I realize that I haven't posted anything for a number of months. Between work and family time, there isn't a whole lot of time during the week to do much studying on creationism and evolution topics. Therefore, it takes a while to address topics.
My latest endeavor has been to read a number of books by Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. For quite a while, I've been meaning to take a closer look at what they profess. The next seven blogs (below) are from a recent paper that I wrote and are an attempt to give a general overview of that very thing. As I mention in some of the footnotes, there are several topics, mostly theological in nature, that I intend to look at more closely in future blogs. In fact, some of these assertions I have seen used, not only by Hugh Ross, but also by some young earth creationists as well.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 1 of 7): Introduction
The Creationism of Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe - Overview
Explanations of observations in this world and their relationship to Scripture result in a wide variety of conclusions and assertions, both theological and scientific. It is important for those who have an interest in creationism to understand not only ”what” is said, but especially ”why” it is said. This is true whether one is reviewing material from old earth 1 creationist sources, young earth 2 creationist sources, or, for that matter, naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary 3 literature. For it is only then that the creationist is able to properly assess whether or not Scripture speaks about the issue.
This paper is the first in a series of articles on the creationism of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (hereafter, referred to as RTB). 4 This paper is meant to give the reader a broad overview of some of the more significant claims of Hugh Ross and RTB. 5 As we proceed, the reader should understand that, due to space limitations of this paper, many details will be omitted. The “hows” and “whys” will be left to future papers where we have room to deal with the particulars of some of his arguments more thoroughly.
The method of approach that I intend to follow for this series of papers has been outlined in my previous paper. 6 It is my intent to offer a distinctly confessional Lutheran assessment whenever applicable, as I believe that a distinctly confessional Lutheran approach is sorely lacking in the contemporary creationist movement. It is also my intent to strive, wherever possible, to keep Hugh Ross’ purely scientific assertions separate from his theological assertions, or, in the very least, to make this distinction obvious to the reader. I realize that his theological position can and does influence many of his scientific conclusions. However, in order to make appropriate Scriptural application, the creationist need always be aware of what has its foundation in Scripture and what does not. Those assertions which do not have foundation in Scripture may, therefore, be open to the application of Christian freedom. In such situations, individuals may in good conscience hold differing scientific opinions. Finally, it is my hope to portray Hugh Ross’ and RTB’s position accurately and in the proper context.
1 Generally, old earth creationism holds that God created the universe “over six long periods of time – ages or epochs that encompass thousands or millions of years” and is an attempt to harmonize assertions that the earth is scientifically measurably old with the creation account in Genesis. Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), 11.
2 Generally, young earth creationism holds that God created the universe some thousands of years ago. Many, therefore, conclude that the earth will be scientifically measurably young. It also requires the six days of creation to be 24 hour periods.
3 Generally, that the universe, earth and all life came to be by unguided, non-supernatural means over a long period of time.
4 http://www.reasons.org/ (last accessed April 7, 2011). Reasons To Believe was founded by Hugh Ross in 1986.
5 High Ross gives a more complete presentation of RTB’s position in the book, More Than A Theory: Revealing A Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009).
6 Patrick Winkler, Essential Tools of a Creationist. (last accessed April 3, 2011).
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 2 of 7): A Day
One of the more well-known characteristics of Hugh Ross and RTB’s position is the interpretation of “day” (Hebrew, yom). Whereas, “young universe Christians claim that the Bible can only [emphasis in the original] be interpreted as teaching that all creation took place in six consecutive 24-hour days about 10,000 years ago. Old-universe Christians say the text allows ample room, with no compromise of biblical inerrancy, for creation days of longer duration and even for a cosmic origin date of just over 10 billion years ago.” 7 Ross continues,
One of the evidences that RTB uses to show that “the universe cannot be very young [is] because most radioactive isotopes have decayed away.” 10 However, I would emphasize that just because there may be scientific evidence in favor of an old earth (or, as Don DeYoung describes, a mature 11 earth) does not necessitate a Scriptural interpretation of the Hebrew yom (“day”) longer than twenty-four hours. One reason for this is because the Bible does not present what God created as being inherently dependent upon when He created it. In other words, a creation that manifests age or maturity is not necessarily inconsistent with the biblical account of creation.
7 Ross, A Matter of Days, 18.
8 Hugh Ross, More Than A Theory: Revealing A Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 83. This point on the definition of yom (Hebrew, “day”) will be covered in detail in a future paper. Here, Ross refers to the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB), Gesenius’ Lexicons as well as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) definitions when making this statement. While it is true that the Hebrew word yom can denote different time durations in various Hebrew contexts, does not mean that all definitions of yom might be open to an arbitrary length of time when used in the opening chapters of Genesis. It is necessary to look at the context in which yom occurs to determine whether such usage indicates a 24-hour period.
9 “If the Genesis 1 creation days are long time periods, the Bible offers an explanation of the fossil record enigma. It tells why so much animal speciation occurred before the creation of humans and why virtually no animal speciation has occurred since: after God created Adam and Eve, He stopped creating new life-forms.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 129.
10 Ross, A Matter of Days, 157.
11 Don B. DeYoung, author of “Thousands…not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth” (Green Forest: Master Books, 2005) has some very pertinent comments on this subject. In an ICC (International Conference on Creationism) paper, he writes, “In the ‘mature’ or ‘fully functioning’ creation view, one can speculate on the extent to which ‘apparent age’ details were imbedded into the fabric of creation. Would it be deceptive to instantly create daughter elements which normally arise over a long time period from radioactive parent nuclei? There is no definite answer to this question, since the Creation is described as fully functioning. For all we know, created details such as isotope abundances might be essential to the integrity and stability of the universe. One can only conclude that a mature creation is consistent with biblical data.” Don B. DeYoung, Extinct Isotopes and the Age of the Earth, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), 337.
According to the Bible, God’s unlimited power meant he could have chosen any time scale, short or long, to perform his creative work (see Isa. 40-48). Concerning the six ‘days’ of creation, the Hebrew allows for more than one literal interpretation. In Genesis 1, the word translated ‘day,’ yom, could have any of four different definitions: (1) a portion of the daylight hours, (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period.8Such a view, according to Ross, also offers a means by which the fossil record might be explained. 9
One of the evidences that RTB uses to show that “the universe cannot be very young [is] because most radioactive isotopes have decayed away.” 10 However, I would emphasize that just because there may be scientific evidence in favor of an old earth (or, as Don DeYoung describes, a mature 11 earth) does not necessitate a Scriptural interpretation of the Hebrew yom (“day”) longer than twenty-four hours. One reason for this is because the Bible does not present what God created as being inherently dependent upon when He created it. In other words, a creation that manifests age or maturity is not necessarily inconsistent with the biblical account of creation.
7 Ross, A Matter of Days, 18.
8 Hugh Ross, More Than A Theory: Revealing A Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 83. This point on the definition of yom (Hebrew, “day”) will be covered in detail in a future paper. Here, Ross refers to the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB), Gesenius’ Lexicons as well as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) definitions when making this statement. While it is true that the Hebrew word yom can denote different time durations in various Hebrew contexts, does not mean that all definitions of yom might be open to an arbitrary length of time when used in the opening chapters of Genesis. It is necessary to look at the context in which yom occurs to determine whether such usage indicates a 24-hour period.
9 “If the Genesis 1 creation days are long time periods, the Bible offers an explanation of the fossil record enigma. It tells why so much animal speciation occurred before the creation of humans and why virtually no animal speciation has occurred since: after God created Adam and Eve, He stopped creating new life-forms.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 129.
10 Ross, A Matter of Days, 157.
11 Don B. DeYoung, author of “Thousands…not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth” (Green Forest: Master Books, 2005) has some very pertinent comments on this subject. In an ICC (International Conference on Creationism) paper, he writes, “In the ‘mature’ or ‘fully functioning’ creation view, one can speculate on the extent to which ‘apparent age’ details were imbedded into the fabric of creation. Would it be deceptive to instantly create daughter elements which normally arise over a long time period from radioactive parent nuclei? There is no definite answer to this question, since the Creation is described as fully functioning. For all we know, created details such as isotope abundances might be essential to the integrity and stability of the universe. One can only conclude that a mature creation is consistent with biblical data.” Don B. DeYoung, Extinct Isotopes and the Age of the Earth, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), 337.
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 3 of 7): Basis of the RTB biblical creation model
In addition to a day-age interpretation of yom, there are other factors which RTB uses to construct their biblical creation model. One of these is that “the Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation” because “the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree.” 12 On this point, Ross adds, “there can be no contradiction between what He has made and what He has spoken through the inspired writers of Scripture. The testimony of both will always agree.” 13 “No contradictions exist between the established record of nature and a plain reading of the biblical creation texts.” 14 Referencing Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20, “The Bible...declares that the record of nature is reliable and understandable.” 15
Ross, an astronomer and physicist by education as well as by profession, accepts an age of the universe in the billions of years. 16 Therefore, he concludes, God must have supernaturally created the universe at the Big Bang some billions of years ago and supernaturally intervened at various times since. Ross says that if the universe’s age is younger than that, it would create a logical disconnect between the real age of the cosmos versus its apparent age. 17 Also, Ross says, a deceptive appearance of age would violate God’s own stated character and purpose. 18
Ross continues, “Advocates of the appearance-of-age view typically hold what may be termed a ‘biblicist’ perspective – belief that the Bible is the only reliable truth source about any subject” (i.e., from astronomy to zoology). “Biblicists claim the Bible must be interpreted ‘literally’ (by which they mean concretely), even if that interpretation contradicts observable facts of nature. . . . Biblicism has sometimes been confused with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, according to which the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all subjects it addresses.” 19
From my perspective, RTB’s subscription to Sola Scriptura (albeit from a theologically Reformed viewpoint) makes it understandable to also find that they subscribe to biblical inerrancy in the sixty-six books of the Bible20 as well as to the use of “sound exegetical techniques” and the “historical-grammatical method.” 21 RTB holds that its model remains consistent with the creation tenets of the Reformation confessional statements of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. 22 The tendency of RTB toward the rationalism of Reformed theology comes to light with the tendency to rationalize miraculous events,23 the inclination toward the reasonableness of the objects of faith, 24 as well as the tendency toward pre-millennialism. 25
12 In this context, Ross also states that “the Bible, therefore, has a definite priority over the facts of nature and a unique authority as the sufficient standard for Christian doctrine.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 89-90.
13 Ross, A Matter of Days, 211.
14 Ross, A Matter of Days, 237-238.
15 Ross, A Matter of Days, 60.
16 http://www.reasons.org/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-age-universe (last accessed April 5, 2011)
17 In citing the opinion of Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), Ross concurs with North that “a cosmic creation date of only thousands of years implies, in some respect, that the universe is an illusion. Since astronomers have sound reasons for concluding that the cosmos is real, they cannot reasonably adopt young-universe creationism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 36.
18 Ross, A Matter of Days, 86. “To suggest that God artificially fixed the broadening and reddening of the light individually from 10 billion trillion stars and 100 billion galaxies is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. …such action would be contradictory to His revealed character and purpose and to His declaration that creation is a truthful witness.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 163. The reader should be aware that I do not agree with Ross’ conclusions here and intend to cover this subject more in depth at a later date.
19 Ross, A Matter of Days, 37. In the endnotes, Ross points out that “Sola Scriptura is the position held by Reasons To Believe.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 259. Sola Scriptura means, literally, Scripture alone.
20 Ross, More Than A Theory, 60-61.
21 Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach To The Origin Of Man (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2005), 43; “Reasons To Believe [adheres] to the doctrinal statements of the National Association of Evangelicals and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy”, Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances And The Accuracy Of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 239. The reader might be familiar with the fact that, in 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in 1982, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and, in 1986, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application. See http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094578,00.html (last accessed April 7, 2011).
22 Ross, More Than A Theory, 59; Ross’ source for The Westminster Confession of Faith is http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (last accessed April 3, 2011)
23 “If the Sun, Moon, stars, and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 77.
24 “The Bible claims that faith is based on reasonable evidence.” Continuing the quotation, “All the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible translated into English as ‘faith’ document the importance of belief – and action – being based on verifiable truth.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 63. Here, Ross includes such examples as 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1 and Acts 17:11. The application made by Ross is to ultimately come to a consistent agreement of information from both Scripture and nature. He points out that some “believe that by discrediting Genesis they can demonstrate a flawed Bible. This ‘faulty creation message’ is [then] used to discredit the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines of heaven and hell, and so forth. If the creation account is implausible, what basis remains to believe anything else the Bible declares?” [emphasis mine] Ross, A Matter of Days, 17. This subject of dual revelation, as well as the related subjects of the roles of faith and reason, will be covered in a separate paper. In the meantime, however, the reader should observe with caution how reason here seems to be emphasized since scientific plausibility is purposed to verify Scripture.
25 “A common, though not universal doctrinal position among old-earth creationists is premillennialism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 265.
Ross, an astronomer and physicist by education as well as by profession, accepts an age of the universe in the billions of years. 16 Therefore, he concludes, God must have supernaturally created the universe at the Big Bang some billions of years ago and supernaturally intervened at various times since. Ross says that if the universe’s age is younger than that, it would create a logical disconnect between the real age of the cosmos versus its apparent age. 17 Also, Ross says, a deceptive appearance of age would violate God’s own stated character and purpose. 18
Ross continues, “Advocates of the appearance-of-age view typically hold what may be termed a ‘biblicist’ perspective – belief that the Bible is the only reliable truth source about any subject” (i.e., from astronomy to zoology). “Biblicists claim the Bible must be interpreted ‘literally’ (by which they mean concretely), even if that interpretation contradicts observable facts of nature. . . . Biblicism has sometimes been confused with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, according to which the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all subjects it addresses.” 19
From my perspective, RTB’s subscription to Sola Scriptura (albeit from a theologically Reformed viewpoint) makes it understandable to also find that they subscribe to biblical inerrancy in the sixty-six books of the Bible20 as well as to the use of “sound exegetical techniques” and the “historical-grammatical method.” 21 RTB holds that its model remains consistent with the creation tenets of the Reformation confessional statements of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. 22 The tendency of RTB toward the rationalism of Reformed theology comes to light with the tendency to rationalize miraculous events,23 the inclination toward the reasonableness of the objects of faith, 24 as well as the tendency toward pre-millennialism. 25
12 In this context, Ross also states that “the Bible, therefore, has a definite priority over the facts of nature and a unique authority as the sufficient standard for Christian doctrine.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 89-90.
13 Ross, A Matter of Days, 211.
14 Ross, A Matter of Days, 237-238.
15 Ross, A Matter of Days, 60.
16 http://www.reasons.org/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-age-universe (last accessed April 5, 2011)
17 In citing the opinion of Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), Ross concurs with North that “a cosmic creation date of only thousands of years implies, in some respect, that the universe is an illusion. Since astronomers have sound reasons for concluding that the cosmos is real, they cannot reasonably adopt young-universe creationism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 36.
18 Ross, A Matter of Days, 86. “To suggest that God artificially fixed the broadening and reddening of the light individually from 10 billion trillion stars and 100 billion galaxies is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. …such action would be contradictory to His revealed character and purpose and to His declaration that creation is a truthful witness.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 163. The reader should be aware that I do not agree with Ross’ conclusions here and intend to cover this subject more in depth at a later date.
19 Ross, A Matter of Days, 37. In the endnotes, Ross points out that “Sola Scriptura is the position held by Reasons To Believe.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 259. Sola Scriptura means, literally, Scripture alone.
20 Ross, More Than A Theory, 60-61.
21 Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach To The Origin Of Man (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2005), 43; “Reasons To Believe [adheres] to the doctrinal statements of the National Association of Evangelicals and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy”, Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances And The Accuracy Of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 239. The reader might be familiar with the fact that, in 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in 1982, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and, in 1986, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application. See http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094578,00.html (last accessed April 7, 2011).
22 Ross, More Than A Theory, 59; Ross’ source for The Westminster Confession of Faith is http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (last accessed April 3, 2011)
23 “If the Sun, Moon, stars, and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 77.
24 “The Bible claims that faith is based on reasonable evidence.” Continuing the quotation, “All the Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible translated into English as ‘faith’ document the importance of belief – and action – being based on verifiable truth.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 63. Here, Ross includes such examples as 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1 and Acts 17:11. The application made by Ross is to ultimately come to a consistent agreement of information from both Scripture and nature. He points out that some “believe that by discrediting Genesis they can demonstrate a flawed Bible. This ‘faulty creation message’ is [then] used to discredit the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines of heaven and hell, and so forth. If the creation account is implausible, what basis remains to believe anything else the Bible declares?” [emphasis mine] Ross, A Matter of Days, 17. This subject of dual revelation, as well as the related subjects of the roles of faith and reason, will be covered in a separate paper. In the meantime, however, the reader should observe with caution how reason here seems to be emphasized since scientific plausibility is purposed to verify Scripture.
25 “A common, though not universal doctrinal position among old-earth creationists is premillennialism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 265.
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 4 of 7): Existence of death
With respect to the role of death, RTB says,
26 Ross, More Than A Theory, 85
27 “God has the capacity right now to reduce human suffering. But a loving, merciful God allows people … to suffer discomfort, illness, injury, and death. Can it be that God has good purposes for what seem like bad things? Could Earth’s long history of plant and animal death have been part of God’s good preparation for humanity and human civilization, technology, and the efficient spreading of the gospel?” Ross, A Matter of Days, 134-135.
the story of life, death, and new life is part of RTB’s biblical model. It does not contradict New Testament statements about the kind of death that originated with Adam. Romans 5:12 clarifies this position: ”Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned.” This death, introduced by Adam’s sin, applies strictly to humans. The whole of Scripture confirms that only humans, among all life created on Earth, can (and do) sin. Therefore this “death through sin” applies to humans alone, not to plants and animals. In addition, the passage states specifically that this “death came to all men.” It does not say “to all creation” or “to all creatures.” The verses make no apparent reference to plant or animal life, nor do other parallel passages (see 1 Cor. 15:20-23). 26This role of death seems to be, at least in part, a way for RTB to deal with the problem of evil in the world. 27
26 Ross, More Than A Theory, 85
27 “God has the capacity right now to reduce human suffering. But a loving, merciful God allows people … to suffer discomfort, illness, injury, and death. Can it be that God has good purposes for what seem like bad things? Could Earth’s long history of plant and animal death have been part of God’s good preparation for humanity and human civilization, technology, and the efficient spreading of the gospel?” Ross, A Matter of Days, 134-135.
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 5 of 7): Origin of Humanity
With RTB’s position that death was preparative over much of Earth’s history, one might have questions about RTB’s explanation of fossilized remains of bipedal primates, for example, the Neanderthals, as well as the introduction of Adam and Eve into history.
RTB makes a distinction between pre-human bipedal primate species and humans. 28 Whereas pre-humans are animals, specially created by God, 29 humans are distinct in that they are God’s crown of creation, supernaturally created and made in God’s image. 30
The reader should also be aware that, if Neanderthals and modern humans are two separate species, 31 any “pre-human” hominid genetic information found in the human genome might be interpreted by RTB as being the result of interbreeding between species (i.e., bestiality) as Todd C. Wood 32 points out. 33
What was the purpose of such pre-human bipedal primate species? According to RTB,
Finally, RTB continues with their day-age assertions in determining when Adam and Eve were created by God 35 and conclude from the fossil record that Adam and Eve were created approximately 50,000 years ago. 36
28 “Neanderthals represent a pre-human primate species.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225; “A note on nomenclature: In modern evolutionary biology, humans are classified as ‘hominids.’ This book uses that term to refer only to the bipedal primates that preceded ‘modern humans.’ …neither the authors [Rana and Ross] nor RTB believes that hominids prior to modern humans should be called human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 29; “RTB’s biblical creation model considers the hominids found in the fossil record to be animals created by God’s direct intervention for His purposes. . . . While the hominids were created by God’s command, they were not spiritual beings made in His image. This status was reserved for human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; “Homo sapiens idaltu (like H. erectus, Neanderthals, and other archaic Homo sapiens) were simply primates – animals that walked upright, possessed limited intelligence, and had some type of culture, but animals nonetheless.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 83; The RTB model “identifies these [Neanderthal] hominids as created by God – with some similarities to human beings and yet distinct.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 191.
29 Ross points out, “theistic evolution seems to contradict Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. . . . These and other Bible passages indicate that God created the original human pair in a special, direct, and personal way. Thus RTB’s model for humanity’s origin must reject any form of theistic evolution that doesn’t posit God’s direct involvement. The RTB model asserts that attempts to establish evolutionary relationship among the hominids in the fossil record and to identify the evolutionary pathways to modern humans will ultimately prove unfruitful.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 44; “Several positions, including the day-age interpretation adopted in this book, treat the biblical creation accounts as reliable (though not exhaustive) descriptions of Earth’s and life’s natural history. According to the day-age approach, the Creator repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history, initiating new life-forms, including humans.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 42.
30 “…only human beings were made in God’s image” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 48.
31 “In other words, humans could not possibly be descended from Neanderthals.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225.
32 Todd C. Wood, PhD is a young earth creationist with a background in biochemistry and genomics. Personally, I often appreciate his viewpoint and started following his blog after I ran across the following blog entry: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html (last accessed, April 4, 2011).
33 http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/04/neandertals-bred-with-humans.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertals-in-bizarro-world.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertal-non-sequitur.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/pondering-image-of-god.html and a related post http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/human-species.html. Todd Wood also offers an interesting multi-part assessment of RTB’s human/chimp genome comparison which he finishes here http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-8.html (last accessed, April 22, 2011)
34 Ross, A Matter of Days, 237.
35 “…precisely dating the creation of Adam and Eve from the biblical text is not possible. Gaps in the genealogies and the ambiguity of key words in the original Hebrew text render the best attempts at a biblical date for Adam and Eve as estimates only. If few gaps exist, the date calculates to around 10,000 years ago. If many gaps occur, the date falls closer to 100,000 years ago.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 45.
36 Ross, More Than A Theory, 59.
RTB makes a distinction between pre-human bipedal primate species and humans. 28 Whereas pre-humans are animals, specially created by God, 29 humans are distinct in that they are God’s crown of creation, supernaturally created and made in God’s image. 30
The reader should also be aware that, if Neanderthals and modern humans are two separate species, 31 any “pre-human” hominid genetic information found in the human genome might be interpreted by RTB as being the result of interbreeding between species (i.e., bestiality) as Todd C. Wood 32 points out. 33
What was the purpose of such pre-human bipedal primate species? According to RTB,
it seems reasonable that God anticipated the negative impact of (post-Fall) human activity on birds and mammals. One possible scenario is that in the time period prior to Adam and Eve’s creation God made a sequence of bipedal primate species, each more skillful at hunting than the one before. Birds and mammals would then have developed better behavioral defenses against the future onslaught of humanity. God may have had other reasons as well for creating bipedal primates, reasons scientists are as yet incapable of discerning. 34
Finally, RTB continues with their day-age assertions in determining when Adam and Eve were created by God 35 and conclude from the fossil record that Adam and Eve were created approximately 50,000 years ago. 36
28 “Neanderthals represent a pre-human primate species.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225; “A note on nomenclature: In modern evolutionary biology, humans are classified as ‘hominids.’ This book uses that term to refer only to the bipedal primates that preceded ‘modern humans.’ …neither the authors [Rana and Ross] nor RTB believes that hominids prior to modern humans should be called human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 29; “RTB’s biblical creation model considers the hominids found in the fossil record to be animals created by God’s direct intervention for His purposes. . . . While the hominids were created by God’s command, they were not spiritual beings made in His image. This status was reserved for human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; “Homo sapiens idaltu (like H. erectus, Neanderthals, and other archaic Homo sapiens) were simply primates – animals that walked upright, possessed limited intelligence, and had some type of culture, but animals nonetheless.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 83; The RTB model “identifies these [Neanderthal] hominids as created by God – with some similarities to human beings and yet distinct.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 191.
29 Ross points out, “theistic evolution seems to contradict Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. . . . These and other Bible passages indicate that God created the original human pair in a special, direct, and personal way. Thus RTB’s model for humanity’s origin must reject any form of theistic evolution that doesn’t posit God’s direct involvement. The RTB model asserts that attempts to establish evolutionary relationship among the hominids in the fossil record and to identify the evolutionary pathways to modern humans will ultimately prove unfruitful.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 44; “Several positions, including the day-age interpretation adopted in this book, treat the biblical creation accounts as reliable (though not exhaustive) descriptions of Earth’s and life’s natural history. According to the day-age approach, the Creator repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history, initiating new life-forms, including humans.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 42.
30 “…only human beings were made in God’s image” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 48.
31 “In other words, humans could not possibly be descended from Neanderthals.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225.
32 Todd C. Wood, PhD is a young earth creationist with a background in biochemistry and genomics. Personally, I often appreciate his viewpoint and started following his blog after I ran across the following blog entry: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html (last accessed, April 4, 2011).
33 http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/04/neandertals-bred-with-humans.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertals-in-bizarro-world.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertal-non-sequitur.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/pondering-image-of-god.html and a related post http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/human-species.html. Todd Wood also offers an interesting multi-part assessment of RTB’s human/chimp genome comparison which he finishes here http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-8.html (last accessed, April 22, 2011)
34 Ross, A Matter of Days, 237.
35 “…precisely dating the creation of Adam and Eve from the biblical text is not possible. Gaps in the genealogies and the ambiguity of key words in the original Hebrew text render the best attempts at a biblical date for Adam and Eve as estimates only. If few gaps exist, the date calculates to around 10,000 years ago. If many gaps occur, the date falls closer to 100,000 years ago.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 45.
36 Ross, More Than A Theory, 59.
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 6 of 7): A Universal Flood
Another aspect of RTB’s creation model lies in the interpretation of the flood described in Genesis chapters 6-9. “All human beings and the “soulish” animals (birds and mammals) they came into contact with were destroyed by this flood -- except for Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Contrary to popular perception of the Genesis Flood account, RTB’s model for human origins posits that the Flood was geographically limited (confined to the environs of Mesopotamia), not global. Still, the RTB model considers the extent of the Flood to be ‘universal’ in that all humanity was impacted by it.” 37 This is because their model is required to be both a “biblically consistent and scientifically plausible interpretation of the Flood account.” 38 In other words, RTB’s interpretation of the flood is a conclusion based upon, and a result of, RTB’s adherence to a dual, consistent revelation between nature and Scripture which I spoke of earlier in this paper.
In addition, the reader should also distinguish between universal and global. Global would imply that the flood covered the entire planet, something which the RTB model deems to be scientifically implausible. Whereas universal implies that “the Flood event described in Genesis 6-9 did, indeed, accomplish the ends God clearly intended – and explicitly stated – without covering the entire planet.” 39
Although, RTB appeals to a local universal flood, they still maintain the scientific plausibility of humans living hundreds of years prior to the Flood. “The Genesis 5 genealogy indicates that some of humanity’s patriarchs to be several hundred years old. The RTB model maintains that these ages are to be taken literally. Genesis 6:3 records that God deplored humanity’s rampant sinful behavior and intervened to shorten the maximum human life span from about 900 years to about 120 years.” 40 “The RTB biblical creation model must accept the burden of proof by demonstrating that the long life spans recorded in Genesis are scientifically plausible.” 41
37 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 51.
38 Ross, The Genesis Question, 160.
39 Ibid.
40 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; My personal opinion is that it is likely that the words in Genesis 6:3 (“his days will be a hundred and twenty years” NIV) not only mark the time until the floodwaters came upon the earth, but that these words also limit the maximum lifespan of human beings to 120 years (although, it took time for this reduction of the maximum lifespan to reach 120 years). I find it highly correlative that the current scientific approximation for the maximum lifespan of human beings is, and has historically been, 120 years. Note that the definition of maximum lifespan is not the same as average lifespan, life expectancy or mortality rate.
41 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 112.
In addition, the reader should also distinguish between universal and global. Global would imply that the flood covered the entire planet, something which the RTB model deems to be scientifically implausible. Whereas universal implies that “the Flood event described in Genesis 6-9 did, indeed, accomplish the ends God clearly intended – and explicitly stated – without covering the entire planet.” 39
Although, RTB appeals to a local universal flood, they still maintain the scientific plausibility of humans living hundreds of years prior to the Flood. “The Genesis 5 genealogy indicates that some of humanity’s patriarchs to be several hundred years old. The RTB model maintains that these ages are to be taken literally. Genesis 6:3 records that God deplored humanity’s rampant sinful behavior and intervened to shorten the maximum human life span from about 900 years to about 120 years.” 40 “The RTB biblical creation model must accept the burden of proof by demonstrating that the long life spans recorded in Genesis are scientifically plausible.” 41
37 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 51.
38 Ross, The Genesis Question, 160.
39 Ibid.
40 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; My personal opinion is that it is likely that the words in Genesis 6:3 (“his days will be a hundred and twenty years” NIV) not only mark the time until the floodwaters came upon the earth, but that these words also limit the maximum lifespan of human beings to 120 years (although, it took time for this reduction of the maximum lifespan to reach 120 years). I find it highly correlative that the current scientific approximation for the maximum lifespan of human beings is, and has historically been, 120 years. Note that the definition of maximum lifespan is not the same as average lifespan, life expectancy or mortality rate.
41 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 112.
Hugh Ross/RTB - Overview (section 7 of 7): Some Final Comments
The reader should notice that, while RTB presents an old earth viewpoint, they present themselves as standing in opposition to a purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary position. 42 The RTB creation model is one characterized by God’s supernatural, intentionally designed and finely tuned 43 intervention. “Because chance governs biological evolution at its most fundamental level, repeated evolutionary events much result in dramatically different outcomes. . . . The nature of the evolutionary process renders outcomes nonreproducible. . . . biological evolution must take place along a unique pathway each time, if and when it occurs. In other words, evolution cannot repeat.” 44
Finally, RTB makes a significant observation, one which I agree with and one which creationists need to be reminded of on occasion. “Although materialism is the reigning worldview in science, Christians must realize that the scientific community’s resistance to creation stems largely from the view that the biblical perspective represents a religion, not science.” 45 This does not mean that God’s creation is immeasurable or unquantifiable in a scientific way. What it does mean is that Christians interpret the world and see God’s hand in the marvels of His creation from the presupposition of faith – something that is unquantifiable from a scientific point of view.
In future papers, we will take a closer look at some of the biblical assertions of RTB that we have mentioned here.
42 “A 14-billion-year-old universe is vastly too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield, on its own, even the simplest living organism. Yet biologists and chemists have spent years building naturalistic models based on these inadequate boundary conditions.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 121.
43 “No other characteristic of the universe is so well designed as this cosmic expansion.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 139; “This observed stability indicates that the universe is expanding at a highly fine-tuned rate.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 146; RTB spends a fair amount of time in their literature speaking about the anthropic principle, namely, that the physical aspects of our universe, including the seeming arbitrary values of physical constants (e.g. gravitational constant, strong nuclear force, etc), have all been finely tuned/determined. If any one of those constants would have been slightly different than its current value, life would not be possible.
44 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 23. Rana here is referring to Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion that, from an atheistic evolutionary perspective, humanity’s arrival in evolutionary history is a “wildly improbable evolutionary event.”
45 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 12.
Finally, RTB makes a significant observation, one which I agree with and one which creationists need to be reminded of on occasion. “Although materialism is the reigning worldview in science, Christians must realize that the scientific community’s resistance to creation stems largely from the view that the biblical perspective represents a religion, not science.” 45 This does not mean that God’s creation is immeasurable or unquantifiable in a scientific way. What it does mean is that Christians interpret the world and see God’s hand in the marvels of His creation from the presupposition of faith – something that is unquantifiable from a scientific point of view.
In future papers, we will take a closer look at some of the biblical assertions of RTB that we have mentioned here.
42 “A 14-billion-year-old universe is vastly too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield, on its own, even the simplest living organism. Yet biologists and chemists have spent years building naturalistic models based on these inadequate boundary conditions.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 121.
43 “No other characteristic of the universe is so well designed as this cosmic expansion.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 139; “This observed stability indicates that the universe is expanding at a highly fine-tuned rate.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 146; RTB spends a fair amount of time in their literature speaking about the anthropic principle, namely, that the physical aspects of our universe, including the seeming arbitrary values of physical constants (e.g. gravitational constant, strong nuclear force, etc), have all been finely tuned/determined. If any one of those constants would have been slightly different than its current value, life would not be possible.
44 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 23. Rana here is referring to Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion that, from an atheistic evolutionary perspective, humanity’s arrival in evolutionary history is a “wildly improbable evolutionary event.”
45 Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 12.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
7-Up and ... Lithium?
OK. Another post that is not exactly related to creationism.
I'm currently listening to the podclass, Chemical Science (5.111), from MIT's OpenCourseWare. The professor (Dr. Elizabeth Vogel Taylor) has done a real nice job presenting the quantum mechanics wavefunction concept - something about which I never had a good grasp.
Today, while commenting on the periodic table, she mentioned that in the early part of the last century (1900's) people thought that elements next to each other on the periodic table were thought to be somewhat interchangeable.
In the late 1920's, 7-Up (the soft drink that is today part of the Dr. Pepper group) was introduced as “Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda” and which contained lithium citrate. The lithium remained in the drink until 1950.
I had heard about the cocaine in Coca-Cola, but I had not heard about the lithium in 7-Up.
A couple of side notes: Sprite currently uses sodium citrate - sodium is next to (just below) lithium on the periodic table. Today, lithium is sometimes prescribed to treat bipolar disorder.
By the way, I appreciate it when teachers and professors relate the subject matter to something else in one's experiences. It gives us students something to hang the information on.
I'm currently listening to the podclass, Chemical Science (5.111), from MIT's OpenCourseWare. The professor (Dr. Elizabeth Vogel Taylor) has done a real nice job presenting the quantum mechanics wavefunction concept - something about which I never had a good grasp.
Today, while commenting on the periodic table, she mentioned that in the early part of the last century (1900's) people thought that elements next to each other on the periodic table were thought to be somewhat interchangeable.
In the late 1920's, 7-Up (the soft drink that is today part of the Dr. Pepper group) was introduced as “Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda” and which contained lithium citrate. The lithium remained in the drink until 1950.
I had heard about the cocaine in Coca-Cola, but I had not heard about the lithium in 7-Up.
A couple of side notes: Sprite currently uses sodium citrate - sodium is next to (just below) lithium on the periodic table. Today, lithium is sometimes prescribed to treat bipolar disorder.
By the way, I appreciate it when teachers and professors relate the subject matter to something else in one's experiences. It gives us students something to hang the information on.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Variable Constants?
Whether all the constants in science (especially physics) are truly constant is a question that sometimes comes up (often, with respect to the anthropic principle and a fine tuned universe). Obviously, such a thing would have huge implications for the assumptions and the conclusions of science.
I wanted to draw attention to a paper that has been recently submitted for peer review, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant" by John K. Webb (Univ. of South Wales), et. al., and which proposes that the fine structure constant is varying. Here is a nice summary at Technology Review, along with some interesting blog comments afterward.
Keep in mind that this paper's results may be refuted or they may be further verified (whether next month or 40 years from now). However, neither such results, nor the refutation thereof, affect the certainty of the creation account recorded in Genesis nor our God's promises to us in Christ.
I wanted to draw attention to a paper that has been recently submitted for peer review, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant" by John K. Webb (Univ. of South Wales), et. al., and which proposes that the fine structure constant is varying. Here is a nice summary at Technology Review, along with some interesting blog comments afterward.
Keep in mind that this paper's results may be refuted or they may be further verified (whether next month or 40 years from now). However, neither such results, nor the refutation thereof, affect the certainty of the creation account recorded in Genesis nor our God's promises to us in Christ.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Dr. James Dobson - Correction
A couple days ago I posted a blog commenting on the audio book, Bringing Up Girls by Dr. James Dobson since, in the book, there was a reference to "early hominoids." In my blog article, I attributed the use of this term (which is similar in thought to old earth viewpoints such as Hugh Ross) to Dr. Dobson. What I thought was a term used by Dobson was actually part of a longer extended quote from Marc Gellman's article in Newsweek (here is the link). While it is evident in the print edition as to how far Gellman's quote extends (because of the page formatting), it is ambiguous on the audio CD.
Yesterday, I was kindly contacted by Dr. Dobson through one of his representatives. He clarified that the term ("early hominoids") was not Dr. Dobson's but that of Marc Gellman. In fact, Dr. Dobson said that he disagrees with it. I was informed that Tyndale House (the publisher) will be editing this in future editions in both the book and audiobook to remove this ambiguity.
I wanted to point this out since, while I did delete the post from my blog, it still may remain on some blog readers and I don't want to misrepresent Dr. Dobson's viewpoint.
Yesterday, I was kindly contacted by Dr. Dobson through one of his representatives. He clarified that the term ("early hominoids") was not Dr. Dobson's but that of Marc Gellman. In fact, Dr. Dobson said that he disagrees with it. I was informed that Tyndale House (the publisher) will be editing this in future editions in both the book and audiobook to remove this ambiguity.
I wanted to point this out since, while I did delete the post from my blog, it still may remain on some blog readers and I don't want to misrepresent Dr. Dobson's viewpoint.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Mostly Empty Space
I've recently finished A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross as well as the "podclass," Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior (EEB122; Spring, 2009; Prof. Stephen C. Stearns) from Yale University (the podclass was obtained from iTunesU). I'm working on several comments for each as there are some noteworthy things that I want to point out.
In the mean time, I've started another podclass on chemistry, Principles of Chemical Science (MIT, 5.111, Fall 2008). In one of the opening lectures, the professor commented on the diameter of the atom (electrons, protons and neutrons) as well as the diameter of the atomic nucleus (only the protons and neutrons at the center of the atom). The diameter of the atomic nucleus is on the order of 10E-12 cm while the diameter of the entire atom is on the order of 10E-8 cm. So, the diameter of the atom is roughly four orders of magnitude larger than its nucleus.
What this means is, if we would think of an atom (i.e., the diameter of the electron cloud) as approximately the same diameter as that of a basketball then the atomic nucleus would be approximately the diameter of several human hairs. This is somewhat simplistic since I'm ignoring the moving electron cloud and the atomic forces. Still, I find it interesting that matter, as we currently understand it, is mostly made up of empty space.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Introduction
Recently, I finished writing a short paper. I had made a number of entries on these same topics last year (here, here and here as well as my blog sidebar) because they are important for Christians to keep in mind and is why I also wrote the paper. However, because I better defined and clarified my thoughts and because I added a few new thoughts, I want to post the paper on my blog so that others could benefit as well. Note that I have divided the paper into three parts (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) to keep it more managable for the reader.
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 1
[refer to some introductory comments here]
I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"
It is absolutely imperative that Christians begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, what is of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
Let's look at some distinctions which are essential to this evaluation process.
1) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific 1 issues and theological issues 2 .
This distinction is necessary because the answer will determine the criteria by which assertions and conclusions are to be properly evaluated. For example, the criteria by which we evaluate scientific assertions and conclusions would include such questions as: Is the hypothesis testable, measurable and repeatable? Is the phenomenon observable? Are the conclusions logical? On the other hand, the criterion by which we evaluate theological issues is the whole of Scripture as it is revealed to us in the Old and New Testaments.
When exposed to creation and evolution literature, Christians often find themselves asking only one question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions instead of only one, namely, "Is this conclusion theologically permissible?" and "Is this conclusion scientifically valid and logical?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two scientific opinions which are diametrically opposed to each other may both be theologically permissible.
1 I define "science" and "scientific" as they are commonly used, namely, that which is understood solely from observations and measurements of the natural, physical world around us.
2 There are differences in theological definitions among the different Christian denominations. This author takes the Lutheran Confessions, as expounded in the Book of Concord of 1580, as expressing the true doctrine of Scripture.
I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"
It is absolutely imperative that Christians begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, what is of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
Let's look at some distinctions which are essential to this evaluation process.
1) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific 1 issues and theological issues 2 .
This distinction is necessary because the answer will determine the criteria by which assertions and conclusions are to be properly evaluated. For example, the criteria by which we evaluate scientific assertions and conclusions would include such questions as: Is the hypothesis testable, measurable and repeatable? Is the phenomenon observable? Are the conclusions logical? On the other hand, the criterion by which we evaluate theological issues is the whole of Scripture as it is revealed to us in the Old and New Testaments.
When exposed to creation and evolution literature, Christians often find themselves asking only one question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions instead of only one, namely, "Is this conclusion theologically permissible?" and "Is this conclusion scientifically valid and logical?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two scientific opinions which are diametrically opposed to each other may both be theologically permissible.
1 I define "science" and "scientific" as they are commonly used, namely, that which is understood solely from observations and measurements of the natural, physical world around us.
2 There are differences in theological definitions among the different Christian denominations. This author takes the Lutheran Confessions, as expounded in the Book of Concord of 1580, as expressing the true doctrine of Scripture.
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 2
[this is a continuation from Part 1]
As we make this distinction between science and theology, it is also necessary to...
2) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and, especially, what the Bible does not say.
To clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and does not say is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. On matters where God is silent, He leaves it up to our Christian freedom 3 to explore and observe, and to use our logic and reason to come up with models which describe this world. We realize to a large extent such models are human conclusions and not derived from God's Word. In scientific issues about which God's Word is silent, we not only allow for a difference of opinion in Christian love but also understand that a Christian may in good conscience feel free to select any position that he/she sees fit.
A method that may be used to evaluate the existence or absence of Christian freedom in creation/evolution issues might consist of something like the following thought process:
• First, ask, "Is this mentioned directly by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this implied by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this permissible by Scripture? If so, which parts are permissible by Scripture and which parts are not?"
• Then, "Do the scientific conclusions have a theological basis that needs to be evaluated?" The answers to these first four questions will enable the Christian to evaluate whether or not Christian freedom is involved by emphasizing the specifics about which Scripture speaks, or does not speak, on an issue.
• Finally, evaluate scientific conclusions based upon the science itself.
Failure to properly make this distinction between what the Bible says and what it does not say may result in a number of undesirable deficiencies:
• It may result in subtracting from or minimizing what the Bible states (sometimes referred to as "a half-truth").
• It may result in adding to what the Bible says (e.g. "a truth-and-a-half").
• It may result in a misapplication of the Scriptural doctrine of Christian freedom. This misapplication may unnecessarily bind the consciences of others with scientific conclusions as if they were theological conclusions. This binding might happen if someone takes a scientific question and presents what should be a scientific answer but rather passes it off as a theological answer. In so doing, he would be presenting the issue as theologically settled, whereas in reality the matter is open to Christian freedom of assessment and discernment.
This last point is certainly something to keep in mind as Christians apply the Gospel to their lives when creation and evolution issues are discussed. The latitude of Christian freedom to hold varying scientific conclusions about matters in which God's Word is silent is something that is often overlooked. This consideration needs to be regularly emphasized so that consciences are not unnecessarily bound in such matters when information is presented as if Scripture is speaking when, in fact, it is not.
Also understand that confessional Lutheranism offers some unique insights into the Scriptures - insights which enable the Christian to deal effectively with paradoxes between what God's Word says and our observations of the natural world. A Lutheran approach does not inherently seek to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. An example familiar to many is the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper, where the communicant receives the bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ. This reception is certain, not because observation and logic, per se, are conclusive, but because the words of Christ are conclusive. It is because of Lutheranism's unique approach - one which does not find the need to completely understand and rationalize everything that God's Word says but simply accepts it in faith, and one that applies Christian freedom properly - that confessional Lutheranism can potentially offer some new approaches to creationism.
How might we apply these first two principles? To begin, let’s itemize a sampling of questions so that the reader better understands the science-theology distinction involved. First are some examples of theological questions which the Bible definitively answers:
• Were Adam and Eve the first humans and special creations of God?
• Was there only one creation event?
• Did creation occur over six 24 hour periods?
• Was there matter before creation?
Next are some examples of scientific questions about which the Bible does not address. Some examples are as follows:
• What is the circumference of the earth?
• How deep are the oceans?
• What is the life cycle timeline of a star?
• How far from earth is the Large Magellanic Cloud?
• Are the sedimentary layers that we see in the Grand Canyon the result of the Biblical Flood?
• What is the measured age of the earth?
Now, let’s continue with a specific example by looking at this last question and analyzing it further. In keeping with these distinctions, we will note that "What is the measured age of the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a scientific question requiring scientific measurement while the latter is a theological question requiring us to search the Scriptures.
Somewhat analogous to the treatment of the Lord's Supper, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer for both questions since, as was mentioned previously, we do not need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. Our observations in nature may correlate well with the Scriptures but they don't have to. And if it is our experience that there is a lack of correlation between our observations in nature and the Bible, it is still the Scriptures that are more certain.
A rough approximation to "When was the earth created?" may be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible. However, it need also be understood that since internal evidence 4 shows that these genealogies are not complete nor are the time periods consecutive, we would not be able to conclude a date for creation much more specific than some “multi-thousands" of years ago.
We will also recognize that, while Genesis describes the state of creation as being good, without sin and death, and fully functional, it stops short of providing specifics. For example, the Bible neither gives us the distances to the stars nor radioactive decay parameters. Therefore, the question "What is the measured age of the earth?" is a scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom and scientific knowledge to assess.
From a confessional Lutheran perspective, an aged universe - that is, a scientifically measured age which may be orders of magnitude older than the elapsed time since God created the world 5 - may be theologically acceptable with respect to some aspects of creation as long as those aspects do not contradict with what the Scriptures specifically say.
Contemporary Lutheran theologian, Siegbert W. Becker properly applies these distinctions when he comments,
Former Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president Carl Lawrenz also cautions, "Yet the creationist, in opposing the billions of years invoked by the evolutionist, needs to be conscientious in asserting nothing further concerning the age of the world on the basis of Scripture than is actually said there." 7
3 “Christian freedom,” “Christian liberty,” and “adiaphora” are related terms. For further explanation on the topic of Christian freedom, the reader is encouraged to look at the book of Galatians (especially Galatians 5:1-4) and Article X, Formula of Concord, Book of Concord.
4 That is, evidence from Scripture itself.
5 As described in Genesis 1 and 2
6 Becker, Siegbert. “Evolution and Genesis,” page 7. Available from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File.
7 Lawrenz, Carl. Reviewer’s Desk. “Darwin, Evolution, and Creation.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Volume 57 No. 3 (July 1960): 223
As we make this distinction between science and theology, it is also necessary to...
2) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and, especially, what the Bible does not say.
To clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and does not say is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. On matters where God is silent, He leaves it up to our Christian freedom 3 to explore and observe, and to use our logic and reason to come up with models which describe this world. We realize to a large extent such models are human conclusions and not derived from God's Word. In scientific issues about which God's Word is silent, we not only allow for a difference of opinion in Christian love but also understand that a Christian may in good conscience feel free to select any position that he/she sees fit.
A method that may be used to evaluate the existence or absence of Christian freedom in creation/evolution issues might consist of something like the following thought process:
• First, ask, "Is this mentioned directly by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this implied by Scripture?"
• Then, "Is this permissible by Scripture? If so, which parts are permissible by Scripture and which parts are not?"
• Then, "Do the scientific conclusions have a theological basis that needs to be evaluated?" The answers to these first four questions will enable the Christian to evaluate whether or not Christian freedom is involved by emphasizing the specifics about which Scripture speaks, or does not speak, on an issue.
• Finally, evaluate scientific conclusions based upon the science itself.
Failure to properly make this distinction between what the Bible says and what it does not say may result in a number of undesirable deficiencies:
• It may result in subtracting from or minimizing what the Bible states (sometimes referred to as "a half-truth").
• It may result in adding to what the Bible says (e.g. "a truth-and-a-half").
• It may result in a misapplication of the Scriptural doctrine of Christian freedom. This misapplication may unnecessarily bind the consciences of others with scientific conclusions as if they were theological conclusions. This binding might happen if someone takes a scientific question and presents what should be a scientific answer but rather passes it off as a theological answer. In so doing, he would be presenting the issue as theologically settled, whereas in reality the matter is open to Christian freedom of assessment and discernment.
This last point is certainly something to keep in mind as Christians apply the Gospel to their lives when creation and evolution issues are discussed. The latitude of Christian freedom to hold varying scientific conclusions about matters in which God's Word is silent is something that is often overlooked. This consideration needs to be regularly emphasized so that consciences are not unnecessarily bound in such matters when information is presented as if Scripture is speaking when, in fact, it is not.
Also understand that confessional Lutheranism offers some unique insights into the Scriptures - insights which enable the Christian to deal effectively with paradoxes between what God's Word says and our observations of the natural world. A Lutheran approach does not inherently seek to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. An example familiar to many is the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper, where the communicant receives the bread and wine as well as the body and blood of Christ. This reception is certain, not because observation and logic, per se, are conclusive, but because the words of Christ are conclusive. It is because of Lutheranism's unique approach - one which does not find the need to completely understand and rationalize everything that God's Word says but simply accepts it in faith, and one that applies Christian freedom properly - that confessional Lutheranism can potentially offer some new approaches to creationism.
How might we apply these first two principles? To begin, let’s itemize a sampling of questions so that the reader better understands the science-theology distinction involved. First are some examples of theological questions which the Bible definitively answers:
• Were Adam and Eve the first humans and special creations of God?
• Was there only one creation event?
• Did creation occur over six 24 hour periods?
• Was there matter before creation?
Next are some examples of scientific questions about which the Bible does not address. Some examples are as follows:
• What is the circumference of the earth?
• How deep are the oceans?
• What is the life cycle timeline of a star?
• How far from earth is the Large Magellanic Cloud?
• Are the sedimentary layers that we see in the Grand Canyon the result of the Biblical Flood?
• What is the measured age of the earth?
Now, let’s continue with a specific example by looking at this last question and analyzing it further. In keeping with these distinctions, we will note that "What is the measured age of the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a scientific question requiring scientific measurement while the latter is a theological question requiring us to search the Scriptures.
Somewhat analogous to the treatment of the Lord's Supper, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer for both questions since, as was mentioned previously, we do not need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world. Our observations in nature may correlate well with the Scriptures but they don't have to. And if it is our experience that there is a lack of correlation between our observations in nature and the Bible, it is still the Scriptures that are more certain.
A rough approximation to "When was the earth created?" may be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible. However, it need also be understood that since internal evidence 4 shows that these genealogies are not complete nor are the time periods consecutive, we would not be able to conclude a date for creation much more specific than some “multi-thousands" of years ago.
We will also recognize that, while Genesis describes the state of creation as being good, without sin and death, and fully functional, it stops short of providing specifics. For example, the Bible neither gives us the distances to the stars nor radioactive decay parameters. Therefore, the question "What is the measured age of the earth?" is a scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom and scientific knowledge to assess.
From a confessional Lutheran perspective, an aged universe - that is, a scientifically measured age which may be orders of magnitude older than the elapsed time since God created the world 5 - may be theologically acceptable with respect to some aspects of creation as long as those aspects do not contradict with what the Scriptures specifically say.
Contemporary Lutheran theologian, Siegbert W. Becker properly applies these distinctions when he comments,
The point that ought to be clear to all of us is that, entirely aside from the theory of evolution, we are taught by the biblical revelation of creation to expect to find a world that seems to be much older than it really is. If scientists would be truly scientific and say that the universe seems to be millions of years old, or even that it is millions of years old unless at some time in the past the whole natural world came into being in a supernatural, miraculous way, or that some catastrophic event or events speeded up certain processes of nature at one time or another, we would have no reason to quarrel with them; in fact, we would agree and say that the earth appears to be far more ancient than it is. We know that it is much younger than it seems to be only because God, who is the only one who really knows how all things came to be, has shared this secret with us in Genesis one and two. 6
Former Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president Carl Lawrenz also cautions, "Yet the creationist, in opposing the billions of years invoked by the evolutionist, needs to be conscientious in asserting nothing further concerning the age of the world on the basis of Scripture than is actually said there." 7
3 “Christian freedom,” “Christian liberty,” and “adiaphora” are related terms. For further explanation on the topic of Christian freedom, the reader is encouraged to look at the book of Galatians (especially Galatians 5:1-4) and Article X, Formula of Concord, Book of Concord.
4 That is, evidence from Scripture itself.
5 As described in Genesis 1 and 2
6 Becker, Siegbert. “Evolution and Genesis,” page 7. Available from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Essay File.
7 Lawrenz, Carl. Reviewer’s Desk. “Darwin, Evolution, and Creation.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Volume 57 No. 3 (July 1960): 223
Essential Tools for the Creationist - Part 3
[this is a continuation from Part 2]
Finally, an additional tool that can be beneficial for the creationist when used consistently is to...
3) Clearly and fully understand the definition of terms that are being used.
The creationist need understand that there are often differences between the Scriptural definition of words and words that are used in science or in colloquial speech. One example is the word "truth."
There is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the criteria for determining a “truth” are different. Scientific truth is, to a large extent, based on repeatable observation, whereas in theology, truth is centered on the certainty of God's promises to us in Christ rather than what we observe and feel. The Christian is certain of God's truths in Scripture not because of his own abilities of perception and observation, but through faith worked by the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:5-13; John 8:31-32) Scripture is, therefore, the basis of absolute certainty.
An interesting side note and illustrative for our purposes of pointing out the importance of distinctions and definitions is the much publicized court case concerning Intelligent Design (ID) (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that case, the question before the U.S. District Court was not "Is Intelligent Design true?" Rather, the question was "Is Intelligent Design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID meet the criteria that science has defined for itself?"8
Second, there is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the permanence of truth in the scientific realm is viewed differently than in the theological realm. In the Bible, we are assured that our God is unchanging (James 1:17) and that His words of truth are permanent (John 17:17; Matthew 24:3).
On the other hand, in science there is no such thing as a "final truth" as the National Academy of Sciences points out when they define scientific fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." 9 And also, "…the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” 10
The University of California Museum of Paleontology also explains that, "science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it." "In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives." 11
They also note that "science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative." This means that scientific conclusions are "not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears." 12
It is important that the Christian neither overestimate nor underestimate this tentativeness. When you board a flight in Chicago bound for L.A., you are fairly certain that you will arrive at your destination on time and intact. This is due to a certain level of understanding about aerodynamics, metallurgy, structural forces, electronics and software. If you undergo a medical procedure, it is often the case that the medical professionals have a fair grasp on the risks and benefits involved based upon a certain level of understanding about biochemistry, cellular biology and metabolic pathways.
I would not be employed as an engineer if science were not, to a large degree, reliable. On the other hand, it is the tentativeness in science due to incomplete knowledge, the uncertainty caused by how much one does not know and the misinterpretation of correlation instead of causation, that makes an engineer constantly concerned about potential product field failures and recalls. It is not necessarily what you know that catches you unaware, it is what you don't know - and you never know what you don't know.
Scientific knowledge is often perceived by people who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. Rather, and more realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a ball of varying porosity since the known and unknown are intermixed and outside of the ball there are an unknown amount of unknowns. There will always be some unknown variables, the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed, and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
The primary reason why there is no "final truth" in science and why science is considered tentative is because science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
This even applies to so-called "creation science," that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism, and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the reader keeps this incomplete and tentative nature of scientific conclusions in their proper context - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that our sinful nature (Romans 7:18-23; Galatians 5:17) will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in favor of creation in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence, which was incomplete in the first place, is later falsified, despair will prevail.
It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any confessional Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: If there is scientific evidence in favor of creation and it correlates well with the Scriptural account, that's great! And if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because in the end, it really doesn't matter -- the promises of God in Christ are certain.
8 "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64; "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89 (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
9 “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition” (National Academy of Sciences, 1999): 3.
10 "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998): 30.
11 “Misconceptions about science.” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
12 “Characteristics of Science” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Finally, an additional tool that can be beneficial for the creationist when used consistently is to...
3) Clearly and fully understand the definition of terms that are being used.
The creationist need understand that there are often differences between the Scriptural definition of words and words that are used in science or in colloquial speech. One example is the word "truth."
There is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the criteria for determining a “truth” are different. Scientific truth is, to a large extent, based on repeatable observation, whereas in theology, truth is centered on the certainty of God's promises to us in Christ rather than what we observe and feel. The Christian is certain of God's truths in Scripture not because of his own abilities of perception and observation, but through faith worked by the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:5-13; John 8:31-32) Scripture is, therefore, the basis of absolute certainty.
An interesting side note and illustrative for our purposes of pointing out the importance of distinctions and definitions is the much publicized court case concerning Intelligent Design (ID) (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). In that case, the question before the U.S. District Court was not "Is Intelligent Design true?" Rather, the question was "Is Intelligent Design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID meet the criteria that science has defined for itself?"8
Second, there is a difference in the definition of “truth” between science and theology because the permanence of truth in the scientific realm is viewed differently than in the theological realm. In the Bible, we are assured that our God is unchanging (James 1:17) and that His words of truth are permanent (John 17:17; Matthew 24:3).
On the other hand, in science there is no such thing as a "final truth" as the National Academy of Sciences points out when they define scientific fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." 9 And also, "…the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science.” 10
The University of California Museum of Paleontology also explains that, "science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it." "In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives." 11
They also note that "science is always a work in progress, and its conclusions are always tentative." This means that scientific conclusions are "not tentative in the sense that they are temporary until the real answer comes along. Scientific conclusions are well founded in their factual content and thinking and are tentative only in the sense that all ideas are open to scrutiny. In science, the tentativeness of ideas such as the nature of atoms, cells, stars or the history of the Earth refers to the willingness of scientists to modify their ideas as new evidence appears." 12
It is important that the Christian neither overestimate nor underestimate this tentativeness. When you board a flight in Chicago bound for L.A., you are fairly certain that you will arrive at your destination on time and intact. This is due to a certain level of understanding about aerodynamics, metallurgy, structural forces, electronics and software. If you undergo a medical procedure, it is often the case that the medical professionals have a fair grasp on the risks and benefits involved based upon a certain level of understanding about biochemistry, cellular biology and metabolic pathways.
I would not be employed as an engineer if science were not, to a large degree, reliable. On the other hand, it is the tentativeness in science due to incomplete knowledge, the uncertainty caused by how much one does not know and the misinterpretation of correlation instead of causation, that makes an engineer constantly concerned about potential product field failures and recalls. It is not necessarily what you know that catches you unaware, it is what you don't know - and you never know what you don't know.
Scientific knowledge is often perceived by people who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. Rather, and more realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a ball of varying porosity since the known and unknown are intermixed and outside of the ball there are an unknown amount of unknowns. There will always be some unknown variables, the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed, and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
The primary reason why there is no "final truth" in science and why science is considered tentative is because science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
This even applies to so-called "creation science," that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism, and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models. Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the reader keeps this incomplete and tentative nature of scientific conclusions in their proper context - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that our sinful nature (Romans 7:18-23; Galatians 5:17) will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in favor of creation in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence, which was incomplete in the first place, is later falsified, despair will prevail.
It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any confessional Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: If there is scientific evidence in favor of creation and it correlates well with the Scriptural account, that's great! And if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because in the end, it really doesn't matter -- the promises of God in Christ are certain.
8 "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64; "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89 (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
9 “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition” (National Academy of Sciences, 1999): 3.
10 "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998): 30.
11 “Misconceptions about science.” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
12 “Characteristics of Science” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Disappointed, But Not Surprised
Some time ago, I was asked to do a book review of Persuaded By The Evidence (Eds., Doug Sharp and Dr. Jerry Bergman, ISBN 978-0-89051-545-7, copyright 2008).
I am only several chapters into the book, but something disappointing caught my eye as I finished the first paragraph of the Introduction (pg. 15). Doug Sharp writes, "... yet each one [that is, the personal testimonies of individuals in this book] has had his faith in God strengthened by scientific evidence for creation."
I am only several chapters into the book, but something disappointing caught my eye as I finished the first paragraph of the Introduction (pg. 15). Doug Sharp writes, "... yet each one [that is, the personal testimonies of individuals in this book] has had his faith in God strengthened by scientific evidence for creation."
In view of such a statement, a person needs to ask himself or herself, "What is Christian faith?" and "Is this faith something that is strengthened by scientific evidence?"
To answer those questions, we need to look at how the Bible defines Christian faith. There we find that:
- The Christian faith involves more than mere knowledge that the true God exists (James 2:19)
- Rather, Christian faith is, simply speaking, trust and certainty (Hebrews 11:1)
- Such faith trusts in what Jesus Christ has done for us and certain of what He promises to us (Acts 16:31)
- Through such faith, we are brought into God's family and into a personal relationship with God (Galatians 3:26)
- Through faith in Christ, we are able to approach God without fear and in confidence (Ephesians 3:12)
- Through faith in what Jesus has done for us, we are now free from God's condemnation (Romans 8:1; Romans 4:3; Philippians 3:8-9)
- And this gift of faith is worked in us through the Gospel promises of Christ (Romans 10:17)
Although it disappoints me when I see someone taking the position stated in this book, it does not surprise me. I have seen many, many Christian articles on creationism which make the assertion (either explicit or unstated) that our Christian faith is strengthened by, for example, scientific evidence in favor of a young earth. Such a position is not correct since our Christian faith is strengthened only by the promises of God's mercy to us through Christ.
Since scientific evidence which seems to support creationism does not strengthen a Christian's faith, then does such scientific evidence as offered by creationism serve any beneficial purpose for the Christian? Or, is it beneficial for the Christian to even read a book like "Persuaded By The Evidence", since one of its primary tenets (to strengthen one's faith by scientific evidence) is not true?
A book like this can certainly be beneficial to the Christian ... if viewed from the proper perspective.
First, scientific evidence for God's creation allows Christians to all the more be amazed at our God's creation and to be amazed at His power and wisdom evident in that creation (Psalm 19:1).
Secondly, this book is worthwhile to the Christian because it gives the reader a different perspective from which he or she might find pertinent and worthwhile arguments against evolution. For example, I found the second chapter by David Bradbury very enlightening when he presents his case about how the criteria for defining what is empirical science has changed over the years, especially as it applies to Darwinian evolution. This concept is something which I will need to follow up on at a later date.
I should also add that I appreciate reading the autobiographical sketches that are contained in this book. There are some names that may be quite familiar to readers who have followed the creationism movement for a while.
Therefore, even though a Christian's faith is not strengthened by the scientific evidence presented in this book, there is certainly something that may be gained by reading it.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Faster Than the Speed of Light?
{revised 10/14/10}
This post has nothing really to do with creationism/evolution but is an interesting scientific tidbit I recently found. I'm close to finishing a "podclass" (Nuclear Engineering 101, U.C. Berkeley, Fall 2009, Prof. Eric Norman; see iTunes U). It's been a real interesting class and the professor seems quite good in his teaching abilities.
This post has nothing really to do with creationism/evolution but is an interesting scientific tidbit I recently found. I'm close to finishing a "podclass" (Nuclear Engineering 101, U.C. Berkeley, Fall 2009, Prof. Eric Norman; see iTunes U). It's been a real interesting class and the professor seems quite good in his teaching abilities.
In one of the latest lectures, the professor notes how it is often heard that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. To be specific, Einstein said that nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (it's always important to be specific about what is said). The mathematical notation "c" (from the Latin, celeritas, meaning speed or swiftness) is often used to denote the speed of light in a vacuum. However, when light travels through other media, it often travels at a speeds less than "c". An example of this is when light travels through water, it only travels at approximately 0.75c, that is, 3/4 the speed of light in a vacuum (as a sidelight, you can calculate this speed by using the refractive index of the material). What is interesting is that, in the same medium in which light travels less than "c" (in this example of a water medium, the velocity is 0.75c), very small charged particles (e.g. electrons or muons) can travel faster than 0.75c without violating the laws of relativity. When these particles travel faster than the speed of light, radiation/photons are emitted as something analogous to a sonic boom is produced (sort of like a photonic or electromagnetic shock wave). This radiation is called "Cherenkov Radiation" and has the characteristic blue glow that one sometimes sees in movies when nuclear reactors are depicted (see picture; obtained from Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain).
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What Do Christians Need?
I have often asked myself, "What is it that God's people really need with respect to creation and evolution issues? What tools do they need in order to help them evaluate things like creation models and points of evolution from a Lutheran perspective?"
In my opinion, it is absolutely imperative that a Christian begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, an item that would be of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
These points/distinctions are as follows:
1) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and (especially) what the Bible does not say.
- I have often seen mistakes made by well-meaning Christian individuals who have inferred what God should have said or what God intended to say, rather than God actually having spoken it Himself through His Word.
- This is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. For example, with scientific issues about which God is silent, a Christian may in good conscience select any position that he/she sees fit.
2) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific issues and theological issues.
- It is essential for Christians to understand when and how Christian freedom applies to the issues of evolution and creation. For example, if one responds to a scientific question with what should be a scientific answer but rather replies with a theological answer, he is presenting the issue as theologically settled and possibly binding on another's conscience, whereas in reality, the matter may be open to Christian assessment.
- In addition, when exposed to Creation/evolution literature, Christians often ask themselves the single question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach for a Christian is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions: Namely, "Is this theologically permissible?" and "Is this scientifically valid?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two diametrically opposed scientific opinions may both be theologically permissible.
3) Understand the differences between the scientific definition and the theological definition of words such as "truth" and "fact"
- In science, there is no such thing as a "final truth" since existing truths may be revised or superseded at any time. In science, the reason why truths are always considered tentative is because scientific knowledge is always incomplete. In theology, on the other hand, God promises that His Word is sufficient for our needs.
- The criteria for determining a "truth" and a "fact" are different between science and theology. Scientific truth is (to a large extent) based on repetitive observation. In theology, it is centered on God's Word and promise rather than what we observe and feel.
4) Understand that science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
- This even applies to so-called "creation science" (that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism) and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models.
- Science is often presented to and perceived by people, who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. This is not an honest appraisal. More realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a foam/porous ball where the knowns and unknowns are mixed and outside of which there are an unknown amount of unknowns.
- This is not to say that science is necessarily wrong (for various reasons, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is right); this is also not meant to underestimate the growth and level of scientific knowledge; but, one can always say with certainty that scientific knowledge will never offer a complete view of physical reality. There will always be unknown variables (the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed) and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the knowns and unknowns in the physical world.
- Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the listener/reader always understand this incomplete/tentative nature of scientific conclusions - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that the Old Adam will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence (which was incomplete in the first place) is later falsified, despair will prevail.
- It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: if there is (tentative/incomplete) scientific evidence in favor of creation, that's OK; and, if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because, in the end, it really doesn't matter -- God's Word is sure.
- This is not to say that creation models are inherently wrong or bad; personally, I find them rather enjoyable. However, it is important for the Christian to understand the role and place of scientific models in the realm of creation and evolution so as to recognize 1) their limitations and 2) the responsibility of the writer and reader in maintaining the aforementioned distinctions.
In my opinion, it is absolutely imperative that a Christian begin by making certain fundamental distinctions in order to enable them to adequately assess creationist models and evolutionary viewpoints. Therefore, an item that would be of great help to God's people is not necessarily providing a new creation model, but rather, and more importantly, providing a way of evaluating such models using distinctions.
These points/distinctions are as follows:
1) Clearly distinguish between what the Bible says and (especially) what the Bible does not say.
- I have often seen mistakes made by well-meaning Christian individuals who have inferred what God should have said or what God intended to say, rather than God actually having spoken it Himself through His Word.
- This is especially important because, on those issues where God has spoken the matter is settled, and on those issues where God is silent we must allow for a difference of opinion. For example, with scientific issues about which God is silent, a Christian may in good conscience select any position that he/she sees fit.
2) Thoroughly and persistently distinguish between scientific issues and theological issues.
- It is essential for Christians to understand when and how Christian freedom applies to the issues of evolution and creation. For example, if one responds to a scientific question with what should be a scientific answer but rather replies with a theological answer, he is presenting the issue as theologically settled and possibly binding on another's conscience, whereas in reality, the matter may be open to Christian assessment.
- In addition, when exposed to Creation/evolution literature, Christians often ask themselves the single question: "Is this right/wrong?" Rather, a better approach for a Christian is to maintain the distinction between the scientific and the theological by asking two separate questions: Namely, "Is this theologically permissible?" and "Is this scientifically valid?" This is a worthwhile practice because something that is theologically permissible may have more than one scientific opinion. It is even possible that two diametrically opposed scientific opinions may both be theologically permissible.
3) Understand the differences between the scientific definition and the theological definition of words such as "truth" and "fact"
- In science, there is no such thing as a "final truth" since existing truths may be revised or superseded at any time. In science, the reason why truths are always considered tentative is because scientific knowledge is always incomplete. In theology, on the other hand, God promises that His Word is sufficient for our needs.
- The criteria for determining a "truth" and a "fact" are different between science and theology. Scientific truth is (to a large extent) based on repetitive observation. In theology, it is centered on God's Word and promise rather than what we observe and feel.
4) Understand that science, by its very nature and definition, will always consist of an incomplete body of knowledge.
- This even applies to so-called "creation science" (that is, scientific evidence used to support Biblical creationism) and Christians would do well to remember to give appropriate qualifiers when presenting scientific evidence in creation models.
- Science is often presented to and perceived by people, who do not work directly in scientific fields, as an impenetrable monolith of certainty. This is not an honest appraisal. More realistically, I have often represented scientific knowledge as a foam/porous ball where the knowns and unknowns are mixed and outside of which there are an unknown amount of unknowns.
- This is not to say that science is necessarily wrong (for various reasons, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is right); this is also not meant to underestimate the growth and level of scientific knowledge; but, one can always say with certainty that scientific knowledge will never offer a complete view of physical reality. There will always be unknown variables (the existence of these are why scientists and engineers continue to be employed) and even an unknown number of scientific questions that have never been posed because not enough is known to ask those questions. In fact, if all the unknowns were to be answered, science would cease to exist since science thrives at the interface between the knowns and unknowns in the physical world.
- Therefore, it is of utmost necessity that the listener/reader always understand this incomplete/tentative nature of scientific conclusions - especially when applied to creation science issues. If this is not understood, it is my experience that the Old Adam will begin to substitute such scientific evidence in place of faith in God's Word and promise, and, if scientific evidence (which was incomplete in the first place) is later falsified, despair will prevail.
- It is because science is incomplete that it should always be a necessary goal of any Lutheran creation model to lead the Christian into the following mindset: if there is (tentative/incomplete) scientific evidence in favor of creation, that's OK; and, if such evidence is later falsified, that's OK, too, because, in the end, it really doesn't matter -- God's Word is sure.
- This is not to say that creation models are inherently wrong or bad; personally, I find them rather enjoyable. However, it is important for the Christian to understand the role and place of scientific models in the realm of creation and evolution so as to recognize 1) their limitations and 2) the responsibility of the writer and reader in maintaining the aforementioned distinctions.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Role of Faith (Todd's Blog ... Again)
Todd C. Wood, in one of his blog entries ( http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/10/nature-of-faith.html ), brings in an important aspect to keep in mind when considering creation vs. evolution -- that is the role of faith (trust/confidence in God's promises).
To quote from Todd's blog, "... I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new "evidence for creation" and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant."
Exactly.
I have seen many individuals place their reliance in evidences for Creation(ism) at a higher level than what God says through His Word.
In fact, you can make a rough estimate on how much reliance you are putting in evidences for Creation (as opposed to God's promises/Word) by asking yourself the following: What happens when one of the scientific evidences that I have used as support for Creation(ism) is suddenly shown to be in error by recent scientific findings? Do I sense a sinking feeling in my stomach? Do I question the gift of faith that God gave me? Do I question the sufficiency of the Scriptures? Do I try an justify the priority that I have placed on evidences for creation because such evidences are a (supposedly) necessary part of Christian apologetics? (I'll cover my opinion of the proper role of apologetics in another blog post)
If you have answered "yes," to any one of these questions, then you are putting too much reliance on evidences for Creation and not enough reliance on your Creator's promises to you through His Word (e.g., that His Word is Truth; that His promises are certain).
Like Todd C. Wood, I find far too often in Christian creationist literature that scientific evidences are prioritized to a level higher than God's Word. I cringe when I hear (listening to Ken Ham's presentation at ICC 2008), "if the physical things are not true, then how can we believe the spiritual and moral things." This type of approach leads Christians down a dangerous road that turns faith on its head. To make it clear to the reader of this blog, we (Lutheran Christians) believe the spiritual things (from the Bible) not because we find physical evidences for them but only because God says it they are true.
Personally, I find it very enjoyable to look at God's creation from scientific perspectives to see what He has done and to see how it can be described, scientifically. But that does not mean that the faith which God has given to me finds its basis in such scientific perspectives. This is so is because of 1) the nature of faith (i.e., it lays hold of God's promises to me rather than physical evidence that I apprehend; Hebrews 11:1ff) as well as 2) the nature of science (i.e., its truths and facts are always considered incomplete and therefore tentative).
To quote from Todd's blog, "... I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new "evidence for creation" and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant."
Exactly.
I have seen many individuals place their reliance in evidences for Creation(ism) at a higher level than what God says through His Word.
In fact, you can make a rough estimate on how much reliance you are putting in evidences for Creation (as opposed to God's promises/Word) by asking yourself the following: What happens when one of the scientific evidences that I have used as support for Creation(ism) is suddenly shown to be in error by recent scientific findings? Do I sense a sinking feeling in my stomach? Do I question the gift of faith that God gave me? Do I question the sufficiency of the Scriptures? Do I try an justify the priority that I have placed on evidences for creation because such evidences are a (supposedly) necessary part of Christian apologetics? (I'll cover my opinion of the proper role of apologetics in another blog post)
If you have answered "yes," to any one of these questions, then you are putting too much reliance on evidences for Creation and not enough reliance on your Creator's promises to you through His Word (e.g., that His Word is Truth; that His promises are certain).
Like Todd C. Wood, I find far too often in Christian creationist literature that scientific evidences are prioritized to a level higher than God's Word. I cringe when I hear (listening to Ken Ham's presentation at ICC 2008), "if the physical things are not true, then how can we believe the spiritual and moral things." This type of approach leads Christians down a dangerous road that turns faith on its head. To make it clear to the reader of this blog, we (Lutheran Christians) believe the spiritual things (from the Bible) not because we find physical evidences for them but only because God says it they are true.
Personally, I find it very enjoyable to look at God's creation from scientific perspectives to see what He has done and to see how it can be described, scientifically. But that does not mean that the faith which God has given to me finds its basis in such scientific perspectives. This is so is because of 1) the nature of faith (i.e., it lays hold of God's promises to me rather than physical evidence that I apprehend; Hebrews 11:1ff) as well as 2) the nature of science (i.e., its truths and facts are always considered incomplete and therefore tentative).
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Todd's Blog
I need to finish up a number of articles which are still incomplete. In the mean time, I want to mention that I've been following another blog for a few weeks now ( http://toddcwood.blogspot.com ). What sparked my interest in Todd's viewpoint is his blog entry from Wednesday, September 30, 2009 ("The Truth about Evolution" found here: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html ). I find it interesting that he shares some of the same thoughts that I have in characterizing the evolutionary viewpoint.
Two points to summarize:
Even though the Scriptures leave no room for the possibility of universal common descent, it is still possible that some (many?) of the things that we see and observe might be interpreted as evidence for evolution.
In addition, even if there were no evidence for creation, I would still believe it for no other reason than God said it.
Two points to summarize:
Even though the Scriptures leave no room for the possibility of universal common descent, it is still possible that some (many?) of the things that we see and observe might be interpreted as evidence for evolution.
In addition, even if there were no evidence for creation, I would still believe it for no other reason than God said it.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
How old is the earth?
{Revised 11/21/09}
"How old is the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a non-theological/scientific question while the latter is a theological indeterminate question.
How one answers these questions seems to be a major defining point among the creationist groups. Both the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) would give the same respective answer for each question (YEC would say that the answer for both questions is ~6,000 years; OEC would say that the answer for both is 4.65 billion years).
A YEC would infer that because God created the world (usually) 6,000 to 10,000 years years ago, He would therefore need to make the measurable parameters such that they would reflect that timeline. If not, so they say, then "God would be a deceiver." An example of this is the need to make the speed of light such that the time spent en-route from the stars would equate with something on the order of 6,000-10,000 years (changing speeds, etc). Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are examples of groups that hold this view.
An OEC assumes the (current) scientific data for the distances (via cosmic distance ladder) to the farthest stars, multiplies it with the speed of light (distance divided by time) and obtains time since creation. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) is an example of someone who holds this view.
I don't think it a coincidence that both groups appear to be from Reformed backgrounds since Reformed (Zwinglianism/Calvinism and Arminianism) often seem to have a need to provide natural explanations for God's actions/miracles. The Reformed treatment of the Lord's Supper provides a good example of this, where the appearance of what is being received has greater emphasis than Christ's words.
In comparison, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer to both questions since we do not have the need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world.
One could make the case that, in some of the miracles performed by Jesus, there seems to be a discontinuity between actual time span experienced by humans and physical changes that Jesus brought about miraculously (which is why we call them miracles). For example, with the wine created by Jesus at the Wedding at Cana (John 2) notice how Jesus' miracle involved an interruption in the normal time line. The fact that the wine appeared "good" to the guests does not conflict with the fact that it was made only a little earlier that same day. There was no deception involved. Jesus spoke and it was so. He made it fully functional and ready-to-go; capturing all the characteristics of an fine wine. (This comparison between the created age of the earth and the wine at Cana differs, however, at least in this respect: the wine was not created out of nothing).
For the Lutheran, an approximate answer to "When was the earth created?" can be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible (some YEC groups try to obtain dates from the Bible that are more specific than can be exegetically obtained; for example, using the Ussher chronology).
A Lutheran will also recognize that, since the Bible describes the created earth and universe as being fully functional but stops short of providing specifics, for example, distances to the stars, the question "How old is the earth?" or "How old does the universe appear?" is a non-theological/scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom (and scientific knowledge) to assess.
These comments are not intended to make a case in favor of either a young earth or an old earth (I will save that for elsewhere). The point that I am making is this: from a confessional Lutheran perspective, an appearance of age (i.e., much longer than the assumed timeline since creation) with respect to some aspects of creation may be theologically acceptable.
"How old is the earth?" and "When was the earth created?" are two separate questions. The former is a non-theological/scientific question while the latter is a theological indeterminate question.
How one answers these questions seems to be a major defining point among the creationist groups. Both the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) would give the same respective answer for each question (YEC would say that the answer for both questions is ~6,000 years; OEC would say that the answer for both is 4.65 billion years).
A YEC would infer that because God created the world (usually) 6,000 to 10,000 years years ago, He would therefore need to make the measurable parameters such that they would reflect that timeline. If not, so they say, then "God would be a deceiver." An example of this is the need to make the speed of light such that the time spent en-route from the stars would equate with something on the order of 6,000-10,000 years (changing speeds, etc). Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are examples of groups that hold this view.
An OEC assumes the (current) scientific data for the distances (via cosmic distance ladder) to the farthest stars, multiplies it with the speed of light (distance divided by time) and obtains time since creation. Hugh Ross (Reasons To Believe) is an example of someone who holds this view.
I don't think it a coincidence that both groups appear to be from Reformed backgrounds since Reformed (Zwinglianism/Calvinism and Arminianism) often seem to have a need to provide natural explanations for God's actions/miracles. The Reformed treatment of the Lord's Supper provides a good example of this, where the appearance of what is being received has greater emphasis than Christ's words.
In comparison, a confessional Lutheran would not necessarily need to have the same answer to both questions since we do not have the need to resolve everything the Bible says with our observations of the natural world.
One could make the case that, in some of the miracles performed by Jesus, there seems to be a discontinuity between actual time span experienced by humans and physical changes that Jesus brought about miraculously (which is why we call them miracles). For example, with the wine created by Jesus at the Wedding at Cana (John 2) notice how Jesus' miracle involved an interruption in the normal time line. The fact that the wine appeared "good" to the guests does not conflict with the fact that it was made only a little earlier that same day. There was no deception involved. Jesus spoke and it was so. He made it fully functional and ready-to-go; capturing all the characteristics of an fine wine. (This comparison between the created age of the earth and the wine at Cana differs, however, at least in this respect: the wine was not created out of nothing).
For the Lutheran, an approximate answer to "When was the earth created?" can be obtained by looking at the genealogies in the Bible (some YEC groups try to obtain dates from the Bible that are more specific than can be exegetically obtained; for example, using the Ussher chronology).
A Lutheran will also recognize that, since the Bible describes the created earth and universe as being fully functional but stops short of providing specifics, for example, distances to the stars, the question "How old is the earth?" or "How old does the universe appear?" is a non-theological/scientific one about which we are free to use our Christian freedom (and scientific knowledge) to assess.
These comments are not intended to make a case in favor of either a young earth or an old earth (I will save that for elsewhere). The point that I am making is this: from a confessional Lutheran perspective, an appearance of age (i.e., much longer than the assumed timeline since creation) with respect to some aspects of creation may be theologically acceptable.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Design Optimism
{Revised 9/25/10}
It's been my experience that scientists are often more optimistic about being able to successfully extrapolate fundamental scientific principles than engineers would be. Maybe that's because we (i.e., engineers) have experience in trying to industrialize such designs and therefore we see how often they don't work out in large scale production even though, in principle, they should.
This is not to say that when designs have problems, physical laws are being violated. Rather, it is due to incomplete knowledge; knowledge which is sometimes filled in later and at other times, not.
It's been my experience that scientists are often more optimistic about being able to successfully extrapolate fundamental scientific principles than engineers would be. Maybe that's because we (i.e., engineers) have experience in trying to industrialize such designs and therefore we see how often they don't work out in large scale production even though, in principle, they should.
This is not to say that when designs have problems, physical laws are being violated. Rather, it is due to incomplete knowledge; knowledge which is sometimes filled in later and at other times, not.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Singularity
What makes the origin aspect particularly difficult to ascertain from a scientific perspective, is that the creation event itself, as well as the Flood, would each be viewed as singularities. That is, they are (from a scientific perspective) non-repeatable anomalies. Science requires an event to be repeatable in order to study and make measurements. Since those two are not repeatable (i.e., one-time occurrences), it is scientifically impossible to understand the physical nature of what exactly went on. This is no different than anything else in science -- if you can't repeat it, you can't understand it. A good example is when your vehicle does something (i.e., a sound, a vibration) that can't be repeated when you take it into the shop -- it's very difficult for the mechanic to fix what he/she can't observe.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What is Truth?
It is important for a Christian to understand not only what is science asking but also how science answers the question, "what is truth?"
Often, science is regarded as a complete and irrefutable body of knowledge and therefore, is equated with "truth". However, in reality, science is made up of an incomplete and porous body of knowledge outside of which there is no known boundary. What that means is that while science does have a huge and increasing body of knowledge (e.g., you can, in relative safety, fly on an airline at 35,000 feet and be relatively sure that you will land at your destination), there is no way to know for certain how much science doesn't know nor even what all the questions are.
Science is and will always be, by its very nature, an incomplete body of knowledge. If there would ever be a time that science knows everything (in theology, we refer to this as omniscience), then science would cease to exist since science exists at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
I should also mention that if a mode of thought (i.e. science) says that it wants to pursue only naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations of this world, I personally don't have a problem with that. In my work, I don't usually ask myself what are the theological implications for using a part made out of C65500 silicon bronze rather than 302/304 passivated stainless steel. That's not to say that there are never theological implications with engineering decisions. When I am selecting an encapsulating material for use in manufacturing, I certainly look at and compare the health risks shown on the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheet) of various materials and consider the potential health implications to workers who might be handling those materials (in light of the 5th commandment to not hurt or harm my neighbor). However, making an evaluation and decision based only upon the physicial properties and aspects shown on a technical data sheet is not necessarly morally wrong (what determines the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action from God's point of view also requires us getting into acting out of Christian faith -- but I will leave that for another time). And if there is a mode of thought that only wants consider the physical and natural aspects of this world, per se, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when science does not humbly and inherently acknowledge that, by definition, its knowledge is and will never be complete or when science insists that there is nothing apart from the measurable and detectable physical world, it steps into an area outside of its own self-defined mode of thought. At best, all science can do is offer no comment to such questions. (Here we could also get into the history of science and its relationship to theology, but I will leave that for another discussion)
A few illustrations to make my point. Notice, in the third illustration that the question before the U.S. District Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) was not "is intelligent design true?". Rather, the question was "is intelligent design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID fit into the same mode of thought and action as science defines itself?"
Often, science is regarded as a complete and irrefutable body of knowledge and therefore, is equated with "truth". However, in reality, science is made up of an incomplete and porous body of knowledge outside of which there is no known boundary. What that means is that while science does have a huge and increasing body of knowledge (e.g., you can, in relative safety, fly on an airline at 35,000 feet and be relatively sure that you will land at your destination), there is no way to know for certain how much science doesn't know nor even what all the questions are.
Science is and will always be, by its very nature, an incomplete body of knowledge. If there would ever be a time that science knows everything (in theology, we refer to this as omniscience), then science would cease to exist since science exists at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
I should also mention that if a mode of thought (i.e. science) says that it wants to pursue only naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations of this world, I personally don't have a problem with that. In my work, I don't usually ask myself what are the theological implications for using a part made out of C65500 silicon bronze rather than 302/304 passivated stainless steel. That's not to say that there are never theological implications with engineering decisions. When I am selecting an encapsulating material for use in manufacturing, I certainly look at and compare the health risks shown on the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheet) of various materials and consider the potential health implications to workers who might be handling those materials (in light of the 5th commandment to not hurt or harm my neighbor). However, making an evaluation and decision based only upon the physicial properties and aspects shown on a technical data sheet is not necessarly morally wrong (what determines the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action from God's point of view also requires us getting into acting out of Christian faith -- but I will leave that for another time). And if there is a mode of thought that only wants consider the physical and natural aspects of this world, per se, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when science does not humbly and inherently acknowledge that, by definition, its knowledge is and will never be complete or when science insists that there is nothing apart from the measurable and detectable physical world, it steps into an area outside of its own self-defined mode of thought. At best, all science can do is offer no comment to such questions. (Here we could also get into the history of science and its relationship to theology, but I will leave that for another discussion)
A few illustrations to make my point. Notice, in the third illustration that the question before the U.S. District Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) was not "is intelligent design true?". Rather, the question was "is intelligent design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID fit into the same mode of thought and action as science defines itself?"
- from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences, p27
"Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science. Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
- from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, page 30
"Second, the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science."
- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KITZMILLER v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case No. 04cv2688, MEMORANDUM OPINION, December 20, 2005
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
