Gayle talks with Thomas Fowler about The Evolution Controversy, a book surveying the competing theories surrounding evolution. Fowler (ScD, George Washington University) is Senior Principal Engineer at the Center for Information Technology and Telecommunications at Noblis, formerly known as Mitretek Systems, a not-for-profit consulting firm working in the public interest in Falls Church, Virginia. He is also an adjunct professor at George Mason University and Christendom College. He has published over one hundred articles and reviews, and has translated two books. He is a member of several honorary fraternities including Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta Pi, and is a member of major scientific organizations including AAAS, IEEE, American Physical Society, and American Mathematical Society. Listen to part 1 and part 2 of Gayle’s discusison with Thomas Fowler to gain an unbiased understanding of the scientific issues involved in the evolution controversy. For further information, see the author’s website, http://www.evolutioncontroversy.net/.
PART ONE
Gayle Trotter: This is Gayle Trotter. Today I’m speaking with Thomas Fowler, author of The Evolution Controversy. Thank you for speaking with us today.
Thomas Fowler: Thank you for inviting me, Gayle.
GT: I’m very excited to talk to you about your book, and the topic is The Evolution Controversy. So why is evolution even controversial?
TF: It’s controversial for a number of reasons. First, within the scientific community there are a number of people who object to the theory. They feel that it, in its most popular form, Neo-Darwinism, has gone beyond the bounds of what it really should be able to explain. And outside of the scientific community, in the broader arena of society, you have a lot of people who feel that the theory of evolution has turned into some sort of surrogate religion, and therefore is intending to attack Christianity or other established religions.
GT: So why even write this book? Why do you apply a scientific overview to creationism – why dignify it this way?
TF: Well, the purpose of the book was to do what no other book has done to date, and that is to look at the evolution controversy and to examine the major schools of thought because all those schools of thought claim to have strictly scientific theories that can explain the observed facts. So, of course the Neo-Darwinian school has their theory, which is usually the one taught in schools. The Creationists have, over the last 50 years especially, developed what they claim are scientific theories that can explain the same set of facts. More recently, the Intelligent Design school and another school that we call the Meta-Darwinian school also have come forward with explanations. So the purpose of the book was to look at these major schools of thought with respect to their scientific theories, and every one of them claims to have a scientific theory to explain the observed facts. So our goal was to look at those theories, in an objective way, and report to the reader about exactly what each school says, and why they say it.
GT: Do you have a personal interest in this topic?
TF: Well, it’s one that’s been of interest to me ever since I was in high school. I guess I always had a somewhat uneasy feeling about evolution as a theory, especially compared to theories in physical science where you generally have a much closer relationship to experimental type of verification.
GT: And how many schools of thought do you go into in your book?
TF: Well, we just break the main explanations of evolution – or the facts, rather – into four schools, as I mentioned: The Neo-Darwinian school, which is the dominant school; the Creationist school, which is not dominant in the educational arena but is dominant in the broader cultural arena, at least in terms of allegiance; the Intelligent Design school, which is fairly small but growing; and the Meta-Darwinian school, which is also small but growing and is sometimes not clearly distinguished from the Neo-Darwinian school.
GT: Let’s start with Neo-Darwinism. What are the key tenets of this school of thought?
TF: It goes back to Darwin. The basic idea behind the school is that the nature and history of life forms can be explained by a fairly simple paradigm involving common descent from a single ancestor and then modifications, as it’s usually explained. And these modifications come about by random changes, in our current understanding, to genetic material caused by various factors, including maybe even cosmic rays, chemical effects, things like that. And the idea is that occasionally a random change will actually lead to an improvement in the organism, and over time these improvements can build up and lead to better organisms, maybe new species or higher-order taxa.
GT: And what kind of time frame are we talking about?
TF: This would require, of course, tens, hundreds of millions of years. This depends on how much change you want but the rate of change is very slow by this mechanism.
GT: And so can you explain to us a little bit about microevolution versus macroevolution?
TF: Yes, this is really the focus of the controversy. Contrary to popular belief, all the schools of thought accept the existence of natural selection, which is commonly identified with evolution but really isn’t. Natural selection is really just the mechanism by which certain organisms in a population are selected because they can survive better in a given environment. All schools of thought agree that this can occur, and it was well-known at least 25 years before Darwin. So natural selection is one factor; random mutation is a second factor, which is, just as I mentioned, the way in which supposedly new information gets incorporated into the genetic code. Now, microevolution says basically that you can have small changes in the distribution of characteristics of a population over time in response to environmental factors. For example, if you had … oh there was an experiment that was done, fraudulently as it turned out, but there was a famous experiment that was done in the past in which light and dark moths were released and the light moths survived better in certain trees where there was lighter bark and the dark moths survived better on the other trees where the bark was darker. So there’s a main example of what we call microevolution. No new information was involved, just the distribution of characteristics changed. You had more of one type than another. Macroevolution, on the other hand, claims that you can get substantial changes to the genetic material and thus to the physiological organization of organisms as a result of an accumulation of small changes. Now, the controversy centers around the fact – or the hypothesis – that microevolution and macroevolution are actually the same thing, just to a different degree. So the Neo-Darwinian school says that the small changes that you see through microevolution, which Darwin himself observed from looking at the selective breeding of animals, can lead over time to whole new species and whole new higher taxa.
GT: And what is their evidence for making that claim?
TF: Actually, there is not a lot of evidence for making that claim. It is an extrapolation from what can be observed. Darwin observed the action of breeders who could make dogs or other animals larger or smaller, but what happened of course in every one of those cases was that a point was reached where you couldn’t go any farther and either the animals wouldn’t get bigger or smaller or they would just die. And so this has been one of the key points in the evolution debate – that this type of microevolution always seems to have limitations beyond which you can’t go.
GT: And is this typical in science in general, that you would take certain evidence like microevolution and extrapolate to macroevolution, or is the idea that you keep testing it so that you can make that leap to the macroevolution?
TF: Science historically has gotten into a lot of trouble when it’s tried to do long-range extrapolation, but it is a natural tendency. Just to go to an example from physics: Newtonian physics, developed in the seventeenth century, more or less was based on a deterministic paradigm, and it was extrapolated from Newton’s ideas that ultimately the universe was composed of little particles, and if you knew the position and momentum of all these particles, at any given point and time, you could predict the whole future of the universe and retrodict the whole past of the universe. So this was enshrined in something called “Laplace’s demon” and so this was obviously a very long-range extrapolation from Newton, but it became the dominant way of thinking in science and so when quantum mechanics came along in the beginning of the twentieth century – in the first decades of the twentieth century – it became apparent that this paradigm had broken down and that you really couldn’t believe that anymore. It triggered a terrible reaction and a controversy within the scientific community that lasted really for about fifty years until it was returned back to experiment – Alain Aspect and his group in Paris finally did an experiment that showed the quantum mechanics people were right. But still it was an example of an extrapolation which is not really quite as long a range as the Neo-Darwinian school is doing.
GT: Well, you talk about that in the book, about a paradigm shift, and how that’s something in science where you can have the same set of facts, and it’s just how you look at it, and then once that changes, the conclusions you draw change, too, and I think that’s a good way to start talking about Creationism, and they see it as a paradigm shift, right?
TF: Yes, the situation in evolution, and it’s no different than in any other branch of science, is that we have a certain set of facts which are accessible to us right now. If you want to look at the fossil record you can go out and, if you want to spend time, dig into the ground and find fossils and you can assemble these fossils into records, you can associate the fossils with certain types of rock and then you can look at the physiology of organisms today and you can compare their structures with what you see in the fossils in the past. In other words, there are a lot of facts you can look at right now. So the Creationists say that we’re all looking at the same set of facts, but we see something different when we look at those facts.
GT: And who are the players in this area?
TF: The Creationist school – we call them a school, it’s a rather loose collection of people. You have a lot of people in the broad community who don’t know much about science but just simply are concerned with a certain literal interpretation of the Bible but within that group there’s a much smaller group of people who are concerned with developing solid – or at least what they think are solid – scientific theories based on a Creationist outlook that can explain the observed facts better than the Neo-Darwinian paradigm. And there’s several miniature, or small, schools in that area – you have the Institute for Creation Research in California, you have Answers in Genesis, which I believe is based in Tennessee, and then you have Walt Brown’s Center for Scientific Creationism which is in Phoenix. And those are the three major organizations that are really trying to do something along strictly scientific lines.
GT: So they’re wed to the six-day creation account in Genesis?
TF: Yes, they’re what we call the young-earth Creationists. There’s another group called the old-earth Creationists but they’re not really a big factor in the current evolution wars.
GT: And why do they care? What is animating them in their pursuit of this?
TF: Well, they come at it from the point of view that the Bible is really a reliable source of knowledge about everything, including the creation of the world. Their usual comment is, “Well, God was there when the world was created and you scientists weren’t, so He’s giving reliable testimony.” So that’s where they come from. They start from that but they do believe that the facts support the six-day or the young-earth, whether it’s six days or a longer period. They do believe that the facts actually support this time period for the world better than the other theories that are out there. Now this does cause some problems because of course the dating of the history of universe involves not just, of course, evolution but involves physics, astronomy, chemistry, and other disciplines.
GT: And how does their credibility rank with most Americans, or an average number of Americans?
TF: Well, the polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support the Creationist position and only a relatively small number, less than ten percent, believe in the Neo-Darwinian school.
GT: So are people who dispute the claims of Darwinian theory the type who, in Tina Fey’s phrase, think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church?
TF: Well, there probably are some people who are in that category. As I said, in the Creationist camp you have people of all stripes and many of them are really largely ignorant of science, so they don’t have straight in their mind what the facts are, what the general time frames are, and so forth. But there are people in that camp who are very serious and who do understand the issues and who do understand the facts and who do present at scientific conferences and things. So there are some who know what they’re talking about, let’s put it that way.
GT: So in the Intelligent Design camp, what animates them and what is their approach to the evolution controversy?
TF: They are also a bit spread out in terms of their beliefs but you have some people in that camp who are more or less approaching it from a religious standpoint and they tend to give the Intelligent Design camp… they caused it to be labeled as a branch of Creationism which it’s definitely not. On the other hand, you have people in that camp like David Berlinski who are really more or less agnostic types. So what really animates the people in that camp is they feel that the Neo-Darwinian theory has glossed too many scientific – strictly scientific – questions and that there are scientific issues with the Neo-Darwinian theory that need to be addressed if for no other reason than to put it on a solid scientific theory footing. And in my opinion – and this is my opinion – it’s this situation that’s caused so much consternation among biologists with respect to the Intelligent Design camp because in some ways the Intelligent Design people are telling the biologists that it’s necessary to do something that they should have been doing all along, which is to ask hard questions, like: Can the proposed mechanism for Neo-Darwinism – which is natural selection acting on random mutations – can that actually produce the kind of changes that are needed for the theory? If it can’t, the theory collapses. And I think at some level there are a lot of people in the Neo-Darwinian camp who are very afraid of that question.
GT: So that’s the main issue for the Neo-Darwinian camp and the main issue for the Creationist camp is the young age.
TF: The young-earth, yeah. There’s no question, of course, that if they can establish that the earth is young: 10,000 years, 20,000 – pick a number. Of course, evolution immediately collapses as a theory because it needs hundreds of millions or billions of years for it to work. On the other hand, that’s the big issue for the Creationists because you just take a backyard telescope and look at the sky and you can see galaxies and things out there which we know are hundreds of millions of light-years away; obviously it took that long for the light to get to us so how could the universe be 10,000 years old? So they also recognize that this is their make-or-break issue.
GT: So where do the Meta-Darwinists come in?
TF: Well, they’re a group of scientists who actually started before the Intelligent Design school. They share some of the same criticisms of Neo-Darwinism. They also believe that there are problems with Darwinian theory, especially with respect to the observed facts. The Meta-Darwinian school really started with Eldridge and Gould and their theory of punctuated equilibrium and they came out early on, saying: If you look at the fossil record it really doesn’t support Neo-Darwinian theory. Neo-Darwinian theory is really based on what we call phyletic gradualism, which means gradual changes in organisms leading to gradual formation of new higher taxa and eventually to phyla. And what the Meta-Darwinian school says is: This really isn’t what you see in the fossil record. You see stasis followed by change, and more stasis. You don’t see any of this gradualism. And they also note the Cambrian Explosion, which was a very short period of time during the Cambrian Period when all the major phyla – almost all but one – emerged almost simultaneously, which is not what should have happened according to phyletic gradualism theory.
GT: So they kind of get rid of the transitional form issue, through this punctuated equilibrium theory.
TF: Well, they claim that the transitional form issue is really a difficult problem for the Neo-Darwinians because the transitional forms, which should be there, and which Darwin said, back in 1860, should be found as we examine more and more fossils, basically were never found. Now, that said, the transitional form problem is well-recognized and there are a number of different explanations of it that you find, ranging from people saying that there are plenty of them out there, which doesn’t seem to be the case, to people who say that everything’s a transitional form, to other people who say, well, it’s just really not an issue. But nonetheless it is recognized and it is one of the reasons the Meta-Darwinian school was established.
GT: So the frieze above the main door of the National Cathedral is entitled, “Ex Nihilo,” depicting the account in Genesis of divine creation from nothing. Is punctuated equilibrium all that different from creation ex nihilo?
TF: Punctuated Equilibrium and the Meta-Darwinian school in general believes that some sort of scientific explanation of the history of life is possible. So it doesn’t really believe that we need any sort of external intervention, which is obviously a key part of Creationism and to some extent of Intelligent Design. It doesn’t believe that we need any sort of external intervention, and the issue of creation ex nihilo is an interesting one because it’s often confused in the minds of people. There’s a difference between creation of things, such as organisms coming out of primordial soup or whatever, versus the creation of being from nothing – that’s a whole different question. But in any case, the Meta-Darwinian school, the “punc eq” people, don’t believe that we need to rely on any sort of interventionism; they just think other mechanisms are needed than the ones that are in the Neo-Darwinian school.
GT: Well, thank you very much for laying out all the general overview of these four schools and this ends Part One, and we’ll come back for Part Two.
PART TWO
GT: This is Gayle Trotter. I’m speaking with Thomas Fowler about his book, The Evolution Controversy. In this second part of our discussion, we’re going to talk about the cultural issues surrounding the evolution controversy. Thank you so much, Tom, for speaking with us.
TF: Thank you, Gayle.
GT: Let’s talk about why evolution is so hot a topic.
TF: Evolution is a hot topic because as people on all sides of the controversy recognize, it has implications that go beyond strictly scientific theory. It has implications in the area of philosophy, in the area of theology, in the area of ethics and many other areas that affect our daily life in the way that perhaps theory about quantum mechanics does not.
GT: Right. Well, you in your book outline five areas that are hot topics of public policy issues. The first one is the question of who is the legitimate spokesman for science, and why is this a compelling issue for all sides of the debate?
TF: The reason is that science in our society has an enormous amount of prestige. Well-earned, I would say, because it’s the basis for our technological society and basis for medicine and a lot of other things. So, if some group, some school of thought on evolution, can claim it is the only legitimate spokesman for biology or evolution, then it’s sort of a bully pulpit. It can say: We’re the only ones who can say what science is so if you don’t believe what we believe, you’re just wrong. So that’s the reason that people argue about who should be saying what about science and who should have a right to speak about it and what they should be able to say.
GT: And what is your reaction to that, as a scientist?
TF: I think that that’s a legitimate point. Clearly in many areas nobody would dispute that a body like the National Science Foundation, for example, could talk about chemistry or most areas of physics or things like that. They’re just not that controversial and if anybody has any question about the periodic table, it’s pretty easy to demonstrate experimentally what is said there. Whereas with evolution, a lot of it is based on inference and extrapolation so it is more controversial. In addition, as I mentioned, it does have a direct impact on religion, ethics and morality and more aspects of society.
GT: The second big issue is one that concerns all walks of life is money, and research money, and being in D.C., we’re very familiar with the kind of behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on to try and funnel money into certain types of research. an you talk about how evolution is implicated in this?
TF: Yes, it sort of flows from the first topic. The complaint of the critics of evolution, especially among the Creationists and the Intelligent Design school, one of their big complaints is that when evolution is taught, you’re teaching not just the strictly scientific theory that explains observed facts, but also philosophical and essentially religious – or surrogate religious – theories are also being taught at the same time. So the question is, if this is true, since a lot of this research – publishing and so forth – is funded with public money, or at least in part with public money, then everybody else should get their share of the money or else you should refrain from talking about any sort of non-scientific questions. So the argument there runs along those lines. The evolutionists claim that they aren’t, but when you read a lot of the writings that you can find rather easily, you see that actually these other issues do come up all the time. And in fact, the National Science Foundation itself has published a couple editions of this booklet that looks at the relationship between science and religion in attempts to diffuse the whole issue. The only problem is, when I first saw that booklet I said, “Well, the National Science Foundation doesn’t actually have any expertise in theology so why are they writing about this?” and secondly, “Why are they doing it with public money?”
GT: Underscoring the whole point!
TF: Underscoring the whole point, right! So the issue is, in this society, where you have these rules about what you can and can’t do with public money, it’s an important question.
GT: So that’s a question that’s not going to go away.
TF: No, it’s not going to go away. And related to the first question, one group claims it’s the only spokesman, that they’re the only ones who should get any money and so forth and the other groups say: No, you either have to shut up or you have to give us money, too.
GT: Well, the third hot topic on the controversy with evolution is dissent about evolution being taught in the classroom and/or equal time for Creationist theories. Can you explain a little bit about that controversy?
TF: Of course, this goes back to the Scopes trial in the twenties and the question… it’s actually changed a lot since the days of the Scopes trial. In the Scopes trial, the question was: Could you teach evolution at all in the classroom? Now we’ve shifted 180 degrees to: Can you teach anything BUT evolution in the classroom? Well, there are two issues here. First, there’s the one that follows from the last one, which is, if evolution is really being taught as a surrogate religion, then you need to give equal time for other religions in the classroom is one issue. The other question – perhaps I think the more interesting question – is: Can you teach criticism of evolution theory in the classroom? Now this has been argued different ways in the courts, but what especially the Intelligent Design school claims is that there are actual problems – scientific problems – with the theory of evolution that have nothing to do with the questions of theology or philosophy or anything. Just straight scientific problems with the theory that the children should be taught about, because we teach about problems with astrophysics and other theories so there’s no reason why we shouldn’t teach about problems with evolution. So that’s the crux of the theories. To date, the courts have not been sympathetic to that, but the interesting thing is that it doesn’t really matter because in the age of the internet, the idea that you can suppress opposing views, especially when most of the people in the country don’t believe in the view that you’re trying to promote, the idea that you can suppress this is hopeless, and in fact, it backfires as a strategy as it largely has in this case.
GT: Well, your book is a great resource for the non-scientific mind because it goes through all four of the schools, and it has a very good primer on what even scientific theory is. And is it eight or ten things that you check each theory to see; falsifiability and all the different criteria, so it goes through that even for people like me who are not scientists. So if you have an interest in this area, this book can really explain the situation to you and it’s not taking sides. It’s not advancing any of these agendas. But at the end of the book, you do talk about your thoughts on all of this and, related to the children in the classroom, you have a good comment on how the Darwinists do not want the children to be exposed to the complications with their theories, but they do want, on these moral and ethical issues, for the kids to be questioning.
TF: Yes, well, that is one of the strange things. There’s a lot of strange things about evolution, and one of them is this idea that you can suppress any controversy about evolution with respect to purely scientific questions. You should never address that; never allow it to be addressed. Well, as you say, at the same time, you encourage the kids to think critically about history, about morality or ethics or whatever, and it just doesn’t work. And in the end, I think, a lot of the kids really aren’t buying it either, and they know there is something funny going on. Now, there are some in the Neo-Darwinian camp who are aware of this and who claim this is a wrong approach, that, you know, the best approach, and I agree, is to confront the opponents head-on. I often teach physics classes and if it were the case in my physics classes that half the class believed the moon was made of green cheese or anything like that… I mean, even if I thought the theory was ridiculous, I would say, “Well, you know, science exists in the context of society and all these students out there believe this, so I have to give my reasons why I think the moon isn’t made of green cheese.” Or if they believe that the sun went around the earth or any other theory, no matter how ridiculous I thought it was, I would have to take time out from the class and say, “A lot of people in the class believe this theory; here’s why I think they are wrong.”
GT: And just shutting down the discussion gives credence to the other side.
TF: Well, that’s exactly what happens. And that’s just exactly what actually does go on in the classrooms, and that’s well-documented. And the other issue that’s come up is – there was an article in The Wall Street Journal a little while back in which a professor at a large state university who teaches biology classes says that now in his classes he teaches evolution as a theory, simply because he knows that if he doesn’t, there are enough kids in the class who have learned from the internet, from the AiG and these other Creationist organizations, to ask certain questions that are very hard for him to answer. So one way or the other he ends up having to deal with this, so he just heads them off by just saying, “OK, we’re just going to teach evolution as a theory.”
GT: So the Creationists are being successful at some level.
TF: They are being successful because they have learned to use a means of communication outside of the classroom.
GT: So you’ve studied this intensely, over a period of years, and you’re very knowledgeable about this subject. What are your views on the overall controversy?
TF: I think it’s going to be very difficult for the Creationists to prove the short age of the universe that they need for their theories to work. On the other hand, I think the Intelligent Design people have raised some good points about the problem of whether or not the mechanisms that are proposed by Neo-Darwinism can actually succeed in explaining the facts that they need to explain. So I think that what needs to be done is that we need to work more along these lines of putting the theory in a testable form and proposing experiments that can be done. And this is true for some of the Creationist theories as well as some of the Neo-Darwinian theories. Let’s just have some sort of objective body that will say: Alright, your theory says this; we’ll just propose this experiment which will test your theory. And will do it. And while this would not be cheap, clearly the cultural issues involved here are huge, so I think it would be a worthwhile expenditure of the public’s money rather than just prolonging this controversy – which, by the way, unless something like that is done, is never going to go away because all sides in this dispute, to their own satisfaction at least, can explain all the facts that there are now, and there aren’t likely to be any dramatically different new facts in the future. So either we go on with this kind of odd situation of all the sides arguing with each other and never agreeing on anything, or we try to get together and come up with some hard experiments that will actually differentiate the schools. I don’t think that this is going to happen, frankly, because for it to happen, the Neo-Darwinian school would have to admit that the Creationists actually have some level of credibility, which they’ll never admit, and same thing with the Intelligent Design. Nevertheless though, that’s where I feel we are; that the evidence is not sufficient to prove anybody right and we need more. We need to do some more investigation.
GT: Well, it sounds like your conclusion is just applying the scientific method to this and not saying this is a verboten topic for anyone.
TF: That’s correct.
GT: Well, thank you so much for this Tom. I so enjoyed your book, and I hope all of our listeners will get a chance to pick up a copy and read it and join the discussion.
TF: Thank you, Gayle. It was a pleasure being with you.
January 11th, 2011 | 5:15 pm | #1
“And in my opinion – and this is my opinion – it’s this situation that’s caused so much consternation among biologists with respect to the Intelligent Design camp because in some ways the Intelligent Design people are telling the biologists that it’s necessary to do something that they should have been doing all along, which is to ask hard questions, like: Can the proposed mechanism for Neo-Darwinism – which is natural selection acting on random mutations – can that actually produce the kind of changes that are needed for the theory? If it can’t, the theory collapses. And I think at some level there are a lot of people in the Neo-Darwinian camp who are very afraid of that question.”
I share the same opinion as Dr. Fowler.
Also, I want to commend you highly and heartily for this exceptional interview Ms. Trotter!! It is wonderfully insightful.
Thank you so much!
January 12th, 2011 | 9:37 am | #2
Fascinating interview. So many interesting tidbits that are not often heard from the Neo-Darwinian or Meta-Darwinist camp.
Dr. Fowler said:
“For example, if you had … oh there was an experiment that was done, fraudulently as it turned out, but there was a famous experiment that was done in the past in which light and dark moths were released and the light moths survived better in certain trees where there was lighter bark and the dark moths survived better on the other trees where the bark was darker. So there’s a main example of what we call microevolution. No new information was involved, just the distribution of characteristics changed.”
As Senior Principal Engineer at the Center for “Information” (my quotes) and Telecommunications at Noblis it is interesting to me that Dr. Fowler did not really dwell on this aspect of ‘information’ except briefly in the quote above. Specifically, ‘information theory’ (random changes act mainly to degrade information), which I presume he might have some knowledge of. Or ‘bio-infomatics’, the study of biological information. The ‘origin’ of information is one of the questions I would have liked to seen discussed, which is an insurmountable problem for bacteria-to-biologists evolution, Neo or Meta Darwinian.
Overall, an insightful and thought-provoking analysis however.
January 12th, 2011 | 10:11 am | #3
Oversight. My post #2 above should read: ‘As Senior Principal Engineer at the Center for “Infomation” (my quotes) Technology and Telecommunications at Noblis…’
It’s also funny how the peppered moth experiment was used for decades as ‘proof’ of evolution (I’m sure many of you remember as I do learning this in school), and yet as Dr. Fowler admits, it was ‘fraudulent’, and added no new information as support for goo-to-you evolution.
January 12th, 2011 | 12:38 pm | #4
TUAD,
Where are all the detractors? Since this post by Ms. Trotter was posted at 5:00 PM yesterday, Jan. 11th, you and I are the only commentators? The silence is deafening.
January 12th, 2011 | 12:57 pm | #5
TUAD,
Where are all the detractors?
The first detractor that comes to mind is Bret Lythgoe. He’s an ardent evolutionist. I haven’t seen him post in awhile.
January 12th, 2011 | 3:39 pm | #6
Sorry I can’t help, Steve. I am a creationist, just an old earther rather than a young earther…
January 12th, 2011 | 5:16 pm | #7
Pastor C.,
Thank you dear friend. What did you think of Dr. Fowler’s comments in the interview above? I would be interested in hearing your take as well, as a pastor and theologian of how an old earth can be compatible with the sin-death causality of Adam and the ‘very good’ comments by God in Gen. 1:31 when you have time and feel inclined. Also, how you see Exodus 20:11 in relationship to an old earth. My request is genuine and serious, dear brother, and proctored in light of Prov. 27:17. Blessings.
January 12th, 2011 | 5:41 pm | #8
Steve,
Well, I found Dr. Fowler to be refreshingly honest and non-confrontational — as well as respectful to Creationists — which is unusual among the evolutionists. I take his courtesy and genuine openness to be a fruit of his faith, however, as opposed to being any sort of “adaptive mechanism” :).
As for the old earth vs young earth particulars, we’ve been down that road part of the way already and I am a bit swamped here… but I will ask why you think that an old earth cannot mean that God created the earth “very good” or how holding the idea an ancient earth effects the Adamic causality of sin/death?
January 12th, 2011 | 6:22 pm | #9
Pastor C.,
I, too, found his comments refreshingly honest and non-confrontational, although I’m not sure I’m convinced that he is an evolutionist. In Part 1 of the interview he says that he has always had an uneasy feeling about evolution as a theory, especially in light of the experimental type of verification he sees in the physical sciences. You may be right, however.
You said,
“but I will ask why you think that an old earth cannot mean that God created the earth “very good” or how holding the idea an ancient earth effects the Adamic causality of sin/death?”
Very coy, pastor, but these are my very questions to you. I’m looking for your theological understanding, as a pastor, as a seminarian, of how an old earth fits with ‘your’ understanding of the historic Christian position that Adam’s sin brought and initiated death. I’m speaking here of both physical and spiritual death, although I’m willing to accept your answer that you think this was only ‘spiritual’ death if that is indeed the case, or that this death only applied to Adam and Eve and their progeny, and not to the animal kingdom and the whole of creation.
In terms of ‘very good’ in Genesis 1:31 and the end of the sixth day of creation: “And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good…” and in relationship to an old earth where animals were living and dying prior to Adam and Eve’s arrival on the scene, does this say anything about God’s character?
What does ‘very good’ say about God’s character, if anything, if animals were carnivorously eating and preying upon one another, suffering in pain, disease, and bloodshed for millions of years? Did God create these animals along the lines of evolution (natural selection through mutations), did He step in at various intervals to create the kinds and they were fixed from that point, until Adam and Eve were created at the end of this time frame, at which point they were commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and Evil, subsequently disobeyed this commandment, and the rest, as they say, is history, or something else?
These are the type of questions, I guess, that I’m looking for your theological perspective on (as a pastor, seminarian, and theologian). Blessings my friend.
January 12th, 2011 | 6:34 pm | #10
Fabulous interview! Very illuminating, reasonable and persuasive — all of which is unique for this topic.
January 12th, 2011 | 6:47 pm | #11
@ Steve / David — Not sure that it matters to your issue, but we see “not good” before the Fall (Gen. 2.18).
January 12th, 2011 | 7:49 pm | #12
N.W. Clerk,
Thank you dear friend, but to equate Gen. 2:18, ‘it is not good for the man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him’, in describing God’s actions before creating Eve when the sixth day was not yet complete, with Gen. 1:31 in which God says at the end of the sixth day that ‘He saw all that He had made and behold it was very good’, misses the point completely. My question to Pastor C. was about God’s character, is He a good God?, if so, can we call God good if He allowed millions of years of animal death, bloodshed, disease, pain and suffering (which an old earth requires) before Adam and Eve were even on the scene and fell in sin? What did Adam’s sin produce? How does God’s curse in Gen. 3 have any bite if the world to which Adam came was already suffering under pain and suffering, death, disease, and bloodshed in the animal kingdom?
January 13th, 2011 | 2:43 am | #13
This was a very good interview. But one has to ask, why the vast majority of scientists, support the neodarwinian account? The best explanation is that, the evidence supports it. There’s simply no evidence, that’s credible, to support the notion that, each animal and plant species, was specially created, in its current form.
Also, Fowler’s point about seeing stars light years away, is a good one. To believe in a mere 6,0000 or 10,000 year old universe, is to discard, not only the plethora of geological evidence in favor of an old earth, but to discard the well established findings of physics, that light travels a 186,000 miles per second, and that star light, therefore, takes years to reach us, how many, depending on how far away the star is.
The evolution of life, and the age, (old age) of the universe, are evidence of God’s splendor, and beauty, why would one wish to believe in the restricted and paucity laden creationist account?
January 13th, 2011 | 10:10 am | #14
Dear Bret old friend,
Good to hear from you. My questions on another thread to you have still not been answered. Would you like to pick up where we left off?
January 13th, 2011 | 11:07 am | #15
Steve old friend,
First of all, let me say that if you detected any coyness in my remarks it was purely unintentional. I needed some clarification which you have now provided. Here are some brief (it’s my day off and I need to spend it in other pursuits) replies (I won’t call them answers per se, as I believe the question of origins has elements of mystery).
First, I see nothing in the Genesis origins account that compels me to posit anything so fanciful as a vegetarian tiger. The idea that the entire animal (and vegetal?) kingdom experienced no death strikes me as extra-Biblical and speculative at best. I have no trouble at all seeing nature as it operates now (the big fish eat the little ones etc.) as being much the way that God intended it. Has it been touched by sin? Yes, scripture tells me so, but the details of exactly how are imprecise in my mind. Though I definitely think that spiders and mosquitoes are a result of the fall. :)
Your assertion that an old earth requires “millions of years of animal death, bloodshed, disease, pain and suffering” and that these things are an obvious evil is to assert too much, in my view. I do believe that disease and suffering are likely results of the sinful corruption of nature in the fall. But not death, not pain. I believe that death has been present in the animal kingdom since creation. I believe that the capacity to experience pain is created by God for the good of His creatures. Imagine the horrors of a world in which no creature ever experienced pain. I believe that bloodshed is a word you threw in there for emotional effect– as most animals most of the time do not kill for sport (and when they do I would argue that that is again a corruption of the natural order).
Nothing in scripture teaches me that all the Created order was made to be eternal. That’s simply reading too much in, in my view. As for how I read Genesis 3 — specifically as it relates to sin and death? We are at least agreed that “in Adam, all sin” I think. Sinfulness enters the world through Adam. The death that results, I would argue, is primarily (though not solely) to be understood in spiritual terms. That is in terms of separation from God. After all, the commandment not to eat of the tree contains the following sanction “on the day you eat of it you shall surely die”. If physical death was the only (or even primary) referent here then God was not in fact telling the truth as Adma and Eve did not (physically) die. What they did experience immediately was spiritual death — alienation and separation from God and in fact from creation and one another.
And with that I must leave… my day calls.
January 13th, 2011 | 11:21 am | #16
But one has to ask, why the vast majority of scientists, support the neodarwinian account? The best explanation is that, the evidence supports it.
That’s the position of What Darwin Got Wrong? but the detractors are many. There are multiple models (mechanisms) and each says the other is wrong.
January 13th, 2011 | 11:48 am | #17
Pastor C.,
Thank you for your detailed response. Since your day calls I will only comment on one thing now, and reserve further comments until later. We know that ‘without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin’ (Heb.9:22). In Genesis 3:21 we infer that God Himself shed the blood of an animal as skins to clothe Adam and Eve as atonement for their sin; a picture of what Christ would do as the Lamb of God in shedding His blood for ‘our’ sins. Abel sacrificed of the firstlings of his flock and their fat portions in Gen. 4 and God had regard for his offering and not that of Cain who brought an offering of the fruit of the ground. The OT testimony of animal sacrifice as requirement to atone for sin is well supported, I think you would agree.
Is there any incongruity or contradiction between this picture of what God requires to atone for sin in terms of the shedding of blood: (His first example of what was required, Abel’s offering of the first of his flock, the subsequent OT commandments to shed the blood of animals), and the fact that carnivorous animals were already doing this to each other and the herbivores before Adam was on the scene and Fell?
January 13th, 2011 | 12:12 pm | #18
Pastor C.,
One other note here on my post above #17 that is interesting to me. Adam and Eve after sinning clothed themselves with fig leaves (Gen.3:7) covering their loins because they were naked. Their loss of innocence (a self-consciousness of their guilt) manifested itself in the shame of their nakedness. In an attempt to hide their guilt, they cover themselves with fig leaves. This ‘solution’ however was simply an ineffective attempt at self-atonement. Their fig-leaf coverings could not restore their innocence nor undo their rebellion. Notice then, as in my reference above to Gen. 3:21, that God’s ‘solution’ was animal skins and the shedding of blood as the proper means of atonement.
January 13th, 2011 | 12:43 pm | #19
Steve,
In Meredith Kline’s (a professor of mine in seminary) and other Reformed theologians system of understanding covenant theology, the sacrifice of the animals to clothe adam and eve does indeed prefigure the atonement. We agree as to the meaning of the leaves that our first parents used to cover their shame etc… But again, I don’t think that the shedding of blood must not have ever happened prior to that occasion in order for it to be a prefiguring of the atonement. Kline argues that God, in dealing with the Jews, often took common cultural practices familiar with them and imbued them with covenantal significance. For example, other cultures practiced circumcision prior to the Hebrews, God took that common practice and gave it holy significance….
Additionally, I think we can agree that the deliberate sacrifice of an animal (the shedding of its blood by a human or in this particular, God) is a qualitatively different act than one animal killing and consuming another for food.
Sorry for the rush job…
January 13th, 2011 | 2:50 pm | #20
I just want to say a few things about the comments posted here. First, in 20 minutes Gayle and I could only scratch the surface of the evolution controversy, so I did not have an opportunity to get into information theory and systems engineering questions regarding evolution–some of them are discussed in the book. Among the most fascinating questions is that of optimization theory as applied to biological evolution. But most importantly I’d like to point out that the evolution controversy often turns on the fact that words such as “evolution” have multiple meanings, and are frequently used with different meanings in the same sentence. When someone says, “I believe in evolution” or “I am an evollutionist”, the first thing you should do, as an intelligent inquirer, is to ask, “Precisely what do you mean by ‘evoliution’”? In fact there are three separate meanings of the term: (1) historical evolution, which just means that there has been a sequence of life forms over time. For non-Creationists, this is usually taken as a fairly well established fact, though it does involve some inferences. (2) common descent evolution. This is a partial explanation of (1), and means that later life forms are related to earlier ones. It does not specify any sort of mechanism (natural or divine), and requires a different set of evidence than that for (1)–an important point. Finally, there is (3) strong Darwinian evolution, which claims that (1) and (2) are true, and that the explanation of (2) is that natural selection together with random mutation can account for essentially all the change observed in the history of life. Clearly this requires a completely different set of evidence than (1) and (2), but regrettably (1) and (2) are often-and erroneously–used as evidence for (3), or worse, all three meanings are treated as synonymous. This is an important point of scientific explanation that is often confused, by people who should know better. But when ideology invades science, truth is the first casualty. Note also that one can accept (1) and (2) without being committed to accepting (3). Hope this helps!
January 13th, 2011 | 3:06 pm | #21
Mr. Fowler,
Thank you for your clarification and comments. I wonder if I might add yet another meaning to “evolution” that does not seem to be covered under your 3 (though I think you hit upon it in the interview). I say I believe in evolution and mean by that “species change over time through selection” — ie humans are getting taller. In other words I believe in micro evolution, but have severe doubts about macroevolution. Where does such an assertion fit in your paradigm? Or is it even germane in your view?
January 13th, 2011 | 4:43 pm | #22
Dr. Fowler,
Thank you for commenting and for your clarification of the term ‘evolution’. I also am pleased to hear you discuss information theory more fully in your book. I must consider now more weight in the possible purchase of your book to see what you have to say about it.
In terms of the definitions, how can one assert (1) historical evolution – sequence of life forms over time, and (2) common descent – later life forms are related to earlier ones but no specified mechanism, without being committed to (3) – that natural selection together with random mutations can account for all change observed in the history of life? Do I need to buy the book?
Do my questions above relate to the different schools and their originators/authors, Neo and Meta Darwinian that you refer to in the interview?
January 13th, 2011 | 4:45 pm | #23
Pastor C.,
So can I assume that you, as a creationist, (although you’re confusing me pastor in your post to Dr. Fowler where you say you believe in evolution), are of the Framework Hypothesis view that your old professor Dr. Kline adhered to?
January 13th, 2011 | 9:55 pm | #24
Steve,
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, yes. I believe that species may demonstrate change over time, through genetic mutation or through other selective processes — per the example I cited about human height. That is, I believe in intRAspecies change or what some call “microevolution” — the scientific evidence for which is overwhelming. At the same time time I believe the evidence is incomplete and to me unconvincing that there is such a process as intERspecies change or “macroevolution” (wherein one species evolves through time into another — or more accurately where multiple species are said to share a single common ancestor).
I did not cite Kline to give support to the Framework Hypothesis (though I am, frankly, sympathetic and open to that point of view), but rather to say that I agree with you in agreeing with the school of interpretation that says that the animal sacrifice to provide adam and eve with clothing is indeed a prefigurement of the OT sacrificial system, which points, of course, to the atonement of Christ.
Frankly the class I took with Kline covered what he called the “deuturonomic structure of the Pentateuch” and dealt extensively with oaths and “suzerainty treaties” — contemporary literary forms which Kline believes gave shape to the covenant…. pretty esoteric stuff. We did not deal with questions of origins or his understanding of the framework hypothesis…
More than anyone wanted to know I am sure about my graduate education (nearly 25 years ago)…
January 14th, 2011 | 2:25 am | #25
Hi Steve, good to hear from you, too! Sure, that would be great. I only reason I didn’t answer, from the other thread, was, I thought they had closed it.
January 14th, 2011 | 8:16 am | #26
Dr. Fowler,
I would love to interact with you further, off this thread. I am engaged in a project which might interest you.
And to further expand on your definition of evolution:
1. The bundle of Naturalism and its processes (what Plantinga calls N&E)
2. Speciation as a part of common descent
3. Speciation as a stand-alone process
4. Any genetic change (how wet scientists describe their lab work)
Likewise, the evolutionary models are several and conflicting:
1. Darwinian adaptationism (where adaptation forces genetic change, aka uniformitarian gradualism)
2. Neo-Darwinian genetics-driven change, with abrupt changes (includes Punctuated Equilibrium, which Dennett calls saltationism, but which is probably better termed “soft” saltationism)
3. Neo-Darwinian genetics-driven change, with slow changes (Dawkins’ phyletic gradualism)
4. Mayr’s synthesis, which attempted to merge the working components and eliminate the problematic.
There may be more. Each has its adherents and detractors. One only needs to read the scientific responses to What Darwin Got Wrong to see them.
January 14th, 2011 | 11:11 am | #27
Dr. Fowler,
Hope you’re still reading these posts, although I understand that you may have only wanted to comment once, and not engage in any debate here.
I’ve noticed a couple things from perusing your website and from the interview above that you may want to consider for further addition and clarification:
1) The excellent Creation Ministries International, http://www.creation.com, was not mentioned in your interview nor on the Bibliography page of your website in the same breath and manner as ICR, AnswersinGenesis. and the Creation Research Society. Was this an intentional or accidental oversight, as the organization has been in existence now for several years.
2) Dr. Werner Gitt’s work, “In the Beginning was Information”, (CLV, 1997), is also not listed as it relates to Information Theory on the Bibliography page of your website.
I understand you cannot have covered everything, but you may want to consider future updates to include these two excellent sources.
January 14th, 2011 | 12:02 pm | #28
Pastor C.,
No informed Neo, or Meta Darwinian or Creationist denies that species change over time, what you have labeled above ‘microevolution’. No one denies natural selection as an operating force in nature, and as the process by which we see this change, as well. However, natural selection cannot create anything new; only selecting from what is available. Demonstrating that natural selection occurs does not prove the transformation of species into other very different species, macroevolution, (although the use of the terms micro and macro evolution is another topic), as you have rightly questioned above. It is not the creative force that Darwin thought it was, never adding ‘new’ information, only working by removing genes (of the unfit) from the population, a culling force as you would. Dr. Fowler in the interview above has rightly indicated that this is indeed the ‘controversy’, saying:
“Now, the controversy centers around the fact – or the hypothesis – that microevolution and macroevolution are actually the same thing, just to a different degree. So the Neo-Darwinian school says that the small changes that you see through microevolution, which Darwin himself observed from looking at the selective breeding of animals, can lead over time to whole new species and whole new higher taxa.”
He continues:
“Actually, there is not a lot of evidence for making that claim. It is an extrapolation from what can be observed.”
So, I too, if calling myself a ‘creationist’ (and all the modern creationist organizations) agree that ‘microevolution’, or better, the action of natural selection on any given population to establish certain traits within that population to give it a more likely chance of surviving to reproduce, does indeed occur. But this does not make me an ‘evolutionist’, or even a ‘theistic evolutionist’. The adaptations through natural selection are not changes in the right direction as a ‘mechanism’ to drive particles-to-people macroevolution, which is really what we’re talking about here in terms of the Grand Theory of Evolution (GTE). (My GTE definition here may only be Fowler’s definition (3) above, or possibly (2) & (3) as he does not use this GTE term, but I can only assume at this point and wait for further clarification from him).
I would like to get back to my question above to you about the character of God, and how this relates to an old earth, specifically in terms of ‘the problem of evil’, both natural and moral, a Christian theodicy if you will, seeking to explain the ways of God to man expressly concerning the ‘origin’ of evil. More in a moment.
January 14th, 2011 | 12:58 pm | #29
Steve, we are agreed, substantially, on Creation,our shared understanding of “microevolution” etc. Our difference is to the age of the earth — a difference which I am not really prepared to argue at length. Not because I am shaky on the proposition, to the contrary I am rather convinced. However, and again, with respect, I would prefer not to wrangle over a question that I believe is, in the end, a secondary and ultimately irreconcilable (this side of glory) one.
In particular, I really don’t want to wrangle with you over the question of theodicy — one of the most difficult and bedeviling questions in all of Christian theology, not simply with regard to the age of the earth but in general. I am happy to consider how you relate the age of the earth to the goodness of God but know ahead of time that I am reserving the right to bow out rather quickly. Theodicy involves, to my mind (and not just to mine) a great amount of mystery and must be approached with a lot of humility and a willingness to surrender ultimately to the reality that God’s ways are not ours….
January 14th, 2011 | 4:30 pm | #30
Pastor C.,
Very well said and done, dear friend, but the question of theodicy and God’s character ‘directly’ relates to an old earth, and your attempts to avoid it in #29 above, says a lot, dear brother. :)
I can only assume that you ‘know’ it directly bears on the age of the earth, and yet you are not willing to defend your position, because in this sense it is a weak one. I am somewhat surprised that as a pastor, you are in many respects a ‘teacher’. A teacher of the Word of God, one who by training is able to exegete the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and yet you don’t want to ‘teach’ me and those of us reading these posts on the question of theodicy? What do you fear here, pastor? Can you not defend your beliefs and position, dear friend?
I hope that our conversations in this thread, have not been ‘wrangling’, and since our initial contact in this forum last year, I think we are speaking to one another in love as Christian brothers, sharing ideas, thoughts, positions, persuading if able, as this forum, I believe, was set up to do. In that light, I will try to keep my tone irenic, and lay out my position on an old earth and why it is a problem for Christian theodicy. I’m hoping that you will respond to my questions, persuade me of error, correct my doctrine, and teach of me right, as a fellow brother in the Lord and pastor.
With that, I will ask of you, if you assume an old earth, you must of necessity assume that natural disasters were occurring during the course of millions years as God was creating: huge asteroid impacts, massive floods that buried animals in mass graveyards, tsunamis, earthquakes, destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, massive volcanic eruptions like the Yellowstone super-volcano, devastating fires and destructive ice ages. During this time, whatever animals that lived during these millions of years, (all fishes, reptiles, birds, mammals) including the pre-Adamic hominids (A. afarensis, A. africanus, Homo-habilis, Homo-erectus, Neandertal, Cro-Magnon), were caught up and destroyed in many of these catastrophes, killed and buried. By any stretch of the imagination they died under conditions of horrible suffering and pain. The fossil record is replete with just such occurrences.
Is this the kind of God we worship, who while creating over millions of years, would allow such catastrophic conditions to occur to the very creatures He was creating? I mean think of it, while He was bringing some animals into existence, others were dying horribly through catastrophe that He was allowing. I thought we worshipped a ‘good’ God, a caring, tender, merciful, compassionate, loving, and just God, one who knows when the sparrow falls and cares for them (Matt: 10:29):
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.”
Can we truly uphold these attributes of God under such conditions?
January 14th, 2011 | 11:23 pm | #31
Dr. Fowler,
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said,”Not all science is created equal.” It is not uncommon to hear some scientist proclaim darwin’s theory on as firm a foundation as Maxwell’s or Einstein’s. David Berlinsky has remarked that no physicist would ever say his theory was on as firm a foundation as Darwin’s. Doesn’t this point to the fact that this whole field of evolution is more akin to history and should abide by those rules? After all, there are no experiments we can run on the actual process of evolution as it supposedly happened. It’s not like the science that produces airplanes and computers. The quality of the data is inherently less certain because the events in question are not repeatable
January 15th, 2011 | 8:36 pm | #32
I’m happy to make a few remarks on the interesting dialogue here. First, regarding Olaf’s post, let me say that this idea of declaring evolution to be exempt from the normal rules of science–viz. the need to make predictions and possibly suffer refutation–is an old gambit. But it is completely bankrupt. Many other scientific disciplines are in the same or worse condition with respect to time and experimentation. Take cosmology, for example. We can’t travel to distant stars and experiment on them, nor can we observe the universe over billions of years. But this has not stopped the cosmologists from making refutable predictions. As we point out in the book, the essence of prediction–and of science–is that you tell people to look somewhere they haven’t looked before, for something they haven’t seen before. That is what astrophysicists and geologists, for example do all the time–and they don’t ask for an historical exemption. So once and for all lets dump the idea that science can’t deal with the past or with non-repeatable events. Some of the issues in the evolution controversy– such as the Creationist claim that hydrodynamic sorting by the Genesis flood accounts for the stratification of the fossil record–could be tested experimentally. One part of the book that had to be cut for reasons of space was a proposal to form a board composed of members from all schools that would devise such experiments. Probably wishful thinking, though.
By the way I don’t recall the quote given from Berlinsky, and find it strange that he would make such a comment, since modern physics (despite some well-known problems) is verified to a very high degree whenever an airplane flies overhead, or you turn on your computer. This is not true of any level of evolution. Regarding Mr. Drake’s post, I am familiar with Werner Gitt’s work, and will add the references he suggests. Regarding Mr. Drake’s other posting, it is quite easy to believe in the first two definitions of evolution without believing in the third–this is just what the ID school does, namely, to argue that no naturalistic process can in fact create the new information necessary for evolution in the strong Darwinian sense. Many of the postings here drift into another aspect of evolution, namely its philosophical and theological interpretation. That is the subject of a second book that I am currently writing together with a professor from Yale University. But it is important to keep the strictly scientific questions separate from the interpretations! Thanks to all who have made this such an interesting exchange!
January 16th, 2011 | 8:24 am | #33
Thank you again Dr. Fowler for commenting. You said,
“But it is important to keep the strictly scientific questions separate from the interpretations!”
Why? Positivism is dead. Michael Polanyi has rightly observed that ‘science can never be more than a certain set of beliefs’. Beliefs are philosophical.
January 16th, 2011 | 8:35 am | #34
One other comment to my post #33 above. One’s philosophy then determines how one sets up to answer the scientific questions, what data will be acceptable and what will not.
January 16th, 2011 | 9:19 am | #35
Dr. Fowler,
One other interesting point about your post #32 above. I notice you still did not recognize the organization Creation Ministries International (CMI), http://www.creation.com. I’m wondering why?
January 17th, 2011 | 6:22 pm | #36
In this light, it is interesting to note that Jacques Monod, Nobel laureate and French biologist notes this:
‘ [Natural] selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms…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, 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, interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Commission, June 10, 1976).
Monod observes that biblical Christianity can’t be integrated with natural selection over millions of years with an old earth and still have a good and loving God. Such models accept the evolutionary and natural disaster history of death, disease, and extinction of billions of animals over millions of years. He notes that if God used this method to create, then modern society is more ethical than God.
January 17th, 2011 | 9:44 pm | #37
There seems to be some question about distinguishing between creationists and evolutionists. So what is a creationist?
If I say I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, does that make me a creationist?
Here’s what I’m willing to say at this point: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth.”
Period.
Am I a creationist, or not?
January 18th, 2011 | 8:24 am | #38
Craig,
There’s the rub isn’t it? And good for you, my friend, that you believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Most evangelicals would say that God is maker of heaven and earth, thus in some sense of the word, a ‘creationist’. But to ignore the exegetical and lexical understanding of Genesis 1, or Genesis 2, or Genesis 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8,9… and twist it to accommodate things that the Word of God is not saying, is seen by the skeptic as delusional and irrational. It’s self-deception of the highest order which Monod, and others have rightly pointed out. They are not deceived when they can naturally read our Scriptures and come to the conclusions that a God of catastrophic natural disasters, mass extinctions of billions of animals, predation, pain, and suffering that pre-dated Adam and Eve and the Fall into sin, makes God a cruel ogre. Why would anyone want to worship a God like that?
January 18th, 2011 | 9:24 am | #39
Dear Steve Drake: I see the point of what you (and Monod) are saying. However, it just seems to me that this means that God is the God of life and death. Which I already knew. So why should evolutionary history shake my faith?
January 18th, 2011 | 10:11 am | #40
Dear Craig,
Yes, but the key question, I think, is “when” did ‘death’, ‘disease’, ‘natural evil’, ‘suffering’, ‘extinctions’, ‘moral evil’, etc. enter the picture?
Historic Christian orthodoxy has always maintained that these things entered only at the Fall, and it has only been in the last 250 years or so since the rise of Hutton, Lyell and Darwin (and others) with their old earth and long ages that we in the evangelical community today are even having this discussion. We need to look at the ‘whole’ history of the church and our Judeo-Christian heritage.
To put ‘death’ before the Fall, to put all the catastrophic natural disasters (that in many cases wiped out billions of animals, and by inference some of the pre-Adamic hominids) before the Fall, speaks directly to God’s character and makes Him the author or Grand Allower of such things. If the created world (nature if you will) is a reflection of God’s glory, then the skeptics can rightly question what kind of God is this that would create in such a way or allow these cruel processes to destroy, maim, and kill those of His creation?
January 18th, 2011 | 1:55 pm | #41
“Historic Christian orthodoxy has always maintained that these things entered only at the Fall…”
Prove it.
January 18th, 2011 | 4:38 pm | #42
Orthodoxdj,
You prove that it isn’t my friend. We’ve been down this road before and all you can say is “prove” it? You’re the teacher of philosophy, aren’t you? Support your counterclaims then.
January 18th, 2011 | 5:33 pm | #43
Well, let’s put it this way: I will agree that “death entered” the world at the Fall of humanity. I do not think, however, that our agreement on that point means the same thing as: “There was no physical death at all [not even plant death?] before the Fall.”
Let me give an analogy. I believe that Jesus Christ has entered my heart and lives in me. But what in that context do “entered” and “in” mean? Is there some part of my body I can point to and say, “That’s where Jesus is–if you cut out that organ, Jesus leaves, too.” No, when I use the words “entered” and “in” I mean entered and lives in spiritually, not physically.
Death “entered” the world at the Fall. I am not sure that has to mean physical death “entered” at that point–although it could mean, partly, the consciousness of physical death, of our own mortality. (For example, I believe, but am not certain, that “awareness of mortality” is basically how the Eastern Orthodox view the Fall of humanity.) At any rate, I do not think “death entering” has to mean the beginnings of physical death.
January 18th, 2011 | 5:51 pm | #44
Dr. Fowler,
In rereading the transcript of your interview with Ms. Trotter, I must say, you’ve got to get your facts together man. This is absolutely deplorable. You said,
“And there’s several miniature, or small, schools in that area – you have the Institute for Creation Research in California, you have Answers in Genesis, which I believe is based in Tennessee, and then you have Walt Brown’s Center for Scientific Creationism which is in Phoenix. And those are the three major organizations that are really trying to do something along strictly scientific lines.”
I think it’s certainly evident of your biases that you use the term ‘miniature’, but then maybe correcting yourself you say ‘small’, concerning the Creationist ‘schools’ as you call them, but even this is eclipsed by your not even knowing where they are located. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is now headquartered in Dallas, TX and has been since 2009. Answers in Genesis is headquartered in Kentucky, not Tennessee, and has been for quite a number of years, and then in my post above, you completely omit any reference to Creation Ministries International (CMI) (now headquarterd in Atlanta, GA) which itself has been in existence for a number of years.
My, my, Dr. Fowler, please update your sources to protect your credibility if nothing else.
January 18th, 2011 | 5:59 pm | #45
I regard the following as equivalent, interchangeable, and synonymous:
“Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution”
“Grand Theory of Evolution”
“From Goo to You”
Atheistic evolutionists usually have an over-arching meta-narrative that includes philosophical naturalism and abiogenesis that colors their discussions and explanations of “evolution” so that has to addressed as well.
Suggestion:
Just say NO to “Evolution”.
A rousing NO to both Atheistic and Theistic Evolution.
January 18th, 2011 | 6:07 pm | #46
Dear Craig,
You’re not making any sense, brother. You’re trying to parse the meaning of ‘death’, without addressing my substantive claims to the character of God and a Christian Theodicy. I don’t follow.
January 18th, 2011 | 6:08 pm | #47
Steve,
I am going to leave aside what I take as the unnecessarily confrontational (my position is “weak”; I am “unwilling to defend” it; shy to “teach” on theodicy etc.) and condescending tone of your reply to me, because I don’t think you intend it that way, at least I hope not.
Let me first say that it seems to me you have avoided or perhaps misunderstood my statements all the way back in comment 15. In those comments I make or at least hint at the following observations that I believe to be true.
1) I see nothing in scripture that compels me to believe (or even hints) that ALL of living Creation (animal, vegetal, human) was made to live forever and that death entered the world only after the Fall.
2) Aside from the Scriptural/theological reasons for not believing this, there is an argument from design as well. There are clearly animals who are “designed” to be predators. Creatures such as sharks, tigers, etc are amazing, lethal, killing/eating “machines”. It us absurd (in my view) to posit a vegetarian tiger, or shark (to cite just two examples) and there really is no Scriptural reason to do so.
3) Thus to repeat, I believe that God designed nature this way from the beginning.
4)All the talk about animal suffering and death as some how objectively sinful and immoral lacks Scriptural evidence and support. When a big fish eats a little fish it is the fault of the first Adam? When a t-rex gets mired in a tar pit, that too is to be understood as the result of the Fall? No tar pits before the fall, no earthquakes, asteroids, tornadoes? None of that?
There are also some other questions that occur to me.
Do you believe that animals have souls?
Will there be animals in heaven?
How does moving animal suffering and death to after the Fall absolve God of the charge of “Grand Allower” now?
If God intends salvation (as we agree) to be the answer to the problem of sin — why are there no moral injunctions about animal welfare anywhere in the New Testament? If animals dying and killing and eating one another are only a result of the Fall then why isn’t there an orthopraxy of animal husbandry in the New Testament? Does the salvation accomplished by the second Adam thereby redeem the shark, the tiger? And how does the animal kingdom experience the in-breaking of the Kingdom?
As to your assertion that Young Earth Creationism understood in primarily scientific terms has been the only position of the church until Darwin, you are historically inaccurate. Differing schools of interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis date at least back to Augustine. In addition, orthodox dj has a point. Some source citations for the idea that there was no death whatsoever prior to the Fall being the predominant position of all Christians needs more support than mere assertion.
January 18th, 2011 | 6:27 pm | #48
Pastor C.,
Thank you for responding, dear friend. I applaud your efforts since my last post to you of Friday, January 14th. Forgive me pastor, I’m not trying to be confrontational here, but I can’t help to think that you’ve been ‘lurking’ for a few days. I will read and reread your post and respond appropriately in a moment.
January 18th, 2011 | 7:49 pm | #49
Pastor C.,
So many things, but I apologize, wife car troubles which I must respond to. I’ll respond appropriately tomorrow. Blessings.
January 18th, 2011 | 9:26 pm | #50
Steve,
If by lurking you mean checking this blog now and again for a moment to keep tabs on the conversation, why yes, I have been “lurking”. I have not, until this afternoon, however, had any time to really consider or respond.
You seem to find a problem with that for which I can’t really account nor understand. But no matter, I have a “real” life, as clearly do you…. I hope your wife is well and your car troubles easily solved. Respond at your leisure or not at all if you so wish…
pax christi vobiscum
January 19th, 2011 | 8:29 am | #51
“How does moving animal suffering and death to after the Fall absolve God of the charge of “Grand Allower” now?”
I was wondering that myself.
It seems to me that the questions of theodicy “before the Fall” are simply the questions of theodicy. Any theodicy offered now to defend God’s character would apply just as well to a “pre-Fall” theodicy, with one major exception: the question of moral evil. However, since this question of moral evil appears to apply only to humans, it would not seem to matter to the “pre-Fall” theodicy.
I am thinking of that great line from Blake’s “The Tyger”: “Did He who made the Lamb make thee?” If He did, does that fact make Him “cruel”?
January 19th, 2011 | 8:33 am | #52
By the way, in the original interview, this was stated:
“there was an experiment that was done, fraudulently as it turned out, but there was a famous experiment that was done in the past in which light and dark moths were released and the light moths survived better in certain trees where there was lighter bark and the dark moths survived better on the other trees where the bark was darker.”
Unless new information has arisen, this experiment’s results were not fraudulent. The researchers simply used death moths for their photographs (AFTER the experiment) because the dead moths were easier to keep still. :) But as far as I know, the actual experiment is not controversial.
I’d be glad for more info if anyone has it.
January 19th, 2011 | 8:48 am | #53
That’s supposed to be “dead moths,” not “death moths.” The Death Moths are obviously an alternative rock band of some type.
January 19th, 2011 | 11:28 am | #54
Pastor C.,
From post #15 and #47 above you said,
“1) I see nothing in scripture that compels me to believe (or even hints) that ALL of living Creation (animal, vegetal, human) was made to live forever and that death entered the world only after the Fall.”
I guess you must interpret and exegete passages such as Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21 (the whole chapter 15 referring to physical death, not just spiritual), Rom. 8:18-23, Rom. 6:23, 1 Cor. 15:56 differently than I do. This is one of our fundamental differences is it not, let alone how you exegete Gen. 1? If you are not saying that physical death came through Adam and only through Adam when he sinned, and that the Curse of Gen. 3 followed which affected the whole of creation (the ground, animals, men and women), then we are diametrically opposed on these key verses. We can go no further here.
You said,
“2) Aside from the Scriptural/theological reasons for not believing this, there is an argument from design as well. There are clearly animals who are “designed” to be predators. Creatures such as sharks, tigers, etc are amazing, lethal, killing/eating “machines”. It us absurd (in my view) to posit a vegetarian tiger, or shark (to cite just two examples) and there really is no Scriptural reason to do so.
3) Thus to repeat, I believe that God designed nature this way from the beginning.”
Failure to deal exegetically with Gen.1:29-30 leaves one open to calling a vegetarian tiger ‘fanciful’. Failure to deal exegetically with the companion commandment of God in Gen.9:3 when Noah came off the Ark, might also lend one to believe that carnivory was going on in God’s ‘very good’ creation. You can conceive of a virginal birth, a man rising from the dead, lepers healed instantly, sight restored instantly to the blind, men walking on water, and a host of other miraculous things, but you can’t conceive of a vegetarian tiger before the Fall? I’m sure you have your explanations, but I haven’t heard them yet.
You said,
“4)All the talk about animal suffering and death as some how objectively sinful and immoral lacks Scriptural evidence and support. When a big fish eats a little fish it is the fault of the first Adam? When a t-rex gets mired in a tar pit, that too is to be understood as the result of the Fall? No tar pits before the fall, no earthquakes, asteroids, tornadoes? None of that?”
Since you are not willing to exegete Gen. 1, and do not wish to defend or explain this chapter based on a linguistical and grammatical explanation of the text, you would necessarily come to the conclusion in 4) above. I will also note here that you have not answered my questions in #30 above about the attributes of God and a proper Christian Theodicy in terms of the natural evil that was occurring to the animals and pre-Adamic hominids during the millions of years that you believe God was creating.
You said,
“Do you believe that animals have souls?
Will there be animals in heaven?
How does moving animal suffering and death to after the Fall absolve God of the charge of “Grand Allower” now?”
See my comment above, failure to exegete Gen. 1, or Gen. 2, or Gen.3, upon the basis of the linguistical and grammatical features of the text itself, would lead you to ask this question. The proper answer (to both your and Craig’s question here) is that Adam’s “sin” is the determining factor, and that conditions pre-sin and post-sin are not the same. Pre-sin was a ‘very good’ world (Gen. 1:31). Post-sin was a corrupted world, subjected to futility, in slavery to corruption (Gen.3:14-24, Rom. 8:20-21). The suffering that exists today originated from man’s rebellion and God’s judgment, not from God’s creative goodness. Sin has stained God’s creation.
Do animals have souls and will there be animals in heaven, you tell me, what does Scripture say?
You said,
“If God intends salvation (as we agree) to be the answer to the problem of sin — why are there no moral injunctions about animal welfare anywhere in the New Testament? If animals dying and killing and eating one another are only a result of the Fall then why isn’t there an orthopraxy of animal husbandry in the New Testament?”
Why would there be? The requirements in the Old Testament concerning animals would be sufficient wouldn’t they? The concept of God’s care for all of creation including the animals begins with the dominion mandate in Gen. 1:26 as man is to be caretaker for the earth. God commands a Sabbath rest be given to a man’s animals (Ex. 23:12). He condemns men who are cruel to their animals (Prov.12:10). He cares for creatures in this fallen world (Psalms 104:14-16, & 27-28). Christ Himself speaks of God’s care for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:26-28).
You said,
“As to your assertion that Young Earth Creationism understood in primarily scientific terms has been the only position of the church until Darwin, you are historically inaccurate. Differing schools of interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis date at least back to Augustine. In addition, orthodox dj has a point. Some source citations for the idea that there was no death whatsoever prior to the Fall being the predominant position of all Christians needs more support than mere assertion.”
Well there you go. I’m historically inaccurate and yet you provide no ‘proof’. I’ll be as succinct as Orthodoxdj, ‘Prove it’. All you say is that an interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis has been in confusion since at least the time of Augustine? But that’s my point, isn’t it, there have been differing church fathers who have posited some variant views, but the majority consensus until the advent of modern uniformitarianism has been that Genesis 1 read in it’s natural setting indicates a recent creation and young earth.
Orthodoxdj, is a philosophy teacher, (by his own admission). I assume that this is at an institution of higher learning, although he could be teaching philosophy to high school students, I’m not sure, he hasn’t said. You don’t teach philosophy with a Bachelor’s Degree, so I assume he has at least a Master’s Degree, and possibly higher. Therewith he has much more evidential support for his position than I do, yet fails to use this support in his posts. We can throw around the charge of “Prove it” all day long and it wouldn’t lend itself to ‘open’ discussion, would it?
Thank you for your interaction pastor, please continue the dialog as you are able. Blessings.
January 19th, 2011 | 12:52 pm | #55
Steve,
Not really much we can say here is there? You say that I have failed to “exegete Genesis 1, 2, or 3″ as a reason for not really addressing my questions. What you seem to mean by that is “you don’t read Genesis the same way I do, so I don’t have to answer your questions based on your reading of the text”. Fine. But then there isn’t really anything left to talk about. We simply disagree.
I believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are not a scientific text primarily, but an apologetic one — explaining the ways of God to humankind and establishing God as Creator and Lord of all (and humans as creature and subject) in a context wherein there was thought by surrounding cultures to be “lords many and gods many”. A variant of the framework hypothesis, if you will.
As for the question of “death” coming through adam meaning primarily physical death, here we have a genuine exegetical difference. Genesis 2:17 says quite clearly “in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” You posit that any use of the word “day” means “24 hours” and that any use of the word “death” means physical death. Therefore Scripture is in fact mistaken and God a liar (and the serpent a truth-teller) when adam and eve consume of the tree and do not die in that day. Unless of course “death” and “day” have broader meanings than you are willing to consider.
I have not insisted that the term death cannot mean physical death, and thereby have no problem with 1Corinthians 15 which describes the nature of the resurrection ~for humans~ and is simply not concerned with any other creatures. The nature of the Corinthian heresy is two-fold: a proto-gnosticism (denying the goodness of the body) and a utilitarian libertine spirit. Both of these parties in the Corinthian church seem to be denying any sort of bodily resurrection and THAT is why Paul is arguing the resurrection with them. Not to teach them some sort of esoteric pantheology of death. When Paul says in 1Cor. 15:22 “as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” — he is clearly referring to all humans not all living things.
I could go on to address these other questions but I have a church to serve, sick people to visit, a sermon to complete, I am going to Nicaragua in ten days, and frankly, we are getting nowhere fast. It is an argument that simply will not be resolved this side of glory. If that puts me beyond the pale of orthodoxy in your eyes, than I can only smile and say that I am in good company — men like Origen, Augustine, Atahansius, Clement, Hilary, CS Lewis, Machen, Kline and many others.
I continue to believe that, like differences about the sacraments, differences over the age of the earth and understandings of how God creates should not divide me from those I would call brothers or sisters. The question always begins for me with Jesus’ “who do you say that I am?”
On that question at least I know we are agreed.
And with that I must bow out. I know that you will find my response inadequate and scattershot, but so be it. Please do not take this amiss, but I must steward my time and long discussions about origins, however interesting, don’t constitute the best use of it at the moment.
blessings to you and yours….
January 19th, 2011 | 7:01 pm | #56
Pastor C.,
You said,
“As for the question of “death” coming through adam meaning primarily physical death, here we have a genuine exegetical difference. Genesis 2:17 says quite clearly “in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” You posit that any use of the word “day” means “24 hours” and that any use of the word “death” means physical death. Therefore Scripture is in fact mistaken and God a liar (and the serpent a truth-teller) when adam and eve consume of the tree and do not die in that day. Unless of course “death” and “day” have broader meanings than you are willing to consider.”
Thanks. I meant to pick up on this point in my earlier post but forgot, and please tell me you’re not caricaturizing the ‘creationist’ position, here, right? You want to take a ‘wooden’ literal interpretation of ‘day’ in Gen. 2:17, but not in all of Gen. 1 where ‘yom’ is used? I’m surprised I’m even talking about this, because I think you’re informed enough to have read the creationist literature and/or to refer to your Brown, Driver, Briggs, or Keil and Delitzsch to see what the Hebrew says here. The word ‘yom’ in Gen. 2:17 has a preposition in front of it (be,upper case e), so would be ‘beyom’, a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’. (Beyom) is also used in Gen. 2:4: ‘…in the day that the LORD God made heaven and earth’. This however is not the case for any of the renderings of ‘yom’ in Gen.1 when referring to the six days of creation. (The preposition (be) is not used in Gen.1:5, 8,13,14,16,18,19,23,31).
By the way, I’ve never “posited that any use of the word ‘day’ means 24 hours”. You are simply mistaken here and I will ask that you point to any post in the First Things website where I have said this (or anywhere online for that matter). Are you building a straw man perhaps? I hope this is not the case, but that in error, you have ‘misstated’ my position.
In the case of Gen. 2:17 and God’s command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and his warning: ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’, I have already spoken above about the word ‘day’, in Hebrew with preposition (be), beyom, an idiom for ‘when’, so now I will address ‘shall surely die’. The Hebrew here is literally translated: dying you shall die. Of course they didn’t die immediately when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for that is not the meaning of ‘dying you shall die’, but thus began a ‘progressive’ death, the progression of death which resulted in Adam living to be 930 years and then ‘returning to dust’(Gen.3:19). ‘Death’, as an entity, was thus begun, both spiritually and physically. The sin-death causality was thus initiated.
This is why Paul can say in Rom.5:12,
‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin…’
It’s why Paul can say in 1 Cor. 15:21, ‘For since by a man came death…’, and in verse 56 ‘The sting of death is sin…’.
It’s why Paul can say in Rom.6:23, ‘The wages of sin is death…, and in 1 Cor.15:26, ‘The last enemy that will be abolished is death’.
It’s why the apostle John can say in Rev.20:14 at the consummation of all things that ‘Death …was thrown into the Lake of Fire’ (even if you take this metaphorically it has to refer to something actual or perceived in the mind, or why would it have significance?).
To posit ‘death’ before Adam and Eve were even on the scene in an old earth scenario undermines Paul’s statement that death is an ‘enemy’. One can rightly ask, ‘If death was part of God’s way of creating over millions of years, through natural selection and mutations, the transforming of one species into a totally other species, and if death was occurring through horrific natural disasters where animals and pre-Adamic hominids were dying in mass extinctions, then _why does_ Paul call it an ‘enemy’?
I realize you are a busy pastor, but you still find time to comment here on First Things on a fairly regular basis, so will not take your above as a final goodbye. With that, I will pray a blessing on your Nicaraguan trip, and that God would use you and your team to His magnificent glory. Blessings dear friend.
January 20th, 2011 | 1:02 am | #57
Steve,
Did not mean my statement to be any sort of final goodbye, just a desire to move beyond a conversation where we seem to have reached an impasse.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. We in fact agree that in “adam all die”. Where we disagree is the scope of that “all”. I take it to mean “all humankind” bears the stain and curse of adam’s fall which includes both physical death ~and~ spiritual death (eternal separation from God). You assert that death begins for all living things with adam’s fall (though I suspect you, like most YEC, include only sentient beings in this — plants died before the fall, correct?)
I believe that all of the passages you reference in the New Testament are discussions of human death and the remedy for it. Yes, death is the “enemy”….. of humankind. Paul’s discussion of it in Romans and 1Corinthians has to do primarily with death as both a physical end and a spiritual separation from God, and how both of those conditions are remedied for humans by Christ. He simply does not address the question of animals nor their fate. On that distinction our discussion founders. You believe that all death entered the world with adam’s fall, I believe that spiritual and physical death began for the human race with adam… and we’ll just have to leave it there.
I did find one thing that piqued my interest, however. I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that as a YEC you believe that the world was created in six 24 hours days. You seem to say that this is not in fact your position. I certainly had no intention of setting up a “straw man” so perhaps you could share your understanding of the word “day” in Genesis 1?
Thanks for your prayers for Nicaragua. I am looking forward to the trip. Blessings upon you and yours as well.
January 20th, 2011 | 11:17 am | #58
Pastor C.,
“like most YEC, include only sentient beings in this — plants died before the fall, correct?)”
Plants and fruits were given as food by God to both Adam and Eve : ‘and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life (nephesh chayah), I have given every green plant for food, and it was so’ (Gen:1:30).
For fidelity to Scripture’s sake and within the context of this first chapter of Genesis, we must break that statement down. Who are the ‘beasts’ of the earth? What is the ‘every thing’ that moves on the earth which has life referring to? What does it mean that God gives every green plant for food? And then ‘what is the why’ for God giving this injunction? We simply cannot gloss over this, right? We must try and understand what God is saying and doing here in light of His ‘very good’ completed creation (Gen.1:31). The ‘very good’ are God’s words, He Himself said it, He Himself calls his creation ‘very good’ (tov me’od). This is a strong indicator, especially in light of the other indicators and verses that I have mentioned, that the world originally had no death or disease, and that man and the animals had a vegetarian diet. An old earth puts the fossil record (with its natural disasters, cancer, gout, death) within this ‘very good’ world. We must deal with this, we must answer this question, give an exegesis and explanation. How does that call God ‘very good’? Or how does God call ‘very good’ a world of His own creation and by His own spoken Word where these things have occurred ‘before’ Adam and Eve and the Fall (Gen.3) and the Curse (Gen.3)?
It does no good to say that it was only perfect for what it was intended for, but not that there was no death or disease (by your own admission you say there was death and pain before Adam and Eve). The ‘very good’ was the culmination of creation week, where God had already pronounced things ‘good’ six times. How can things be ‘good’ and ‘very good’ where tremendous natural disasters are occurring killing billions of animals and pre-Adamic hominids, which suffered in pain in most cases? How can this be ‘good’ and ‘very good’ when the fossil record itself shows indications of disease (cancer, gout)? How can things be ‘good’ and ‘very good’ when the wolf pack hunts down the young little caribou chasing it for miles before wearing it out, pouncing on it, and tearing it to pieces while it is still alive? Is this really a reflection of an all-good God, a merciful God who created things thus? I don’t worship a God like that, and Scripture itself does not support it, or an old earth (you have yet to explain ‘from Scripture’, an exegesis of any verse that supports an old earth, starting with Gen.1). But I do have a consistent explanation from Scripture for why things are thus today.
You said,
“I did find one thing that piqued my interest, however. I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that as a YEC you believe that the world was created in six 24 hours days. You seem to say that this is not in fact your position. I certainly had no intention of setting up a “straw man” so perhaps you could share your understanding of the word “day” in Genesis 1?”
Genesis 1 in its natural setting and without any extrabiblical considerations, from the linguistical and grammatical understanding of the text itself speaks to six consecutive days of approximately 24 hours. The cardinal and ordinal numbers (one day, a second day, a third day, etc.), the phrase ‘evening and morning’ after each of those six days, the overwhelming preponderance of preterite Hebrew verbs indicating narrative prose, all lead to the indication that this was God in the first person describing His creative acts in six 24 hour days. I affirm this.
But my response about the word ‘day’ in post#56 above was to your question and reference to the word ‘day’ in Gen.2:17 (post#55): ‘in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die’, and your claim that I posit any use of the word day to be 24 hours only. I posited no such thing. I explained that this use of ‘day’ in Gen.2:17 has a preposition in front of it (be, the e an uppercase e)(pronounced ‘bay’ or ‘buh’)(not the equivalent of our English verb, ‘to be’), together with ‘yom’ would be ‘beyom’, not just ‘yom’, and that this was a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’. Like any language the word ‘day’ can have numerous meanings, (In my father’s day, as a salesman, he traveled across the U.S. all day, during the day), but context is the key. You understand that sentence because you realize I’m using the word ‘day’ in three different ways. This is true for any language, and yet your statement of wanting to say the word ‘day’ in Gen.2:17 be ‘restricted’ to 24 hours only, is an unwarranted expansion of the semantic field. It’s the same case with the use of the word ‘day’ in Gen.2:4: …’in the day that the Lord God made heaven and earth’. Beyom (Hebrew idiom for ‘when’) is used here in Gen.2:4 and not just yom. So again, to say that the word day in Gen.2:17 or Gen.2:4, be restricted to 24 hours only, is unwarranted. Beyom, not yom for these two verses mentioned, but beyom not used in describing the six consecutive days of Gen.1 (no ‘be’ in front of ‘yom’ as I explained in #56 above). We must be careful and clear about these distinctions in the Hebrew, shouldn’t we?
Blessings once again, dear friend.
January 27th, 2011 | 7:49 pm | #59
Hmm, quite a lot of exegetical certitude over quite a few matters about which Gen 1-2 says nothing. Where do you come out on infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism?
January 29th, 2011 | 8:45 am | #60
N.W. Clerk,
Just saw your comment today 1/29. Can you point to where your exegetical certitude is better?
January 29th, 2011 | 10:59 am | #61
N.W. Clerk,
As to Infra and supralapsarianism, this is really another issue is it not? Or how do you see this pertaining to the issues I described above?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact