The Central Questions - Part 1

(This is a repost from a few years back.)

The central questions

In my 54 years on earth, I have had only two significant challenges to my faith.  It occurs to me that both of those challenges focused on the same basic questions, perhaps the central questions that all human beings have to ask.

This will sound a bit odd, but those two challenges were evolution and Calvinism. (More)

The Central Questions - Part 2

Evolution, built on a foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism asserts that what we experience now, including corruption, suffering and death, have been the norm from the beginning of life on the planet.   Death is not an enemy, but is instead part of the engine of progress toward higher life forms. It is necessary for the weak to die so that the strong can prosper.

In it's atheist form, there is no purpose at all to this pattern.  Life arose, but it could have failed to arise.   Creatures that survive are "better"  only in the sense that they were better equipped to survive.

In it's theistic form, God may have devised a universe that made life possible and may in some hidden sense be the energy behind the laws of nature, but the "survival of the fittest" reality is nevertheless the overarching fact of existence.   Death cannot be an enemy if it is a necessary component in the development of more complex life forms.

So why do we suffer?   Because suffering and pain are evolutionary developments that aid our survival, a notion that is brutal if there is no purpose in existence and perhaps far worse if this was "God's method of creation".

In either case the traditional "free will" explanation for the origin of evil and suffering cannot be maintained.   Evil and suffering are part of the fabric of reality from the beginning and by design.   

The Baltimore Catechism On Origins

One of the many false canards used by Theistic Evolutionists to dismiss Young Earth Creationism and is the idea that belief in a literal Adam is something of a novelty.  We are told, over and over, that Ancient Near Eastern thought doesn't really care about science or history the way we moderns think about those things.  All that really matters is the narrative and the theological ideas behind the stories.

We are told Augustine's "Literal Meaning of Genesis" cautions against pitting the Bible against science, for if we are wrong about the science it will discredit faith.   We are told many of the church fathers allegorized the early chapters of Genesis.

Ultimately, the whole science/faith divide boils down to a few misguided fundamentalists creating a false dichotomy between science and faith.  (more)

Things I Don't Believe

Creeds, declarations, manifestos have been written about many, many things and are usually a positive affirmation of what someone believes.   I think about beliefs when politicians are asked gotcha questions about hot button topics and no question gets more ridicule than suggesting one rejects Darwinism.  

I think it would be wise, when asked about origins, if politicians turned the question around and stated things in a negative way.  

So, if you will, the anti-creed - a statement of things I DO NOT believe.

Biologos and the Invisible Hand of God

Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.

Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)

First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.

Steven Meyer Gets in a Word at Biologos

I've not been a fan of the website Biologos. Since Deborah Haarsma took over the site it has been a bit less strident in relegating all creationists and ID advocates as anti-science rubes.

Steven Meyer's second major ID book Darwin's Doubt got a fair amount of attention at the site, Several different contributors provided reviews of the book, starting here. Meyer was given opportunity to respond here.

It was a reasonably civil exchange and Meyer thanked the contributors for that. His take on the whole of the discussion is telling. " I—and many others—have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological."

Naturalist Claim: Global Flood Explains the Cambrian Explosion

Interesting article at Evolution News.

Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt raises questions about how a vast array of life forms and body plans for those life forms could arise during the Cambrian explosion.  Critics of the book apparently mostly trashed it without engaging it, but Casey Luskin makes note of some attempts to deal with the specific question raised.

Here's the gist of a significant problem:  (more)

Misquoting Augustine, Revisited

A number of months ago I posted several times on the misuse of Augustine by Theistic evolutionists.   The gist of the posts, here, here and here, was that Augustine's "Literal Meaning Of Genesis", often quoted in a way that implies Augustine would have approved of reading Genesis 1-11 in a non-historical manner.  I countered with extensive quotations from City of God that showed Augustine was very insistent that Genesis was true history, and more specifically, that if there is an allegorical meaning or spiritual meaning, that always is parellel to and not in opposition to the historical.

Australian Creationist organization Creation.com is one Young Earth Creation site that I frequent, along with certain ID and Theistic Evolution sites to keep myself up to speed on things. 

This article profiles Professor Benno Zuiddam who teaches theology at North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.  He essentially makes the same point, that yes, some early church fathers believe there was an allegorical meaning in the Old Testament, but that allegorical meaning did not negate the historical truth of the events. 

C.S. Lewis on Scientism

I recently finished reading The Magician's Twin subtitled "C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society".   The book is edited by John G West.  It is a good read and it was fun to reengage with Professor Lewis' ideas once again. 

A few internet articles have made a bit of a point about Lewis' views of Darwin or Intelligent Design, but the central theme of The Magician's Twin is really not Lewis' view of Darwinism.  At the heart of the book is Lewis' view of scientism, his distrust of an overconfidence in the value of natural science to lead us to ultimate truth about the universe.  And more to the point, Lewis feared the manipulation of science by those in power.  (More)

A Concise Statement of a Familiar Point

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God presents a new twist on an old objection to Darwinist views of origins.  Hunter's point is that there is an a priori assumption inherent to the mindset of most Darwinists that can logically prevent them from seeking truth.  Key paragraph is near the top.

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priori restriction of the answer might exclude the true answer.

The last line is worth repeating.  ANY a priori restriction of the answer logically may exclude the true answer.   (Read More)

The Lie

It is said by Evolutionary Creation advocates that if Young Earth Creationism is true, then God “lied” by making the universe appear old. In fact the “appearance of age” is one explanation some YEC use to explain the apparent age of the universe. The argument YEC makes is that if God were to create a tree, instantaneously, and someone came along moments later, the someone may have no idea the tree was only seconds old, for a “created” tree would appear to be mature. The same logic would apply for the land masses, earth and the universe itself.

But to evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, this explanation imputes to God a “lie”, that he would have left clues in the universe that make it appear to be old when it is not, deceiving…well, scientists primarily… who want to assume the age of something very old can be determined by examining its properties.

It is not my purpose here to defend a particular age for the cosmos. As a conservative Christian, I am not committed to a particular age of the most distant star, or of the necessity of a precise 24 hour day in the creation of planets or land masses, but I am committed to the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin as recorded in the Genesis account. What concerns me here is logic, for this is a curious and horribly inconsistent charge made by EC advocates against YEC.

If find it stunning that EC advocates suggest that

A) God “LIED” if the universe is young when it appears to be old,

B) But there is apparently nothing deceitful about an “inspired” text that indicates absolutely nothing about the alleged irrefutable truth of common descent!

The utter absurdity of that inconsistency ought to be enough to cause any serious reader of scripture to doubt whether EC is the least bit honest with the text of scripture.

What is the greater lie?

Is it the lie latent in a subtle set of clues allegedly buried in inferences made by a few highly specialized technicians; conclusions measured in the long slow decay of radio-isotopes or measurements of the speed of light, each revealed only through sophisticated scientific methods based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of the physical universe?

Or is the greater lie laid out in common human language in story form which explicitly and repeatedly claims that human beings are descended from a single pair whose rebellion is the cause of all death and suffering?

It is often asserted by these sophisticated academics that God revealed the Genesis story to earlier pre-scientific peoples because they would not have been sophisticated enough to comprehend common descent. Really?

Were the men who lived in the age that built the pyramids really so incapable of higher level thinking that a story of creation which simply suggested all living beings came from earlier creatures would have been incomprehensible to them? Is it more credible that instead God reveals to them a story that all humans descended from a single pair?

The Fall of Man and the Rise of Science

Two Interesting reviews of a book by an Oxford guy. here and here.

The book is “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” and the Oxford guy is Peter Harrison.

I'm intrigued by the book, and will likely buy it, but I have to say I find this thesis vaguely familiar. Francis Schaeffer outlined a similar viewpoint decades ago.

There are a few distinctly Christian presuppositions about the universe that many argue were necessary for science as we know it to come into existence. The first is often cited and understood by Christians in the ID and Creationist camps. It is simply the idea that the universe is orderly and that our brains can apprehend that order.

Still Looking for Ken Miller's God

Published way back in 1999, Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwins God" was a major event in the Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design battles. A friend loaned me a copy and I finished it today. A few observations:

Miller has an absolute commitment to naturalism as essential to science. And he is opaque to that being a problem for many theists who believe in a God who is outside of nature. He writes: "Presented modestly and accurately, evolution is a simple scientific idea. It claims only that material causes, the laws of physics and chemistry as played out in living things, are sufficient to account for the history and complexity of life. If evolution is neither more nor less than this simple scientific idea, then why does it engender such hostility?" (167)

Theistic Evolutionists - With Friends Like These...

William Dembski has a depressing article at Uncommon Descent. He opens with the following:

In 1993, well-known apologist William Lane Craig debated professional atheist Frank Zindler concerning the existence of the Christian God. The debate was published as a video by Zondervan in 1996 and is readily available at YouTube. The consensus among theists and atheists is that Craig won the debate. Still, Zindler presented there a challenge worth revisiting:

"The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."

Theistic Inconsistency

I have been following the review of Steven Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell" at Jesus Creed and, while the conversation there has been frustrating and at times heated, I have come to one clear conclusion. I find that it is impossible to see intellectual consistency in belief in orthodox Christianity while holding to the standard secularist definition of "science".

If that sounds strong or harsh, hear me out.

Secular science as defined by Judge Overton, insists on a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That is, since science can only examine natural phenomena, one can leap to the conclusion that every detectable effect found in nature must therefore have a detectable natural cause, explainable by natural law alone. Any appeal to something other than nature, it is asserted, violates the definition of science (and is sufficient cause for ridicule, insult and questioning the worthiness of one’s PhD.) Theistic Evolutionists like Meyers’ reviewer, do not assert there is nothing beyond nature, only that science, by definition, must never appeal to something beyond nature.

But for anyone who accepts the New Testament as a description of real events, this is a huge problem. If one is an orthodox Christian, one must affirm the creedal statements regarding the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. Those are the rock bottom central assertions of Biblical Christianity, without which there is nothing left of historic Christianity. And those are events which are asserted as verifiable within the natural world, seen by eyewitnesses, but which by definition have no natural cause.

Misquoting Augustine Part 5

Having looked at Augustine’s view of Genesis from his “City of God”, it is clear Theistic Evolution advocates should not use Augustine’s “Literal Meaning of Genesis” to make that case because Augustine was fairly thoroughly committed to positions that are in direct opposition to their central premise.

I have my reasons for trusting the “plain meaning” of scripture where scripture seems to be plain, though I acknowledge not all in scripture is equally plain. There are many quotations from Augustine, Athanasius and others in the early church as well as the reformers, well prior to the “modernist/fundamentalist” controversy of the early 20^th century, that assert long held belief in the trustworthiness of scripture.

Having said that, I do not completely accept the Young Earth view in many details because I am not sure the text is entirely clear as to its meaning. I do not think the age of the earth is a critical issue and I think the length of a day in the creation week seems a fairly secondary concern, hardly central to the faith.

I am, however, sympathetic to the main concerns of YEC. Those concerns are

1) that the definition of science must not be limited to naturalism and

2) Christianity without the historical fall of Adam and Eve is more like a placebo than a medicine. I settle my own mind by focusing on a couple of key ideas.

Misquoting Augustine Part 4

Before I get to a personal conclusion regarding Genesis, a thought occurs to me in regard to the origins debate.

Is it possible that there is confusion in the muddled idea of science that exists in the public consciousness, a confusion that extends into the science academy, science classroom, the literature, about what the limits of science are?

Everyone agrees, whether naturalist, creationist, ID advocate or theistic evolutionist, that science rightly studies phenomena in the natural realm - physical objects, measurable forces, detectable energy - all in accordance with natural law. Where the problem lies is not with science. It is a straw man to say ID or creationism rejects science. What opponents of naturalism reject is not science but the inferences made as a result of certain assumptions.

Misquoting Augustine Part 3

In the previous two posts I looked briefly at Augustine’s “Literal Meaning of Genesis” and its use by theistic evolutionists to bolster their case for a fairly figurative reading of Genesis. It should be stated clearly that the main question we are asking is “what is the most natural interpretation of Genesis?” We ask this particularly in the context of how Augustine understood Genesis some 1400 years before Darwin.

The point put forward by some advocates of theistic evolution is that even prior to Darwin, Augustine allowed for a fairly open interpretation of Genesis and discouraged Christians untrained in the sciences from connecting Genesis to scientific explanations. If those connections were proved to be false by the advance of science, we are told, Christianity would be discredited.

Misquoting Augustine Part 2

In part 1 I took a look at a particular quotation from Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis (LMoG) used by theistic evolutionists to argue that it is unwise to read the Genesis creation account in a way that conflicts with current scientific consensus. Francis Collins' Biologos website makes Augustine appear to be a fairly prominent ally in a fairly flexible interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

While taken as a lone quotation, Augustine’s plea that “we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it” may indeed be a valid caution for all who seek to provide any scientific explanation for the fine details of Genesis 1. Theistic Evolutionists use this quote primarily as a rebuke to Young Earth Creationism, but often include in their sights the more “Old-Earth” views of folks like Hugh Ross and even the advocates of Intelligent Design who generally make no reference to Genesis at all. The goal of theistic evolutionists in quoting Augustine is primarily to convince Christians that Darwinism in toto is not incompatible with faith.

But those who quote Augustine in this way usually fail to mention Augustine’s views of the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the fall and the effects of the fall, which are far more central to a traditional position on questions of origins than the age of the earth or the precise mechanism of the initial creation of time, matter, space and energy. As we shall see later, Augustine would fully agree with a number of YEC views on topics pertaining to Genesis 3-11.

Misquoting Augustine Part 1

I am fascinated and often irritated with the mindset of many who support theistic evolution, the idea that God is somehow the force that drives naturalistic evolution. I do not believe science and scripture are incompatible but I do believe scientism and naturalism are incompatible with the supernatural theism that seems inextricably embedded in scripture. And there is the rub. Theistic evolutionists seem to accept, either implicitly or explicitly, a belief in naturalism. They accept, at least regarding origins, that there is a uniformity of natural causes and that all things related to origins can (and must) be explained in terms of natural processes we observe at present.

It seems to me that theistic evolution is a fool’s bargain where naturalism gets the whole farm and theism gets next to nothing in the wager. It also seems odd and exceedingly inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to state they believe in miraculous New Testament events like the resurrection and the virgin birth, but then limit discussions of origins to purely natural causes.

So I am particularly interested to read from various Theistic Evolutionists the assertion that Augustine’s small tract “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” provides an historical understanding of Genesis that supports a reading of the text in a way that is compatible with the whole gamut of modern Darwinian assertions including the common descent of man from lower life forms.

This view has been mentioned on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog by a fairly cordial scientist who goes by the blog handle RJS. It is a prominent link on the Biologos website founded by Francis Collins and is alluded to by Allister McGrath in a Christianity Today article from several months back. The suggestion is, in a nutshell, that Augustine, Aquinas, Origen and others allowed for a range of interpretations of the creation account, and Augustine in particular warned Christians not to pick a fight with science, because if our interpretation of Genesis is found to be in conflict with factual science, then our interpretation will discredit the faith. It is commonly asserted in this context that YEC views in particular are a recent and naïve development that grew out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 20^th century but are not a normative reading of Genesis. It is usually the case that Intelligent Design is presented as almost as wrongheaded as YEC.

If it is true that ancient interpreters read Genesis as an allegorical story, it is a point I would consider, because I do believe our interpretation of scripture should be influenced by the great exegetes of the past. So I took it upon myself to actually read Augustine. I dare say, I think he is being seriously misrepresented or at least selectively quoted.

In reading through his “Literal Interpretation of Genesis” it is clear Augustine is making a case for humility in the reading of the account of the creation of the cosmos. Point for their side. But never does Augustine deny the historicity of the events of the creation of the earth nor the creation and the fall of man. And far more of the YEC case is dependent on the latter than the former.

First, Augustine alerts us to the reality that the author of Genesis can use terms that can mean things in more than one sense. He asks, for example, if the phrase “heaven and earth” is a literal or figurative term? It needs to be stated that Augustine believed scripture can and should have more than one sense, particularly the Old Testament. There were literal historical events – one meaning found in the literal sense. In the Old Testament, there was clearly a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, so the Old Testament had a prophetic sense in addition to the literal. There is also a moral sense, the precepts that are suggested by the text. But Augustine did not suggest that the literal sense should be ignored or explained away. Prophetic and moral meanings exist in addition to the literal, not in spite of it.

Says Augustine: “…we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given.” All these senses are equally important to Augustine, not at the expense of the literal.

Augustine also clearly thought parts of Genesis 1 were beyond easy interpretation. This difficulty was a feature of the text itself, not a concession to outside influences. The text was simply ambiguous in some, though not all, matters. In chapter 2 of the Literal Meaning of Genesis (hereafter LMoG) he ponders the meaning of “light”, the idea of imperfection in that which is initially formed. In ch. 9 he ponders the very meaning of time and its relation to the initial creation of light and the words “Let there be…” In ch. 10 he wrestles with the question of light being in existence on a “day” when the sun had not yet been created. So he alerts us that there is a real hermeneutical puzzle inherent in the text in that “light” might mean visible light or it might mean something else, since the sun and stars did not exist at the first mention of light.

In ch 13 he suggests the basic form of earth may have existed before the first creation day, (which could allow for some forms of a “gap” theory, where the time between the initial creation in Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the account from 1:2 forward is open to discussion). 

“A further question, then, arises as to the time when God created these distinct forms and qualities of water and earth. No mention is made of this act in the six days. Hence let us suppose that God did this before any of the days began; for, before any mention of the first days...”

In all this, his modest point is simply that the intent of the author in the first few verses of Genesis is not precisely clear. There are difficulties within the text itself –seeming contradictions and unanswered questions. What is being described is something we have no real context from which to triangulate a precise meaning. And because the text itself is not easy to interpret, it may be unwise to tie the wording of the first few verses of Genesis to any scientific explanation of how specific early events of creation came to pass.

Hence the oft-quoted paragraph from McGrath, Collins, RJS:

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”

Augustine then adds:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Notice that Augustine says we should seek to conform our opinions to the scriptures rather than force the scriptures to conform to our understanding. Hmm. Sounds like Augustine is saying we should bow to the text – when its meaning is clear. He is also saying we should be cautious where scripture is unclear. But he is surely saying we should bow to the text.

But Collins and others mean by quoting the above two paragraphs that YEC advocates who attempt to find scientific support for a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 are making a mockery of the faith, because science has, in the view of Collins and RJS, proven beyond any question that the universe is very old and that all biological life descends from common ancestors. Their citing of Augustine is intended to lead questioning YEC believers away from the apparently indefensible pseudo-science of YEC (and ultimately ID) to their more enlightened view which is baptized naturalism and de facto Darwinism. They use Augustine to assert that it is quite permissible to read Genesis in a way that fully conforms with current Darwinian science.

But is that what Augustine meant to say? I think not. Part 2 will look at the quotes from LMoG that are conspicuously left out.