claim is exclusively concerned about the processes of nature. This should be straightforward enough, but I am amazed at how often ultra-Darwinists overreach with metaphysical statements while biblical literalists wrench the Bible out of context, turning it into “primitive science.”
I haven’t got to Collins’ treatment of ID yet, so I’m unaware of his opinion about the movement. Based on other reading, it seems that the BioLogos crowd questions the science behind ID. Has ID merely revived natural theology and tried to package it as “science”? If so, it’s not very credible. Unlike you, I don’t think “most of this debate is a waste of time.” When I’m reading “The Language of God,” I’m filled with a sense of wonder and awe at our Creator-God. The science, however incomplete, only deepens and strengthens my belief in God.
Dale: As usual, I appreciate your remarks. Reformed folks like Joe and I should incline our ear toward Pentecostals like yourself who say the real question doesn’t concern whether God’s actions are detectable, but how to exercise “discernment of divine activity.”
August 14th, 2010 | 11:01 am | #112
Joe Carter,
Again, though, I want to reiterate that my position is that most of this debate is a waste of time. We are too scientifically illiterate to really make dogmatic assertions about what theories have been proven.
You made the request for evidence in two earlier comments. I obliged in #88. Perhaps you overlooked it? Who you callin’ scientifically illiterate, Willis? (Or maybe I’m not in the extension ‘we’…could be.) Aren’t you claiming such expertise for yourself by pronouncing on who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t? It would be helpful to maintain the distinction between belief and knowledge. And all scientific theories, because they are supported by contingent facts, are never “proven” in an absolute, metaphysical sense.
For example, when science can’t adequately distinguish between common descent and common design…
See comment #88. I would very much be interested in hearing how the design model accounts for the same data. I know some IDers deny that the data supports the common descent hypothesis, but I’m not aware that they’ve offered testable predictions for their alternative common design hypothesis, whatever it is. Other IDers agree that the data support the common descent hypothesis.
When science can explain how information arises in biology and how the complexity of the cell arose, then I’ll be convinced that we have an adequate base of knowledge to make more complex assumptions about how life on earth developed.
So you won’t be convinced of the facts, mechanisms, and pathway established by current evolutionary theory until the abiogenesis question is answered? Why are you shifting the goal line from common ancestry to abiogenesis? Darwin’s basic thesis concerns the origin of the species (not the origin of life). At the conclusion of Origin, Darwin says: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Darwin’s theory takes those “few forms or…one” as an initial condition.
So I ask again what I asked in #88: is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that the common descent hypothesis is the best explanation for the data we have, or do you take the Kurt Wise / Todd Wood position that Genesis 1-2 excludes biological continuity between “kinds,” especially between primates and humans, and that no amount of evidence to the contrary will make any difference to your conviction?
There is no biblical or scientific reason why God’s processes could not be detected in nature….
What is a process of God? How would we distinguish it from a natural process (say, planetary motion)? Detect with what? I believe the character of God is manifest in His creation. But I “detect” that by faith, not by sight. I suspect you mean ‘detect’ using the organs of sense and reason, as Paley did with his watchmaker argument, but perhaps you could clarify.
If theistic evolutionists are open to the idea that God’s agency is (potentially) detectable, then they should be more open to ID.
I’m not a theistic evolutionist (it’s a silly term, just as theistic chemist or theistic acoustics or theistic oceanography are nonsense terms). I believe all claims can be hauled before the tribunal of reason and examined by discursive reason to see what philosophical merit they have. I would be happy to examine the claim “God’s agency is detectable” with you. Details, please, and let us see what comes of it.
August 14th, 2010 | 6:19 pm | #113
I am certainly not qualified to comment here other than an interested party who has some stake in the debate. However, the more I read and question, the more I begin to realize how ignorant we all are about this and how undefinitive we can be about such issues. We believe the Bible (rightly interpreted) and we interpret observations. Both are riddled with presuppositions that are not easy to recognize.
It is beyond me how either side can be so definitive.
However, I really do resonate with Joe’s statement here:
“Here’s the problem I have with this claim: I hear it repeated often but no one every shows the actual empirical evidence. Why do you think it exist? Because someone else told you. Why do they think it exist? Likely because someone else told them. I have never seen anyone who can actually point out this “rich, empirical evidence.” I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just saying I’ve never seen anyone who can point me to it. The most that happens is that they point to some non-controversial example of minor change and say that from this we can make large-scale extrapolations (of course, we can’t do that).”
I seek to understand this, not to defend one side or another. Our priority is to truth above all else. If evolution (of whatever variety) were true, my faith would be affected, but not too much. I could adjust. My dog in this hunt is really small (think Chihuahua).
However, I still have no reason other than the respect that I have for many smart people to accept evolution. And when I read them, I don’t get the sense that they really understand the issue either.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #114
C. Michael Patton,
It is beyond me how either side can be so definitive.
About what, specifically?
And when I read them, I don’t get the sense that they really understand the issue either.
(1) Who are you referring to: someone blogging in their basement with the shades drawn, or actual scientists to speak and write for a general audience, like Francis Collins and Ken Miller?
(2) What issue don’t they appear to understand?
August 14th, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #115
C Michael Patton: I understand your point, about the need to see evidence for ourselves. Certainly, there seems to be a propensity, for some evolutionary biologists, and others,to over state the case for evolution.
And, clearly, any rational person should try not to merely accept the word of authorities, exclusively. As Aquinas pointed out, in the thirteenth century, arguments, based wholly on authority, are the weakest of arguments.
And yet, we have little choice but to accept what the authorities say, since we cannot be experts, obviously, in everything. When the physicist tells me that stars have particular properties, and I ask her what this is based on, she can cite the sources, but it’s unlikely that I can go check it out, and, moreover, I don’t have the knowledge base, to properly evaluate it. So, I necessarily trust this expert.
So, when we state that, the evidence for evolution is based on our trusting of biologists, we do that with every field.
And when we say that the evidence, for evolution is not good, we ‘re usually trusting someone else, who made the evaluation, that the evidence is not good!
August 14th, 2010 | 7:47 pm | #116
Phil: thanks for the link, it’s interesting. My interpretation, and I may be wrong, is that Biologos affirms the view, that the Bible is the word of God, but one must show great care in interpreting it. After all, if one interprets it literally, and God meant it symbolically, what good has one accomplished?
God wants ud to use our reason, and not simplistically answer these hard questions. I don’t think that we should look to the bible for answers, such as how, or when, did life emerge, or how old the earth is, or whether humans share a common ancestory, with other creatures. Why? Because the bible was never intented to answer these questions.
August 16th, 2010 | 9:34 am | #117
I’ve read several passages from above and the one thing that bothers me is the fact that there is more evidence to suggest that the bible was more of a political tool, history more than supports this and in fact man has put the book thru too many changes for it to still be considered a creation of god. that book is responsible for more pain suffering and death than any other reason. science on the other hand isn’t perfect and it doesnt claim to be. its an ongoing process and as long as there’s some kind of evidence or logic it’s always open to thoughts and opinion for study. so you see there is a difference between the two especially when one considers honesty
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact