The following items are crossposted at Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist:
- The December issue of National Geographic Magazine carries an article, Kings of Controversy, exploring the debate over whether a united Israelite kingdom under David and Solomon ever existed or whether an overly fertile Hebrew imagination created these iconic figures — perhaps out of thin air or by elevating two tribal chieftains to their current mythical status. The debate pits biblical minimalists against those who assume that the Bible is a genuine record of events that actually occurred.
- I have recently acquired an old copy of William Jennings Bryan’s In His Image, published in 1922 from the James Sprunt Lectures the author delivered at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. Bryan, who lived from 1860 to 1925, ran three times for the US presidency for the People’s and Democratic Parties and served as President Woodrow Wilson’s first Secretary of State. Both Bryan and Wilson were devout Reformed Christians with a vision for living out the kingdom of God in the political realm — comparable in many respects to Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands. Bryan would come to be associated with the fundamentalist movement within the northern Presbyterian Church and gained notoriety for his testimony in the so-called Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, only days before his death. This book, published three years earlier, contains Bryan’s reflections on human origins. I look forward to reading In His Image, which also has some relevance to my current book project on authority and the imago Dei.
- Fundamentalists have a bad name nowadays, partly through association with radical islamist groups who have been thus labelled. However, the original fundamentalist movement started in the first years of the last century as an effort by confessional Presbyterians to combat the influence of liberalism in that denomination. Last year was the hundredth anniversary of the publication of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Far from being narrow-minded and obscurantist, the authors of the essays making up this collection were Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists and others with solid academic credentials and teaching at such institutions as Wycliffe and Knox Colleges (Toronto), Oberlin (Ohio), and Princeton and McCormick Seminaries. The church in which I grew up, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, had its origins in the Presbyterian controversies of the 1920s and ’30s.
- The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is currently on a campaign to blacklist faith-based universities on the grounds that they deny academic freedom to their faculty. Peter Stockland takes them on here: ‘Academic freedom’ turns to religious persecution. CAUT’s approach to academic freedom is narrowly individualistic and is based on the epistemologically naïve assumption that knowledge can best be attained apart from one’s basic worldview orientation. One notes that CAUT’s bylaws prescribe as one of the organization’s core functions “the defence of academic freedom, tenure, equality and human rights.” One notes further that the CAUT Council may “suspend or terminate the membership of an Organizational Member or individual Associate Member of the Association” due to the latter’s “adoption of a constitution or of local practices or actions which in the judgment of Council are contrary to those of the Association.” Would this include disagreement with CAUT’s interpretation of “academic freedom, tenure, equality and human rights”? CAUT is obviously devoted to a particular vision of life embodied in its bylaws. And how exactly does this differ from a university having a faith-based vision statement? It seems CAUT follows its own form of fundamentalism.
- I have called attention before to the valuable work of my friend Stanley Carlson-Thies and his Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. We were privileged to have him speak here at Redeemer University College in October on the subject. His speech has now been posted at the Cardus website: Liberty or Liability: The Future of Institutional Religious Freedom.
- I have just received a pdf file of an Afrikaans-language metrical psalter from one Josef du Toit, who incidentally shares the surname of the famous South African poet Jakob Danil du Toit, better known as Totius. Read more here.
- In some fields, including archeology and biblical studies, it is common practice to add CE or BCE to the end of dates, as in 1453 CE or 587 BCE. We saw this on historical markers during our travels in Israel and the Occupied Territories 15 years ago. These initials stand for Common Era and Before the Common Era respectively and stand in for AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ). The theory behind this usage is that it removes the references to Christ and Lord, thereby making them more acceptable to adherents of other religions. However well-intended this effort at inclusivity may be, I do not find it altogether persuasive. According to the muslim calendar the year 1432 begins in five days. By islamic reckoning we are living in the 15th century after Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Under the jewish calendar today is the 25th day of Kislev, 5771, that is, 5,771 years following the creation of the world. Despite the best efforts of some to hide the christian belief that the coming of Christ into the world is the turning point in human history, the mere fact that the common era begins when it does is powerful testimony to the centrality of Jesus Christ, even to those who do not acknowledge him.
December 2nd, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #1
“Byzantine Rute Calvinist” is about as meaningful as “square circle”.
December 2nd, 2010 | 4:49 pm | #2
On this blog I’m sure I’ll be reamed for my typo. I’ll try again.
“Byzantine Rite Calvinist” is about as meaningful as “square circle”.
December 2nd, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #3
The graciousness and patience of Dr. Koyzis is far greater than my own.
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #4
What is a Byzantine rite Calvinist? Never heard of it.
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #5
“The graciousness and patience of Dr. Koyzis is far greater than my own.”
That’s because his roots are in fundamentalism.
;-)
December 2nd, 2010 | 9:37 pm | #6
Perhaps “Byzantine Rite Calvinist” is purposefully chosen as a paradox so as to stimulate further inquiry. Don’t knock someone for being thoughtful and/or having a sense of humor. :P
December 4th, 2010 | 4:33 am | #7
One argument people sometimes use for abandoning BC and AD is that the year 1 AD was not actually the year Christ was born. Nevertheless, you’re right that we wouldn’t have chosen that year except that someone thought it was the year he was born, and it’s pretty close. So someone can hold that view without doing so for pluralistic reasons, but I still find it unpersuasive.
December 4th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #8
So the early medievals fix the date of Christ’s birth, start a chronology from that date, we all follow it, and then pretend that it has nothing to do with the putative date of Christ’s birth. Riiiiiiight.
I’ll buy that reasoning when we start renaming the days of the week: “TDTWOATTS: The Day That Was Once Attributed to the Sun,” “TDDTWOATTM,” etc. And the months: The Month of the Legend of Janus,” etc.
You don’t actually have to believe in something to use it as a naming convention. You do have to have a pathological fear of beliefs not your own to indulge in fantasies about naming.
December 5th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #9
It’s quite a stretch to suggest that an association practices “a form of fundamentalism” simply because it appeals to its own core principles to limit membership. When we label a religious or ideological sect as “fundamentalist,” it’s typically for additional reasons.
As for naming the eras, the theologically loaded “Anno Domini” and “Before Christ” are obviously less inclusive (i.e., less theologically neutral) than “BCE” and “CE”.
December 5th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #10
Two responses:
CAUT is going much further than to ensure that its membership live according to its own principles. It is trying to impose those principles on everyone else as well, including overtly confessional universities. This is what is so objectionable. Quite honestly, I don’t care how one defines fundamentalism, which by now has degenerated into a cuss word with little cognitive content.
I myself have no objection to the less inclusive character of BC and AD. As a Christian who firmly believes that the coming of Christ is the turning point in world history, I will continue to use them. At the same time, I do not begrudge anyone using BCE and CE if they feel more comfortable with them.
December 5th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #11
Why does the author lower-case “islam,” “jewish,” and “muslim”?
December 5th, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #12
PRP:
Nothing at all is implied by this. My tendency is not to capitalize adjectival forms of proper nouns. I understand this is not conventional English.
December 5th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #13
I am puzzled as to why so much punctuation on this blog has suddenly turned to gobbledygook. And posted images have disappeared. Or it just my computer?
December 5th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #14
It’s not just your computer.
I don’t know about the images, but the punctuation problem is due to a coding error either in the blog’s header.php file or (more likely) wp-config.php (on the server, not on anyone’s computer). I’ve just sent Joe Carter an email on it.
December 6th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #15
David Koyzis,
I’d like to press you on your claim that “fundamentalism” “has degenerated into a cuss word with little cognitive content.” While I agree that the term as popularly used usually has negative connotations, I would say that this is rightly so. I would also say this popular sense has a legitimate and non-accidental connection to the “Fundamentalism” of early 20th century Protestantism. Wherever we find it, religious fundamentalism tends to be marked by an ideological refusal to make “concessions to modern developments in thoughts or customs” (borrowing the OED’s phrase). It’s no mistake that such a characteristic has developed negative associations. The virtue of reasonableness seems to require a fair amount of willingness to modulate one’s views and commitments according to new discoveries and changing circumstances. (Please notice that I am suggesting neither that fundamentalists completely lack such willingness, nor that all fundamentalists fall short to the same degree of on the scale of reasonableness.)
December 6th, 2010 | 7:20 pm | #16
Mr. Ehrlich:
In large measure the so-called fundamentalism of the early 20th century was simply historic orthodox Christianity. There was nothing especially new or innovative about it. If it eventually acquired a negative connotation, that was largely the doing of those who decided that belief in a transcendent God who acted in history was not in keeping with ostensibly progressive modern thought.
December 6th, 2010 | 8:09 pm | #17
Mr. Koyzis, half of what you say doesn’t really bear on the points I’ve raised. As for the rest, let’s not kid ourselves: one can affirm a belief in “a transcendent God who acted in history” without attracting the label “fundamentalist.”
December 6th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #18
Mr. Ehrlich, perhaps I haven’t made myself clear, in which case I apologize. My overall point is that the term fundamentalism is used to cover entirely too much: from confessional protestants at the turn of the last century writing against efforts to water down the faith, to muslim fanatics who crash planes into the World Trade Centre. Surely there is a huge difference between these? And yet both are tarred with the fundamentalist label.
December 6th, 2010 | 10:10 pm | #19
Mr. Koyzis, I appreciate the clarification–as well as your continued willingness to respond.
We are now, I think, addressing the same issue. My point is that the contemporary usage of “fundamentalism” is meaningful, has a fittingly negative connotation, is often appropriately applied to both Christians and Muslims (including those that commit acts of terrorism), and has a legitimate and substantive connection to the “Fundamentalism” of early 20th century Protestantism.
While I completely understand why many Christian fundamentalists will chafe against the idea of being categorized with fanatical or violent Muslims, many deny the appropriateness of this shared categorization all too hastily. It is rather an occasion for careful and critical self-examination. The term “fundamentalist”, as I’ve said, is appropriately applied to persons marked by their ideological refusal to make “concessions to modern developments in thoughts or customs” (particularly when these developments can be appreciated by nearly everyone else as sound or plausible.) My advice would be to encourage Christian and Muslim fundamentalists to try to reason with each other. Since it is often easier to see one’s own errors in someone else, such interaction might enable devotees from each camp to realize the problems with the fundamentalist mindset generally.
December 7th, 2010 | 12:59 am | #20
C. Ehrlich,
Could you explain further please, your willingness (beyond mere semantic equation) to conflate Islamic terrorists and Christian Fundamentalists? Surely you can see that it is more than merely “chafing” for fundamentalist Christians to be classified together with murderous fanatics? Are you willing to distinguish between the two based on the latter’s overt commitment to physical and often mass violence?
And further could you give more evidence (again beyond simple assertion) of either of these movements connection to the historical movement that arose out of the theological controversies of the late 19th and early 20th century?
Right now David Koyzis has the stronger of the argument. To wit: “Fundamentalism” is a term within Christian academic and historical circles that has specific content and meaning. Said content and meaning extends well beyond an reductionist explanation that would categorize all fundamentalism merely as an unwillingness to to make “concessions to modern developments in thoughts or customs”. To reduce it to such is, in fact, to come very near to making it “a cuss word with very little cognitive content”.
The work historian George Marsden is an excellent place to start for developing this more appropriate and nuanced understanding of Fundamentalism in the context of Christian history and thought.
Finally, a question, do you consider evangelicals to be “fundamentalists” as the current popular usage of the phrase most often does?
December 7th, 2010 | 3:08 am | #21
David c.
Consider an analogy. Atheist and Hindus share the following category: non-monotheistic. Is it surprising that these two groups–despite their many and substantial differences–share a category? Not really. Is it surprising that they share membership in the particular category “non-monotheistic”? Again, not really. All this should be clear to the person who understands the meaning of “non-monotheistic.”
Likewise, understanding the meaning of “fundamentalism” (as in the popular contemporary usage) makes it clear why some Christians share this category with some Muslims. For a suggestion of what “fundamentalism” means, see the previous comments. I’ll let you then ponder why it might be appropriate to regard this popular contemporary sense of “fundamentalism” as having a legitimate and non-accidental connection to the Fundamentalism of 20th century Protestantism.
December 7th, 2010 | 7:11 am | #22
I will leave the debate to others at this stage. I am obviously not getting my point across, and I fear that Mr. Ehrlich and I are about to retrace our steps. Not a productive use of my time during a busy marking season.
December 7th, 2010 | 8:18 am | #23
I’m with David K. here and must bow out at this point. My Advent pastoral duties call, C. Ehrlich and I have been over this territory before and fundamentally disagree, so we’re not likely to make any progress. Particularly if we are going to reduce categorical definitions so significantly that we can place any two disparate things together and call them “similar”. It’s essentially question begging. “Chalk and cheese are both yellow” therefore they belong in the category of yellow things…. well yes but so what..
For those who would like a more balanced, historically accurate, and less categorically confused and invidious account of Christian Fundamentalism I suggest picking up a copy of Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism and American Culture by the aforementioned George Marsden.
December 7th, 2010 | 12:22 pm | #24
Well, the essential point is actually fairly straightforward. The term “fundamentalism,” as popularly used today, carries an understandably negative connotation, and, more often than not, its applications are appropriate–even these include applications to both Christian and Muslims (including violent or fanatical Muslims).
According to current usage, a fundamentalist is someone marked by his or her ideological refusals to make “concessions to modern developments in thoughts or customs” (particularly when these developments can be appreciated by nearly everyone else as sound or plausible). As such, the term “fundamentalist” naturally attracts strongly negative associations. After all, this essential character trait of the fundamentalist compromises his or her ability to be reasonable. Unreasonable people–particularly those with the pulse of religious zeal in their veins–are a particularly problematic crowd. It’s a shame that fundamentalist Christians of today have such a difficult time recognizing that it is often their own reflection they see in their Muslim counterparts.
December 7th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #25
One wonders, C. Ehrlich, whether the fundamentals of the Christian faith relate in any way to ‘absolute truth’? Is there such a thing in your view? From reading your posts, here and on other First Things threads, I’m at a bit of a quandary as to what your views actually are. I suppose that might be intentional on your part, as it’s easier to attack someone else’s opinion rather than defend your own, no?
December 7th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #26
“After all, this essential character trait of the fundamentalist compromises his or her ability to be reasonable.”
Yes, I’ve seen this character trait repeatedly in Liberal Fundamentalists.
December 7th, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #27
C. Ehrlich: for your edification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentalism-American-Culture-George-Marsden/dp/0195300475/ref=pd_sim_b_1
December 7th, 2010 | 1:10 pm | #28
Steve, my own view is that one ought to have a fair amount of willingness to modulate one’s views and commitments according to new discoveries and changing circumstances. Refusing to make any such concessions is not only a mark of being unreasonable, it can also be an obstruction to acknowledging truths.
David Koyzis is too ready to dismiss “fundamentalism” as “a cuss word with little cognitive content.” While I believe that this eagerness is understandable on the part of a fundamentalist, it’s hardly appropriate. It should rather be an occasion of self-scrutiny if a lot of other people are characterizing you as someone marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought or culture. Fundamentalism, so understood, is a problematic mindset, particularly when paired with religious zeal.
December 7th, 2010 | 1:21 pm | #29
“Refusing to make any such concessions is not only a mark of being unreasonable, it can also be an obstruction to acknowledging truths.”
A remarkably apt description of Liberal Fundamentalists who unreasonably refuse to acknowledge the Divine Truth of the Almighty Triune God.
December 7th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #30
C. Ehrlich said,
“Steve, my own view is that one ought to have a fair amount of willingness to modulate one’s views and commitments according to new discoveries and changing circumstances. Refusing to make any such concessions is not only a mark of being unreasonable, it can also be an obstruction to acknowledging truths.”
I can appreciate the above comment, but I guess my question for you is really this; does the truth of God’s Word change according to new discoveries and changing circumstances regarding the fundamentals of the Christian faith?
Also; who are these ‘other people’ that are characterizing the fundamentalist with an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought or culture? Secularists? Christians? And does it make a difference?
December 7th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #31
Also, C. Ehrlich, are you unwilling to state that there is such a thing as ‘absolute truth’?
December 7th, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #32
Steve Drake,
These other people are Liberal Fundamentalists with their own ideological zeal.
December 7th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #33
TUAD,
Yes, I guess that’s what I’m trying to discover here with Mr. Ehrlich; whether one’s ‘regenerate’ or ‘unregenerate’ starting point makes a difference. Whether God’s self-revelation in Scripture is the basis for ‘absolute truth’ or not? I’m not sure if he agrees or disagrees yet.
December 7th, 2010 | 1:52 pm | #34
Steve Drake,
C. Ehrlich is probably a Liberal Fundamentalist with his own ideological zeal.
December 7th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #35
TUAD,
I guess we’re all ‘fundamentalists’ if we hold to the fundamentals of a certain belief system. So does the word have any meaning then? Who gets to declare that I’m a fundamentalist, and Mr. Ehrlich isn’t, or vice versa? Someone whose fundamentals are different than my fundamentals?
December 7th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #36
Let’s try to stay on track here. The proposal is that “fundamentalism,” as popularly used today, refers to someone marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thoughts and culture.
As for “absolute truth,” I don’t know how this differs from regular truth. Truth, in the abstract, is perhaps more difficult to understand than the idea of some particular statement being true, as opposed to false. The statement, “the sky is blue” is true insofar as the sky is blue. Insofar as the sky is indeed blue, the statement is true regardless of whether a person believes it or not. It will be true for me and it will be true for you. I don’t know what more there is to say about this, or what more you want to hear. When a biblical statement is true, the same will apply: the statement “Mary was betrothed to Joseph” is true if and only if Mary was in fact betrothed to Joseph.
December 7th, 2010 | 2:36 pm | #37
Hi Steve,
Good questions. “Fundamentalism” is a relative term rather than an absolute one, and hence it’s appropriate to identify C. Ehrlich as a Liberal Fundamentalist.
December 7th, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #38
C. Ehrlich,
I guess that’s partly my question though, the word ‘as popularly used today’, by who? I guess you’re arguing that consensus opinion from the majority of secularists that unwillingness to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture makes one a ‘fundamentalist’ in the opinion of these same secularists?
December 7th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #39
“Refusing to make any such concessions is not only a mark of being unreasonable, it can also be an obstruction to acknowledging truths.”
A remarkably apt description of Liberal Fundamentalists who unreasonably refuse to acknowledge the Divine Truth of the Almighty Triune God.
C. Ehrlich, do you unreasonably refuse to acknowledge the Divine Truth of the Almighty Triune God?
December 7th, 2010 | 2:57 pm | #40
Steve Drake: “I guess that’s what I’m trying to discover here with Mr. Ehrlich; whether one’s ‘regenerate’ or ‘unregenerate’ starting point makes a difference. Whether God’s self-revelation in Scripture is the basis for ‘absolute truth’ or not?”
C. Ehrlich, what’s your answer to Steve Drake’s question?
December 7th, 2010 | 2:57 pm | #41
Alvin Plantinga has written possibly the best of all definitions for fundamentalism.
December 7th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #42
Tom, Tom, Tom, Oh Tom,
I’m still bustin’ a gut! I can’t stop to write cogently and with any clarity. Hang on for a while until this settles down for me.
December 7th, 2010 | 3:15 pm | #43
Alvin Plantinga: “… because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it.”
Quite so. And hence my earlier comment:
“Fundamentalism” is a relative term rather than an absolute one, and hence it’s appropriate to identify C. Ehrlich as a Liberal Fundamentalist.”
December 7th, 2010 | 3:31 pm | #44
Sorry, all hilarity for the moment subsiding, from my earlier post:
…consensus opinion from the majority of secularists that unwillingness to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture makes one a ‘fundamentalist’ in the opinion of these same secularists?”
Is this really news to anyone? Platinga says it better as TUAD has quoted above.
December 7th, 2010 | 4:44 pm | #45
Sorry, Steve. Didn’t mean to disrupt your processes so ;)
December 7th, 2010 | 5:17 pm | #46
Tom,
Had to pause there for a moment. Plantinga’s analysis was right on the money.
Blessings
December 7th, 2010 | 5:36 pm | #47
Minimalism, fundamentalism & inclusivism
Minimally, one would inclusively embrace Liberal Fundamentalists.
December 7th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #48
Minimalism, fundamentalism & inclusivism
Minimally, it’s inclusive to embrace Liberal Fundamentalists.
December 7th, 2010 | 9:59 pm | #49
Often a given term will have a variety of meanings, or senses. One central meaning of “fundamentalist” today is this: a fundamentalist someone marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thoughts and culture.
The tendency of a lot of people here is to deny that the term carries this meaning. They apparently want to deny that is what anyone has in mind when they use the term “fundamentalism.” Instead, a lot of people here want to say that “fundamentlism” is simply “a cuss word with little cognitive content.”
But that lets the fundamentalist off the hook too easily. An analogy is helpful. We all know the basic meaning of “sexual pervert.” Imagine, then that a lot of people have recognized a certain person as a sexual pervert. This person knows that he is called a sexual pervert by his community. Rather than facing up to the fact of his sexual perversion, however, the man instead tells himself that the term “sexual pervert” is simply just a “cuss word with little cognitive content.” That is, he tells himself that the people in his community are just cussing at him. This makes him feel a lot better about himself.
It’s a convenient move, but it is evasive.
December 7th, 2010 | 10:16 pm | #50
Frequently, sexual perverts are also Liberal Fundamentalists.
December 7th, 2010 | 11:12 pm | #51
Who are you referring to TUAD? Since you’ve always provided ample empirical evidence, and rational arguments, for your assertions, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a cogent, entirely reasonable explanation for who you’re talking about, and why they meent your criteria as being “sexual perverts”.
December 7th, 2010 | 11:26 pm | #52
C. Ehrlich: I think you make a good point. Unfortunately, we have many on this post, who seem to adhere to an anti evolutionary stance, typical of fundamentalists. they read the Bible too literally.
Fundamentalism, is an unfortunate mutation, from mainstream protestantism, and an almost entirely north american phenomenon. It arose, I believe, as a defensive posture, to perceived threats, from the latest findings of empirical science, the old age of the earth, and especially, evolutionary theory. In fact, I doubt it would exist, if evolutionary biology did not emerge. It’s suppose to get back to the “fundamentals”, which translates into reading the bible literally, failing to be educated in the latest biblical criticism, and assuming that the findings of science, that don’t conform to this literal and uneducated reading of the bible, must be rejected. In short, its an embarrassment to all educated, open minded religious, and nonreligious thinkers. (By the way, my argument with Tom, as made me much more sympathetic to you, when you had your little spat with him recently :)
December 8th, 2010 | 12:34 am | #53
Bret,
With respect your description of the roots of Christian Fundamentalism is inadequate and woefully inaccurate historically, theologically, and even geographically.
Despite protestations to the contrary the term “Fundamentalist” when applied to Christians by those whose business it is to study, understand, and explain such things has a distinct and specific history and theological lineage. Quoting the OED or “what everybody says” or snippets from wikipedia is fine if one only wants to hop back on a favorite hobby horse for another ride (as some here clearly do). But it does not foster anything like a reasonable and rational understanding of Christian Fundamentalism as a movement in terms of its strengths, it’s weaknesses, and it’s distinctives.
The plain fact of the matter is that the current popular usage of the term is precisely intended to be a sneer and an insult. I see it constantly and hear it used that way often as a member of the clergy in a liberal protestant denomination. It’s meaning is broadly: “dummy who is more theologically conservative than I am and with whom I disagree on a pet issue or issues”.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:34 am | #54
“Who are you referring to TUAD? Since you’ve always provided ample empirical evidence, and rational arguments”
Why thank you, Bret! Here’s one (and actually it’s you who willingly provides the ample empirical evidence on another Gilson post):
“Bret, with all sincerity, you have continued to reveal yourself to be a contemptible braying ass on this thread.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.”
December 8th, 2010 | 12:39 am | #55
TUAD: Please stop your abusive language toward me. this is the THIRD time you’ve done this. I told you once to stop. And I’ll tell you again, stop your abusive language!
December 8th, 2010 | 12:44 am | #56
davidc. I don’t get my knowledge from wikipedia. I’m sure fundamentalism has its good points. But its entirely unjustified literalist approach to the bible, and its entirely unjustified approach to evoltuion, have contributed to a fight between science and religion, that could have been avoided. The evidence for evolution is sound, and in my judgment, should be believed by all rational people.
Fundamentalism, is largely an american creation. perhaps you could tell me what other regions it has sprung?
December 8th, 2010 | 12:46 am | #57
TUAD: I’m really serious, you must stop your uncharitable comments toward me. I WILL defend myself!
December 8th, 2010 | 12:50 am | #58
davidc: I have a lot of friends who are very conservative in their Christian beliefs. I don’t think they’re dumb at all. I do believe that biblical literalism is untenable. Sorry, but I cannot accept it. i also believe that evolution is highly respectable, scientifically, and cannot be denied, among those familiar with the evidence. I think fundamentalists are good people, and mean well, but wrong.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:18 am | #59
Bret,
Christian Fundamentalism has its roots in several streams — one in particular begins with Anglo Irish evangelist JN Darby and his annotated Bible translation that gave rise to what is known as the “Dispensationalist” stream of Christian Fundamentalism. That means that the history of Christian Fundamentalism goes back at least in part to England and the 1830′s. (That’s the geographic part).
I agree that there is certainly a strain of Fundamentalism that has become heavily invested in Young Earth Creationism but that issue was hardly on the radar at the rise of Christian Fundamentalism.
I could go on but really my argument is with the current popular usage of the word “fundamentalist”. It is used generally to tar conservative Christians (of all stripes) with the extremist brush and has (in my view) as David Koyzis aptly said: “degenerated into a cuss word with little cognitive content.”
Here’s the basic test for me. Do you believe that Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Terrorists belong in the same category (ie “religious fundamentalists”)?
December 8th, 2010 | 5:05 am | #60
TUAD, I believe it is wrong now for you to characterize Bret the way you have been, particularly in light of comments 115-117 here.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:55 pm | #61
Bret,
I suspect that your historical remarks about Fundamentalism carry a lot more accuracy than some of the folks around here would like to admit.
There are really two issues here. The first issue is the historical origins and developments of Fundamentalism, as a more or less distinct movement within Protestant Christianity. Any understanding of this that neglects the way in which Fundamentalism coalesced in opposition to the wider acceptance of evolutionary biology is probably whitewashed.
The second issue is the meaning of the terms “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist” as currently used today. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the senses conveyed in popular usage–which may or may not match the meaning that earlier Fundamentalists gave their term–simply has their head in the sand. We might even call these people “etymological fundamentalists”–refusing, as they do, to make concessions regarding developments in thoughts and culture. (Imagine someone who refuses to accept the meanings of words can change and evolve, thereby refusing to accept that the term “gay” can mean anything other than “cheery.”)
My main point regards this second issue. The term “fundamentalist,” as currently used, is often used to describe a person who is marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture.
It is both fascinating and sad to see folks around here squirm and resist this rather basic observation.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #62
The interesting thing about altering BC/AD to BCE/CE is that as long as there is a seven day week with the sabbath on the seventh-day, and they observe the week (whether they keep the sabbath or not), they are giving their acknowledgment to our Creator God.
That folks can’t seem to grasp this notion says more about the church than it does the people that deny God’s existence.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #63
C. Ehrlich said,
“It is both fascinating and sad to see folks around here squirm and resist this rather basic observation.” viz-a-viz, C. Ehrlich’s definition of fundamentalist as ‘a person who is marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture’.
Plantinga’s analysis comes home to roost, doesn’t it? The word is thrown out, with no one in particular mentioned, but a lot of us referenced by inference, to silence debate and to give the wielder of such a word the false impression that he has won the ideological debate over ideas in question. All without discussing the ideas, wow, what a powerful word this is.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #64
Steve Drake, please notice how I certainly invite debate. If you re-read the thread, you’ll see that I’ve made real efforts to answer questions, to clarify the basic observation, and to keep the conversation substantive and focused.
Do you really deny my basic point–that the contemporary usage of “fundamentalist” often carries the meaning I’ve suggested: to refer to someone marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture?
December 8th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #65
C. Ehrlich,
Yes.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #66
And on what grounds?
December 8th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #67
Responding to David C. Moorman’s comment # 62, you are absolutely right, but we can take that even further: the mere fact that nonbelievers love their spouses and children; construct buildings and institutions; plant, tend and reap grain; compose music; write novels; &c., &c., means that they inadvertently give glory to the God in whose image they were created. Our very existence is testimony to the Creator whom some seek to deny.
And then there’s this:
At last count Mr. Ehrlich has repeated this definition eight times in this thread. If it were possible to win a debate simply by reiterating one’s original point, Mr. Ehrlich would certainly have taken the prize by now.
December 8th, 2010 | 2:05 pm | #68
Now it’s nine times.
December 8th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #69
“Frequently, sexual perverts are also Liberal Fundamentalists.”
Who are you referring to TUAD? Since you’ve always provided ample empirical evidence, and rational arguments, for your assertions, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a cogent, entirely reasonable explanation for who you’re talking about, and why they meent your criteria as being “sexual perverts”.
——–
Let’s consider porno actors and actresses in X-rated movies who do sexually perverted things on screen. Let’s also consider gay porno actors and lesbian porno actresses who also do sexually perverted things on screen.
It’s reasonable to conclude that these sexual pervert porno people are Liberal Fundamentalists.
December 8th, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #70
C.Ehrlich,
If you wish to discuss the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then let us please begin, (pick one of the fundamentals and state your case) but all you have done is insinuate a pejorative connotation to the word to describe anyone that disagrees with you, whether consensus opinion, as popularly used, or not. Plantinga’s analysis applies. You seem to want to heartily agree in labeling people as ‘fundamentalists’ without wishing to discuss ideas.
December 8th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #71
Again, it looks like we’ll have to remind Steve Drake of the basic point:
You see, while this common sense of “fundamentalist” certainly does have a negative connotation, it is not just “a cuss word with little cognitive content” as David Koyzis and many others here want to believe and repeatedly assert. And, contrary to Steve Drake’s recent assertion, this popular sense of “fundamentalist” clearly isn’t equivalent to “anyone that disagrees with you.”
Many here seem to be overly eager to change the subject of the conversation. There seems to be a lot of motivation to avoid my basic point. This is perhaps why I have to keep reminding folks of it.
December 8th, 2010 | 4:05 pm | #72
A whole lot of nothing going on here, Mr. Ehrlich. What’s that phrase, ‘if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then bamboozle them with…
December 8th, 2010 | 4:17 pm | #73
Notice how Steve Drake first denied my basic point (#65). Then, when I asked him to provide grounds for his denial, he changes his strategy, now claiming that my basic point “a whole lot of nothing.”
It’s fascinating how “a whole lot of nothing” can generate such strong resistance.
December 8th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #74
And again we have to remind C. Ehrlich and ask him what part of ‘discuss ideas’ does he not understand?
Notice how Mr. Ehrlich does not want to discuss ideas, even when asked to pick one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith and state his case. Seems rather elementary, Dear Watson.
December 8th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #75
Steve Drake, I don’t see how you can expect someone to discuss substantive matters of doctrine if you insist on being evasive regarding more basic points, like the one I’ve been pressing:
First you deny it, then you misinterpret it, then you insist that it is “a whole lot of nothing.” While I know you want to believe that “fundamentalist” is just “a cuss word with little cognitive content” you–along with David Koyzis and the others here–have consistently refused to provide any grounds for rejecting my basic point, which suggests the very cognitive content that everyone is so eager to deny.
December 8th, 2010 | 5:41 pm | #76
This is the Ehrlich syle — like shampoo instructions, “lather, rinse, repeat” . Tiresome. But when your only tool is a hammer….
I have not “tried to change the subject”, I have stated repeatedly that within Christian circles the word “fundamentalist” has specific content that shares little with the common cultural (mis)conception and that one cannot simply assert that his definition is the only one that matters because it’s the one Oprah, or Wikipedia, or Frank Rich likes.
But let’s grant, just for grins, the rather thin definition that C. Ehrlich has offered and see if even that holds up to scrutiny? The now nauseatingly familiar “marked by an ideological refusal to make concessions regarding developments in thought and culture”. If that is the case then what are we to make of fundamentalist Christian’s pioneering work in the use of radio and television, not to mention modern advertising theory as a means of promoting their understanding of the gospel? That doesn’t sound like someone ideologically committed to refusing to use the instruments of modernity that are to hand, now does it?
Or if one is to lump Islamic terrorists in with Christian Fundamentalists (a category error in my view but again we will grant it for the purposes of discussion) what about the now common practice among jihadis of using the internet for recruiting and communication? Again that doesn’t sound like it fits the definition you like seem to prefer.
In fact by the Ehrlich definition the Amish and Mennonites come a lot closer to “fundamentalism” than the denizens of Bob Jones or Liberty U….
December 8th, 2010 | 5:56 pm | #77
“Steve Drake, I don’t see how you can expect someone to discuss substantive matters of doctrine if you insist on being evasive regarding more basic points”
This is a rather hypocritical statement coming from a Liberal Fundamentalist. C. Ehrlich is really the one who insists on being evasive when it comes to discussion of the substantive matters of doctrine.
After all Steve Drake asked C. Ehrlich earlier: “I guess that’s what I’m trying to discover here with Mr. Ehrlich; whether one’s ‘regenerate’ or ‘unregenerate’ starting point makes a difference. Whether God’s self-revelation in Scripture is the basis for ‘absolute truth’ or not?”
C. Ehrlich, stop evading. What’s your answer to Steve Drake’s question?
December 8th, 2010 | 6:52 pm | #78
C.Ehrlich,
Please discuss ‘on what grounds’ you have the moral authority to demand that I agree or not agree with your definition of ‘fundamentalist’? The same question can be turned on you to give an account of why anyone here should accept your narrow definition of ‘fundamentalist’ that you have oft repeated. Consensus opinion? How can you account for why consensus opinion should carry any moral weight for me to agree or not agree?
I’ll throw my lot in with Pastor C. here and ask that you take up his arguments as well if you so desire (I’ll leave it to Pastor C. whether he wants to be associated in this context with me or not. His arguments stand on their own). TUAD’s reiteration of questions that I have asked you before bear repeating as stated above. You may have answered the question about ‘absolute truth’, and from your answer I gather you do not stand on the authority of the Word of God for certainty, (am I misstating your position here)? If that is the case, then there is a chasm that is not easily crossed.
December 8th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #79
I keep hoping that if I repeat it one more time, Steve Drake and the others will grasp my basic point, addressing it and not something else:
Re-read that very carefully. Read it slowly. Pay attention to each word.
David C.: Do you deny the basic point, quoted above?
Steve Drake: your position has been quite inconsistent. Where are you at now? Do you deny the basic point, quoted above?
I’d like to get a clear answer from each of guys, something that you’d might be willing to stick with for more than one comment.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #80
Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows. Keep using that hammer C. Ehrlich.
Please notice that C.Ehrlich fails to understand the nature of his definition and the bogus question ‘on what grounds’ for acceptance or denial, that he keeps reiterating. One would think C.Ehrlich would grasp the question behind the question for any kind of moral certainty, but he fails to see this.
Now it’s my turn I guess, to use that hammer. Ping, Ping.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:33 pm | #81
Yes, I deny the basic point. The term fundamentalist as it is primarily used in popular culture today is not the cool and rational assessment you imagine your pet definition to be. It is rather used as a provocation, an insult and a slur, an attempt at guilt by association. I have actual “real life” experience with that usage in that manner directed at me during discussions around certain issues in the denomination I serve.
As for your ‘definition’: it is at one and the same time overbroad and inaccurate. It is a “definition” that could be fit to folks ranging from traditional Amish farmers to 19th century Luddites, to some lovers of the Latin Mass, to Franciscan Friars to many of the “green” farmers that live in the communities surrounding mine, to Islamic Terrorists, to the unaBomber. In other words it is functionally incoherent and useless.
And, as I have already demonstrated it doesn’t even hold when applied to Islamic Terrorists and Christian Fundamentalists!
December 8th, 2010 | 8:38 pm | #82
Steve,
As an aside… despite our disagreements on YEC, I certainly would never object to being associated with you. The Lord we share is far larger than any disagreements we might have….
December 8th, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #83
Steve Drake, you claim to deny my basic point, and then, when asked to provide grounds for your denial, you refuse with all manner of protest. I frankly don’t understand your protests. All I can discern is that for some reason or another you cannot provide any grounds for denying my basic point.
David C., so you’ve been called a fundamentalist. I guess I’m not surprised. When you were called a fundamentalist you discerned–and I think probably correctly–that the term was being used to connote something negative. Quite naturally, you took offence. Then, quite understandably, you resolved that label attached to you was nothing more than a pure insult, without “cognitive content”–and certainly without any basis in any “rational assessment.”
It’s this last inference (the “quite understandably” bit) that is suspect. You felt offended, and so you took it as an insult to be associated with other “fundamentalists.”
So, here would be my question to you. When this person called you a fundamentalist, what larger group do you think that this person was associating you with? Apparently you have some idea. What other types of people would this person (the one who offended you) have considered your fellow fundamentalists?
If you’ll answer this question honestly, I’m betting we might make some discoveries about that “cognitive content” you and others want to deny.
December 8th, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #84
Tom, thank you, for your defense of me in #60. Also, I want apologize for the comments, I made to C. Ehrlich, #52, about you. That was before I decided to apologize to you, on the other thread. These comments I made to C. Ehrlich, were petty, and childish. I’m sorry.
December 8th, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #85
davic.: Regarding your comments, in #59, I disagree with Christian Fundamentalists, but I certainly don’t dislike them, and I don’t think they’re stupid. I agree with you, that the media, has often been unfair to them. I recall an especially innane comment made, a few years back, by a reporter at the WASHINGTON POST, that conservative Christians are dumb, and easily lead, or something to that affect. (that’s not a direct quote, but the idea was that, they’re not the brightest chandeliers in the kitchen). That comment was ludicrous, at best.
I think that Christian fundamentalists, are not at all the same as Islamic fundamentalists. Although I have great respect for mainstream Islam, and believe the latter are essentially nonviolent, the Fundamentalist version, (Taliban, etc.) are vilient, and dangerous to our civilization, and must be stopped, and are nothing like the Christian fundamentalists.
December 8th, 2010 | 9:29 pm | #86
Pastor C.,
Wise words Pastor. The Lord we do indeed share is larger than any disagreements we might have. May you continue to be strengthened by the slain Lamb Himself on behalf of the sheep you shepherd. Yours at many times is a thankless profession, yet I’m sure you do it out of love for the One whose love for us cost Him His life.
Blessings.
December 8th, 2010 | 10:02 pm | #87
C. Ehrlich,
We’ve beat this horse to death, haven’t we? You claim I haven’t answered your question, and I claim you haven’t given me the moral certainty for the question even being legitimate. We’ve gone round and round a bit here C. Ehrlich, with no discernible progress. I’m sure we’ll have a chance to dialog again.
December 8th, 2010 | 10:28 pm | #88
Given all of Steve Drake’s protests, we might expect him to be able to give some sort of reason for his bald denial of my basic point. But alas–he says he needs “moral certainty” of the “legitimacy” of my simple request for a reason.
If that’s not evasiveness I don’t know what is.
December 8th, 2010 | 10:33 pm | #89
“If that’s not evasiveness I don’t know what is.”
You don’t know what evasiveness is, C. Ehrlich, since you don’t see when you’re being evasive.
December 9th, 2010 | 3:35 am | #90
C.Ehrlich: Thanks for the contributions, that you make. Yor comments are intelligent, and thought provoking.
You’re certainly right that the term “fundamentalist” now, means something different, from when it emerged. It’s fair to say, that now, the term is usually used, fairly, or unfairly, derisively.
What concerns me, is the impression, that some fundamentalists give, that rational discourse, and scientific literacy, are unworthy of cultivating. I say some fundamentalists, not all, or even most, but, at least in the popular imagination, fairly or not (and I suspect the latter) fundamentalists, as a group, are viewd as hostile, or at least indifferent, to intellectual discourse in general. (a good book, dealing with evangelicals, not specifically fundamentalism, is one written, few years back, by the evangelical scholar Mark Noll, called THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND).
What concerns me the most, is that some fundamentalists give the impression, or explicitly state, that evolution is untrue, geological evidence for an old earth isn’t to be trusted, that one should rely exclusively on prayer, to cure illnesses, and this provides ample ammunition, for Christianity’s enemies, (e.g., the “New Atheists”, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris) that Christianity is intrinsically incompatible with the findings of modern science, particularly evolution, and must be rejected. How tragic, if one rejects Christianity, because one accepts evolution, and believes that one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution.
December 9th, 2010 | 8:03 am | #91
C. Ehrlich,
Ah, yes, the pot calling the kettle black.
Bret,
So many things here. One track mind on your evolutionary and old earth comments. I don’t have time this morning to comment. Maybe tomorrow.
December 9th, 2010 | 8:51 am | #92
Steve Drake: it’s good to hear from you,again. I know that you don’t accept evolution, or an old earth, and I respect that. Based on my many interactions with you, I know that you’re a highly intelligent, well meaning person. I think that, in general, people don’t accept the age of the earth being old, and evolution being true, because they haven’t studied the issue, fully. but i know there are many exceptions, and you are well informed.
December 9th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #93
Bret,
WaPo called evangelicals “poor, uneducated, and easily lead”. The Noll book is an excellent one, following in the tradition of another great work by Harry Blamires called “The Christian Mind”. It is not however, as you seem to be indicating, a critique of incipient fundamentalism within the ranks of evangelicals.
C Ehrlich,
Never answering any questions yourself, while repeatedly posing the same one to others is not rational or reasoned debate, it’s intellectual onanism and I decline to participate further.
Steve,
Thanks for the kind words.
A joyful Christmas to you all….
December 9th, 2010 | 10:34 am | #94
Bret,
I just reread you comment about Noll and see that you did not say that it was a critique of fundamentalism amongst evangelicals. In my haste I missed that part. My apologies for mis-characterizing what you wrote. Please forgive
We both agree that it is an excellent work.
December 9th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #95
From The Pontificate of Continuity we have this concluding sentence:
“A truth powerful enough to refashion the world, not one remolded in accord with changing political or moral or cultural fashions.”
Imagine that. Catholic Fundamentalists.
December 9th, 2010 | 7:43 pm | #96
Hi Bret,
As always, thank you for your gracious comments. Been teaching today and just got back, so I have some moments here this evening to respond before my dear wife calls me to dinner. It’s our anniversary today. 26 glorious years with a beautiful woman to which God has graciously blessed me. (Thank you precious Jesus).
To evolution then, dear e-friend. It’s not that people haven’t studied the issue, dear brother, it’s that they ‘have’ and find it wanting. Evolution is simply not compatible with an exegetical and theological understanding of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
I realize you would argue that it is, so where does that leave us? Where do we start to unravel this dilemma? I really don’t know, except to start asking questions as to why you believe that God used evolution and ask for your supporting evidence? For supporting exegetical and theological Scriptural analysis? I’m open to suggestions, dear friend, for as long as we wish to carry forth this discussion.
December 10th, 2010 | 3:05 am | #97
david c.: No problem, at all. Thanks for writing back. Merry Christmas too! talk with you soon!
December 10th, 2010 | 3:18 am | #98
Steve, thank you, for your kindness. Happy Anniversery, to you and your wife! 26 years! That’s really amazing, and wonderful. It shows how much you love each other. I hope you both have a wonderful day!
I understand why very intelligent people, like yourself, have problems with evolution. Some of the subtlest and most sophisticated sceptical points, concerning evolution, have been made by Phillip E. Johnson, in DARWIN ON TRIAL, and Michael Behe, more recently, in DARWIN’S BLAK BOX, THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION. however, I think that their objections have been met, but I could be wrong.
What bothers me, is the arrogance of people like Richard Dawkins, on Christianity. He claims that evolution has rendered belief in Christianity irrational. This is not true, there are many devout Christians, such as Francis Collins,M.D., Ph.D, who accept fully, evolution. He believes that God created the evolutionary process, and I agree. But we can, if you choose, discuss this on another occasion.
Have a great day (both you and your wife), and it’s great to talk with you, dear friend.
December 10th, 2010 | 3:39 am | #99
Steve: one reason, I think God uses evolution, is the evdence for the latter seems so strong to me. It seems strange to me, that He would allow such an abundance of empirical data, for some false notion, to arise.
Also, it takes God away from, as Edward Oaks,S.J., a Jesuit scholar put it, from “micromanaging nature”. God is ultimately in control, of course, and could intervene, at any time, and as Francis Collins, stated, God is outside of space and time, and has decided how ir all will turn out. From our standpoint, it looks, perhaps random, and purposeless, but God, see all perspectives perfectly, and what we call evolution, is one part of reality, that He devised. One, perhap inapt analogy, I’ve thought of, is, He created the physical world, but put it on a very long leash, perhaps giving the illusion to some, that the “dog”, if you will, is behaving completely autonomously. The “dog” is behaving somewhat autonomously, but is always under the control, of the person holding the leash.
Certanly, when a physiologist, wishes to ascertain the cause or causes, of certain bodily processes, he can say God is ultimately their cause. I would agree. But, we need to find all the intermediary causes and steps, such has muscular contraction, its reliance on glucose attaching to recepters, sodium and potassium, entering and exiting the membrane channels, and the like. Similarly, what causes one to see? True, God, is the ultimate creator of this wonderful process, but one, to fully understand it, and help a person with visual problems, should understand how photons, reach the retina of the eye, and how the visual information is transformed into data to be used by the brain, etc.
Similarly, God created evolution, but we should study the natural selection pprocess, how random changes in DNA result in favorable, or unfavorable traits being passed to future generations, and the like.
Sorry, to go on, too long, there! Take care, talk to you soon!
December 10th, 2010 | 9:38 am | #100
Bret,
“Certainly, when a physiologist, wishes to ascertain the cause or causes, of certain bodily processes, he can say God is ultimately their cause. I would agree. But, we need to find all the intermediary causes and steps, such has muscular contraction, its reliance on glucose attaching to recepters, sodium and potassium, entering and exiting the membrane channels, and the like. Similarly, what causes one to see? True, God, is the ultimate creator of this wonderful process, but one, to fully understand it, and help a person with visual problems, should understand how photons, reach the retina of the eye, and how the visual information is transformed into data to be used by the brain, etc.”
All observational, every day science. This has nothing to do with the Grand or General Theory of Evolution (GTE).
Bret said,
“…but we should study the natural selection pprocess, how random changes in DNA result in favorable, or unfavorable traits being passed to future generations, and the like.”
Again, this has nothing to do with the GTE, it’s what scientists are doing in the laboratory and field every day. The GTE is defined as “the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form” (evolutionary biologist G.A. Kerkut). That particles turned into people over time, without any need for an omnipotent, uncaused Creator or intelligent designer.
To add God to a theory that was developed in order to explain away God is capitulation to a secular, sinful, and godless mindset. It is the secularized version of all the world’s religions and cults that have arisen in human history by the mind of rebellious and autonomous man to worship the creature and not the Creator.
Contrarily, God did not ‘create’ evolution. How He ‘did’ create is clearly laid out in God’s self-revelation in Genesis 1.
The evidence for evolution, Bret, is simply not there. It’s full of holes. It’s a philosophical black hole. To want to add God to a wasteful and sloppy process, predicated on so much death and suffering is simply untenable from an historic Christian position.
I’m still looking, dear friend, for your Scriptural exegetical support.
December 11th, 2010 | 2:58 am | #101
Steve, thanks for your comments, sorry to take so long to respond, it’s been a busy one.
I don’t believe that evolution was devised to “explain God away”. I think that, evolution arose, as a theory, on the basis of the strong empirical evidence, in its favor. True, many do believe that it has made belief in God unnecessary, but the theory was never devised with that in mind. One must, I believe, make a distinction between “primary causes” and “secondary causes”, which was really my point, in bringing up what physiologists, do. Physiologists, study secondary causes, the cell membrane permiability, and muscle contraction, to give just two examples. They don’t need to study the primary cause, God, in order to understand the secondary causes. but that in no way implies that God does not exist.
It’s certainly true, that, some biologists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that evolution has made belief in God superfluous, but, logically, that’s not the case at all. Evolution, is based on empirical evidence, and has nothing to say, legitimately, about metaphysical, and religious claims, they’re out of biology’s “juristiction” if you will.
Historically, it’s true, that the “argument from design”, meaning the purpose seen in bodily structure,and function, has been used as a basis, for belief in a creator, and Darwin’s findings have been used to undermine that. but it, in no way,has to be this way. If evolution, logically, entailed that God did not exist, then no religious thinker, who seriously believed in God, would accept evolution. But this is clearly is not the case.
We can, of course, find some, such as the thinker whose quote you provided, who believe that evolution has shown that God is not needed. But what is he really saying? He’s saying, to my mind, (even if his intent is to claim God doesn’t exist!), is that God is uninvovlved, or at least, undetectable, directly, by scientific methods. But god is still, ultimately in charge. It goes back to the primary, and secondary causes. God directly is involved in primary causes, meaning He creates the universe, and the gravitation process, and the evolutionary process, but doen’t get involved in the “nitty gritty” details, and therefore, this could give the illusion, that God doesn’t exist, since He’s seemingly undetectable, in the secondary causation process.
But once one realizes that God isn’t directly involved in everything, not because He can’t, but because, for His own reasons, chooses not to, we can begin to accept that evolution was not devised by th godless to feel intellectually justified, (true, Dawkins once claimed, that, he said to fellow atheist, the philosopher A.J. Ayer, that evolution makes one an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but Dawkins is quite wrong here), but developed, because it’s the only theory, currently available, that makes sense of the empirical data.
An interesting irony, seems to exist, here. Both the atheists, such as Dawkins, and the devout christians who are against evolution, are in agreement on one thing: that evolution has shown that God doen’t exist. But this can only be true, if one doesn’t make the essential distinction between primary and secondary causes. Scondary causes, are the evolutionary process, and the gravitation, and properties of light, etc. But then the atheits have no answer, as to what causes evolution, or gravitation. The believer in God, has an answer, God!
This is a real flaw, i believe in the atheist account. He presumably, believes that evolution arose by itself. Nothing can be the cause of itself, since it would have to exist prior to itself, to cause its existence!! An impossibility!
You talk, Steve, about its wastefulness (evolution). But doesn’t that just mean it looks that way from our finite, human perspective? From God’s standpoint, an infinite one, outside of space and time, it perhaps is seen, much differently.
Genesis, talks about how plants, then animals, and finally, humans arose, interesingly, the same sequence that evolution says life arose.
The Bible was never intended to be a scientific treatise, in my view. Otherwise we would see passages explaining the function of the heart, the skeletal muscles, their elaborate biochemistry, neural impulses, gravitation, quantum theory, geological formation of the earth, etc., etc., But we don’t. If the Bible was meant to explain all science, there would be no need to investigate nature, we could just look any question we have, about reality, in the Bible.
It means, I believe, that the Bible is a holy, spiritual book, but the “book of nature” as Descartes put it, is to be found in observation.
Talk to you soon, dear friend.
December 13th, 2010 | 10:26 am | #102
Bret,
Any ‘particular’ Scripture verses you wish to use in support of your arguments above? We cannot just explain away Genesis 1 and claim that it has no relevance, right? So can you please tell me how you exegete these verses?
December 13th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #103
TUAD’s “question fallacy”
While I often do not read TUAD’s comments, I see that in this thread TUAD has influenced Steve Drake and David C by a fallacy I see again and again in these threads. The fallacy is to treat every question as equally relevant to the discussion at hand.
In the present case, Steve Drake asks me a series of unmotivated and unexplained questions about, e.g., “regeneration,” “absolute truth,” and the supposed inerrancy of scripture. How these questions had any bearing on the discussion of the cognitive content of the word “fundamentalist” in popular usage was never quite explained. Contrast this with the one question I repeatedly asked Steve. After offering my suggestion about the cognitive content of “fundamentalist,” Steve flatly denied my suggestion. The one question I then repeatedly asked of Steve was simply this: “Why do you deny it? What are your reasons?”
Just as there are distinctions to be made in the relevancy of questions, so too there is a distinction to be made in what can be plausibly inferred from someone’s refusal to answer a question. So, when Steve repeatedly refuses to give any reason for his strong and repeated denials of my basic claim, one can plausibly infer that Steve is simply being evasive (in the case at hand, we do not unreasonably infer that Steve has committed himself to a position that he cannot in fact justify). One would not, on the other hand, be able to infer evasiveness if the refused question were not so obviously relevant and central to the claims at hand (if, for example, my question for Steve was about his views on regeneration, the details of his childhood, or the state of his marriage).
In this thread, TUAD, Steve Drake, and David C. all fail to appreciate these rather basic distinctions. Since it’s a failure I see here repeatedly, I’ll call this error “TUAD’s question fallacy.”
December 13th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #104
Pastor C.,
Wow, I’m being lumped in with you and TUAD. Isn’t that something? Is this C. Ehrlich’s version of ‘guilt by association’?
I think we need some kind of collusion here to figure out our story, or something. We shan’t be commended and approved until we satisfy C.Ehrlich’s ‘justification for posting’ process. Since he’s the sole arbiter of intellectual honesty or dishonesty on this site, we’ve got to get our act together, man!
TUAD,
You live in infamy, brother. ‘TUAD’s question fallacy’ is now the defacto fallback position for anyone who disagrees with you. Stand strong, brother.
December 13th, 2010 | 11:49 am | #105
Does Steve Drake deny that some questions can be more relevant to a discussion than others? If not, what are his reasons for his flamboyant protest?
December 13th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #106
Steve,
Yes I saw that move. I guess “fundamentalists” of a feather flock together or some such. ;)
I find myself rather bemused by the C. Ehrlich charge that I never answered his charge that fundamentalism is accurately described by his precious definition. I believe that I have answered with objections (and source citations) seven ways from Sunday in support of my view that the contemporary definition of fundamentalism (and the C. Ehrlich variant) is inapt, overbroad, theologically inaccurate, and historically incoherent… but none of that is deemed “relevant”.
So, I decline to play this whack a mole guessing game any further with C Ehrlich…if that makes me a fundy then so be it. I will strive to put the fun in fundamentalism…
Be well all.
December 13th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #107
One good honor deserves another. I bestow upon C. Ehrlich the following honor:
“The C. Ehrlich Haughty Whine Maneuver.”
It basically goes like this:
“No one may answer my relevant question with an even more relevant question. Moreso, no one may question the presuppositions underlying my question. Only I may deem what is relevant, what is germane, and what are the key distinctions. Furthermore, only I may deem who is being evasive while I may never be deemed evasive. You must answer my questions while I reserve the right to either not answer your questions OR to not answer your questions to your satisfaction. Never forget: I am C. Ehrlich.”
Welcome to the consequences of the C. Ehrlich Whine Maneuver. You are evading while he is not. You don’t know what’s relevant and he does. If you think you do, then he whines that you are committing the “TUAD question fallacy.”
C. Ehrlich is an example of the self-righteous whiny Pharasaic hypocrisy of the Liberal Fundamentalist. Poor baby.
To wit, let’s take a re-look at comment #30 and beyond between Steve Drake and C. Ehrlich:
C. Ehrlich: “Steve, my own view is that one ought to have a fair amount of willingness to modulate one’s views and commitments according to new discoveries and changing circumstances. Refusing to make any such concessions is not only a mark of being unreasonable, it can also be an obstruction to acknowledging truths.”
Steve Drake: “I can appreciate the above comment, but I guess my question for you is really this; does the truth of God’s Word change according to new discoveries and changing circumstances regarding the fundamentals of the Christian faith? …
I guess that’s what I’m trying to discover here with Mr. Ehrlich; whether one’s ‘regenerate’ or ‘unregenerate’ starting point makes a difference. Whether God’s self-revelation in Scripture is the basis for ‘absolute truth’ or not?”
Steve Drake’s questions are “more relevant” than C. Ehrlich’s questions. But once the “C. Ehrlich Haughty Whine Maneuver” is employed, they’re not.
December 13th, 2010 | 2:34 pm | #108
In David C’s case, I think we may be seeing an unfortunate consequence of the negative connotation of the term “fundamentalist.” While David rejects the idea that the popular current usage of “fundamentalist” has “cognitive content,” he refuses to explore the possibilities. It seems that, having once been called a fundamentalist, David C is unable even to consider the possibility that the term may be anything more than a sort of cuss word. While we can certainly sympathize with David, I think we must admit that it’s a regrettable hindrance to honest discussion about the sense of the word as popularly used.
Consider, after all, the responses David C. made to my suggestion that
David C’s objections to this suggestion represent a variety of ways of misunderstanding the suggestion. Half the time David C. seems to suppose that it is a thesis about the historical origins of the term, apparently confusing the word’s etymology with its contemporary usage. Other times David C. seems to be thinking that I have offered sufficient conditions for the term’s use, rather than an initial suggestion of some of its cognitive content (as if, as an objection to the claim that a grapefruit is a citrus, David C. were to point out that a lemon is also a citrus). Most unfortunate of all is the fact that David C. is apparently incapable of exploring what others might mean in calling him a fundamentalist. For those sharing David’s situation, I’d like to challenge you just as I challenged him:
December 13th, 2010 | 3:15 pm | #109
Goodness gracious man. Let. It. Go.
I have been called a fundamentalist (a few times in 20 years) by certain (liberal pastor) folk in my denomination when I have opposed, on Scriptural and moral grounds, a pet issue for which they were advocating. The term has usually been directed at me as shorthand for “shut up I explained”.
In one particular case the speaker, in a towering rage, said “don’t listen to him, he speaks from the perspective of an ignorant Biblicist fundamentalism that is, literally, not worth contemplating for a single second.” Maybe you can find no insuilt and plenty of cognitive content in that C. Ehrlich, but I could not. The kind of “group the speaker was associating me with” were people he disagreed with and felt were unworthy of even being listened to…
December 13th, 2010 | 5:44 pm | #110
I don’t think I understand this sense of the term. Perhaps it would help if you could tell us how “shut up I explained” could replace the term “fundamentalist” in a couple of example sentence.
As for your being called an “ignorant fundamentalist,” my question is what the term “fundamentalist” adds to your being called “ignorant.” I don’t know how you can conclude that the term “fundamentalist” contributes nothing. After all, even if a disproportionate number of fundamentalists happen to be relatively ignorant (I suppose they do tend to be less educated, at least) this doesn’t mean that it is redundant to call a fundamentalist ignorant. Moreover, just because an ignorant fundamentalist isn’t someone worth listening too (especially concerning matters about which he is ignorant!), this doesn’t imply that fundamentalist as such are always “unworthy of being listened to.”
In short, you are being far too hasty here in drawing a conclusion that may be, for obvious reasons, attractive to you.
December 13th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #111
done here… enjoy yourself, nobody else will….
December 14th, 2010 | 12:03 am | #112
Steve, thanks for your response. I hope all is great with you.
I believe that the Bible, as rich a source as it undoubtably is, for things spiritual, was never meant to be a scientific tract. If it was, it would be much, much bigger!:)
Certainly, most Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., accept that, in order to know astronomy, for example,one must study the stars, gravitation, the revolution of planets, etc. If someone asked, what causes the revolution of the earth around the sun? The proper response would be, gravitation. Why should evolutionary biology be any different? That is, if one asked what was the causes of the origin, and diversification of animal, and plant species, one would respond, evolution. If there’s no theological problems with the first question, regarding astronomy, why the second?
In other words, one might respond to the astronomy question with, wait a minute, where is gravitation, as a cause for planetary revolution, found in the Bible? I never hear this, though. But wouldn’t, for consistency, one ask it, if one believes that the Bible provides answers to scientific questions? Why exclusively single out evolution?
After all, one could argue, that gravitation explains away God. It doesn’t, but one could argue for it. Similarly, one could argue for the view that evolution explains away God. But it doesn’t. Again, it goes back to the essential distinction between primary and secondary causes.
Clearly, in Genesis, one sees a sequence, of first plant, and then animal, and finally human creation. This is congruent with what evolution says. The latter says, first plants, then animals, then humans, evolved. Whether this is conincidental, or a clue, from the Bible, that evolution should be accepted, I don’t know. but it’s a piece, of evidence to show the Bible’s congruence, with evolution. But, as I said, I believe that it’s a mistake to interpret the bible, as constituting a list of scientific discoveries. It was never intended for that, in my view.
Steve, do you believe that science is discovered by emiricism, and experiment, or by desiphering passages from the bible, or both? Also, how do you think god created the species? why can’t evolution be His way of creating?
Thanks, and take care, Bret
December 14th, 2010 | 10:44 am | #113
Bret,
The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook, yes, agreed, but you can’t use this rather lame excuse to dismiss when the Bible does speak on issues of science, especially as it relates to origins. One cannot simply dismiss the exegesis of the text either. One has to deal with the text. I think this is where your argument is weak, Bret, you don’t want to deal with the nitty gritty of Genesis 1 and it’s exegesis. Your responses to me, and I say this with all brotherly love, have not shown me any support Scripturally that God used evolution as His method of creation. I’m looking for you to use ‘actual’ Scripture verses, especially the verses in Genesis 1, and give me your exegesis. That you haven’t done this, shows that you know your argument for evolution is weak from a Scriptural standpoint. We can talk about the alleged scientific evidence until we are both blue in the face, but as Christians, we have God’s Word, His self-revelation, His self-attesting eyewitness to how He did it and for what purpose. Everything else in Scripture flows from this, all the great doctrines of the Christian faith find their start in these early chapters of Genesis. So as a man of God, saved from destruction by the power of the risen Lord, to carry any intellectual weight, Bret, to honor Christ as Savior, we must deal with the text of Genesis 1. We must be able to tie in history, the Creation, man’s story, and why it matters within a comprehensive system, not just from how we think or our own arbitrariness, but within the revealed and spoken Word of God.
To answer your question, you are conflating two words: empiricism, and experiment. They are not the same. What is your definition of empiricism, in it’s historical context please?
How did God create the species? ‘Species’ is a modern taxonomic word only developed within the last couple hundred years. We cannot imprint our word ‘species’ on the Biblical text. But what does Scripture say, that God created them after their ‘kind’ (Hebrew ‘min’). ‘Kind’ and ‘species’ are not the same word or same thing.
Why can’t evolution be God’s way of creating? Let me allow David Hull, non-Christian philosopher of science to speak:
“The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a darwinian version of evolution implies…The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror…Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray” (Nature 352:485-86, Aug. 8, 1991).
December 14th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #114
Steve, thank you, for your thoughtful response.
I agree with you, that the Bible does not address evolution. But it doesn’t address gravitation, quantum theory, the function of the heart, the formation of helium from hydrogen, in the cores of stars, etc., but no one, to my knowledge, disputes that these things are real discoveries of science.
I believe that God has His own reasons, that may transcend our ability to scrutinize, effectively, indeed, considering that He transcends us, in every way, I would be suprised if this was not so. Therefore, what appears to us, to be a purposeless, wasteful process, from God’s standpoint, may not be these things at all. Therefore, I find the quote, that you provided, by David Hull, to be completely non persuasive. It’s full of judgments, that are strikingly similar to atheists, who claim that, evolution, shows God cannot exist. Such as, why would God choose to create such a “wasteful” process. Stephen Jay Gould, the late agnostic, Harvard biologist, argued that our bodies would have been built differently, if a God purposely made them. How does he know what God would do? How does Hull know God wouln’t use evolution, to create life? Also, life is, frankly, full of “waste pain and horror”, regardless of whether evolution is true, or not. Smallpox, the plague, animals eating each other, humans killing each other. One could argue (I wouldn’t) that God is not loving because of all of these things I listed, that no one would dispute are bad. They cannot, obviously, be laid at the feet of evolution. Hull has every right to his opinion, but all of the things he’s listed, already exist, whether one believes in evolution, or not.
Certainly, one has to properly define empiricism. and I did a poor job of doing so. Philosophically, it arose with Aristotle, in ancient greece. He rightly concluded, that our knowledge of the world, is ultimately derived from our senses (empirical, is greek, for sense experience). He never really, developed an experimental approach, from this, I believe it’s fair to say.
Modern science (science, latin for knowledge) arose, in an inchoatic form, in the seventeenth century, as a result of the philosophical approach of the british empiricist Locke’s, views, as well as the ratonalist view (that knowledge has its basis in self evident axioms, and the deductions derived from them) from Descartes, etc. Science, is, to put it simplictically, a synthesis, of the rationalist,and empirical approach to reality.
This immensely scetchy, highly (to put it mildly!!) simplistic nutshell of science, can hardly do any justice to the sophistication, that’s inherent to the scientific method.
But the idea, generally, and simplistically, is that we start with mant observations,(empiricism) form a conclusion (an induction, such as all lions, observed, eat meat) then try and devise an experiment, to test this hypothesis (such as feed only plants to lions, and see if they survive, a cruel experiment, by the way, that I would never advocate).
December 14th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #115
If I could, also, evolution looks purposeless, and random from our standpoint, but from God’s standpoint, as Francis Collins has stated, being outside of space and time, it’s entirely different. We all know, obviously, if we see merely the tail of a lion (you can tell, I’m fond of lions, they are one of my favorite animals) and conclude the essence of the lion, without seing the whole body of the lion, we’re going to have a very distorted view, of what a lion is. the same with trying to decipher, evolution.
take care, talk with you soon.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:03 pm | #116
Bret,
“But it doesn’t address gravitation, quantum theory, the function of the heart, the formation of helium from hydrogen, in the cores of stars, etc., but no one, to my knowledge, disputes that these things are real discoveries of science.”
These are all experimental, observational, testable, repeatable, falsifiable elements of the scientific method. They have nothing to do with the GTE (General Theory of Evolution). The Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer says ‘modern science’ couldn’t even have gotten off the ground without Christian presuppositions of the uniformity of nature, the existence of a ‘real’ universe, the nature of ‘objective truth’. It was Christians or deists such as Boyle, Descartes, Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Galilei, Jenner, Lister, Pasteur, Simpson, operating within a Christian milieu that understood that a God of order created an orderly universe, and that it was possible to think God’s thoughts after Him and to study the works of nature in the same way they studied their Bible.
Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreous Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford, has written several books on this topic, well worth checking out: ‘The Bible, Protestantism, and the rise of natural science’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001), and ‘The Fall of man and the foundations of science’ (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
December 14th, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #117
Bret,
You discount Hull’s analysis of evolution as incredible waste, death, pain, horror. Here’s one from Jacques Monod:
“The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution” (The Secret of Life, ABC interview, Australia, 1976).
December 14th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #118
Steve, thanks for your intelligent comments.
I certainly agree, with Schaeffer, that Christianity played an important role in science emerging, for the reasons you, and he states.
But I think an essential distinction, must be made between evolution, as a componant,of what the legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson, calls “philosophical naturalism”, which I do not endorse, at all, and evolution as a humble theory of biology, which I do endorse. The latter, is accepted by nearly all biologists, Christian and nonchristian alike. that’s not an argument, of course, but it may explain something. Certainly, like any scientific theory, evolution may be revised, or superceded, completely, by subsequent scientific discoveries, so it should never be considered a dogma.
And, there are atheistic scientists out there, who claim, wrongly, that evolution is completely random, in the sense that, humans were a complete accident, and if we were able to have evolution (how they know this remains a mystery) “done over”, humans would never have emerged. These are metaphysical claims, that have no empirical support whatsoever.
Evolution has nothing to say about how IT came about, and any scientist claiming that God is unnecessary, is not talking as a scientist, but as an atheist, and can be safely ignored, completely, in my view.
Thanks for the info, on the book, it looks interesting. Tlk with you, soon. Take care!
December 14th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #119
Steve: Jacques Monod, is an atheist, as far as I know. That’s his interpretation. It seems to commit him to moral relativism. I doubt that he really believes that murder, cheating etc., are not objective wrongs. He kind of paints himself into a corner, on that one. His view, is his view, and does not represent the consensus.Every national sceince association, as far as I’m aware, considers evolution to NOT be intrinsically incompatable with religious views. And if there really is an intrinsic incompatibality, btween Christianity and evolution, one would expect no intelligent Christian to believe it. Francis Collins,M.D., Ph.D, believes it, just to give one example. He’s an evangelical Christian.
December 15th, 2010 | 9:28 am | #120
Bret,
“Francis Collins,M.D., Ph.D, believes it, just to give one example. He’s an evangelical Christian.”
We’ve had this discussion about Francis Collins and BioLogos before, haven’t we? You obviously agree with Collins and his promotion of evolution as God’s method of creation. I seriously question whether one as a Christian who believes in evolution is allowing Scripture to be his judge, or whether he himself is judging Scripture. Thinking himself ‘rational’, able to come to right conclusions about the world around him, he as C.S. Lewis so aptly describes, “puts God in the dock”.
I think the real issue here Bret is the authority of Scripture. If the Word of God cannot speak accurately, to inform and commend, to teach and correct, to train up in righteousness, then what kind of God do we really worship? If God can’t speak truly, then what does that say about God?
December 15th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #121
Bret,
Also, you said:
“And if there really is an intrinsic incompatibality, btween Christianity and evolution, one would expect no intelligent Christian to believe it.”
There’s a fallacy in here Bret, can you see it?
Blessings, brother.
December 16th, 2010 | 12:05 am | #122
Steve, regarding your comments, 121, my point was/is Francis Collins, is a brilliant man, no one disputes that. He’s a devout Christian, and accepts evolution. Due to his education, he would clearly have no problem distinguishing whether or not evolution is compatible with Christianity, or not. And, since he accepts both, he apparantly, sees no imcompatibility. Of course, he could be wrong. But I just don’t think he is.
you’re right, Steve, it’s a fallacy, if one claims it’s necessarily true. I didn’t mean to imply that. I meant only, that it could be evidence in favor of evolution and Christianity being congruent. Clearly, there may be all kinds of reason why highly educated Christians accept evolution, apart from their compatibility.
The bible says nothing about evolution, either for, or against. It talks of God creating the heavens and the earth, and all life. It doesn’t say how, this is done. Why not through natural selection? There’s only a problem with compatibility, if one assumes that natural selection, and other aspects of evolution did it by themselves. If one accepts the later, then I would agree, that there would be a real compatibility issue. But I’m not claiming that. Life did not arise, and start adapting by itself. This latter notion is incoherent. But God could have created through evolution, the bible never states how God created, so it could have occurred this way.
Thanks Steve, and Blessings, to you, too.
December 16th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #123
Bret,
We can deceive ourselves all the time. Self-deception is insidious. How do we counter our ability to be self-deceived? As Christians, we go to the Word of God, the self-attesting, revelatory, authoritative, and Spirit inspired words of God Himself. Many problems arise because we don’t know what the Word of God says, haven’t taken the time to delve deeply into the text, and want to impose our own autonomous views on this inscripurated revelation from God to us as finite creatures. We forget that He is the Creator and we are the creature.
You said:
“The bible says nothing about evolution, either for, or against. It talks of God creating the heavens and the earth, and all life. It doesn’t say how, this is done. Why not through natural selection? ”
It does say how, my friend, it says on the first day God did X, on the second day he did Y, on the third day he did Z, on the fourth day he did XX, the fifth day YY, the sixth day ZZ, and on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Your failure to deal with the text in any of our discussions is alarming to me brother. I’m challenging you, as a Christian brother, to support your arguments from the text. I can only conclude that you are trying to hide something in failing to do this.
As to ‘natural selection’, no creation scientist denies that natural selection operates today and was not in operation since God finished His six days of creating, or since at least from the Fall. Evolutionists want to build a straw man and claim that creation scientists deny natural selection. They want to claim this as their own IP, but it was a creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth, (1810-1873) who was writing about this in the first place, years before Darwin and Wallace were developing their ideas on biological evolution.
Natural selection is a ‘culling’ force, selecting from what is available, and cannot create anything new. It acts by removing genes (of the unfit) from a population. To ask why God couldn’t have created through natural selection is to not understand what natural selection does or doesn’t do.
The real ‘scientific’ problem to evolution, Bret, laying aside the exegetical and theological ones at the moment, is not about whether change occurs over time, nor about the size of the change, nor whether natural selection happens or not. It’s really about the ‘type’ of change required. To accept the GTE (General Theory of Evolution), to accept the particles to people belief system, requires changes that increase the genetic ‘information’ content.
So you’re not saying that all of this happened by itself, but that God directed it. I understand that. But is this a reasonable defense?
I fear that you face a cognitive dissonance to reconcile the doctrine of the Fall, the Curse, the sin-death causality, and the ‘goodness’ of God’s character with a theistic evolutionary position. These are theological problems that even secular evolutionists see, as I have tried to demonstrate with my quotes from Hull and Monod above.