Banner
Utter Irrelevance PDF Print E-mail
Atheism and Apologetics - Evolution
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:57 am

Here is Bruce Waltke, on why Christians should believe in evolution. HT: Joe Rigney.

There are (at least) five confusions here.

First, he wants to say that if we believe that the Lord is the Giver and Creator of all life, and we do so in a way that is not approved by our secularist betters, then that means we have embraced death. To simply accept "what God says" is actually cultic. There is something counterintuitive in there somewhere.

Second, Waltke confounds "what the data requires" with "what secularists stubbornly say that the data requires." All truth is indeed God's truth, but it does not follow from this that all lies are God's truth. Suppose the data don't constitute overwhelming evidence for evolution? Suppose Christians surrender on Darwin unnecessarily? What are we embracing then?

Third, as mentioned above, he says that refusal to believe in evolution is to embrace spiritual death. But the evolutionary account of our world points to a record of death. What is the fossil record but a massive column of dead bodies? If God created by evolutionary means, then nature red in tooth and claw is "very good," and God doesn't have the problem with death that we thought He did. So maybe it might be a good thing to embrace spiritual death. Or did I miss something?

Fourth, there is a difference between "staying in the discussion" with unbelievers and sitting down and believing what you are told by unbelievers to believe. Paul was in a real dialogue with the philosophers on Mars Hill, and it did not consist of him getting into a high chair and having them cut his meat for him.

Fifth, this displays, as few other things could, the utter irrelevance of the lust for relevance.


Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
C. Lee Babbitt  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:34 am
When I was studying to be a physicist, I was taught that Michael Faraday said like the following:

You can often trust the data from an experiment. You can rarely trust the interpretation of that data. The sad truth is that so few Christians can independently verify, evaluate and interpret the data evolutionists throw at us saying it is relevant!

Taking point #3 in a slightly different direction: Did God really mean that we shouldn't commit murder? What's wrong with murder if death is "very good"?
Aaron  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:10 pm
C. Lee Babbitt wrote:
When I was studying to be a physicist, I was taught that Michael Faraday said like the following:

You can often trust the data from an experiment. You can rarely trust the interpretation of that data. The sad truth is that so few Christians can independently verify, evaluate and interpret the data evolutionists throw at us saying it is relevant!

Taking point #3 in a slightly different direction: Did God really mean that we shouldn't commit murder? What's wrong with murder if death is "very good"?


I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate here...but we (Christians) don't have an issue accepting a germ theory of disease, or that the Earth is round, etc. etc. Should we assume that God made the world to have physical realities that aren't really reality? Evolution doesn't necessarily fit in this category, but there are many Christians that would insist that we have no rocks or earth older than 6000 years, for example. Those same Christians have no problem accepting that cancer is a real disease. Both of these "facts" have been affirmed to me in the same way: by listening to those in authority that have experience with analyzing, experimenting and scientifically affirming the data. I didn't look in my Bible to see if prostate cancer is real and I'm not sure I would direct my oncologist there either.

I wrestle with this...and the fact that Christian orthodoxy is so often measured by a person's commitment to YEC.
dave matre  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:41 am
Does no death mean no steaks in heaven? :shock:
Derrick  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:46 am
This was really painful to watch.

To add to your list, we can say that he simple begs the question by assuming that "being a cult" is a bad thing. He seemed to define 'cult' as a group that isn't taken seriously by the "main culture at large." A cult is a marginalized group. OK, I'll accept this inaccurate definition for the sake of argument and then ask the professor to prove that this is a bad thing. After all, the Roman Empire pretty much thought this way of the early Christians as well as the Jews. When Paul went to Mars Hill, the egghead cultural elite called him a "seed picker."

"Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, 'What does this babbler wish to say?' (Acts 17:18, ESV)

The word "babbler" is spermologos -- literally, a picker of seeds. This is what the birds would do. When seeds would fall onto the streets, scavenging birds would come in and scrounge for whatever they could get. Thus, the term was used to describe low individuals who scrounged for random information and ideas. They were calling him a philosophical gutter dweller. Talk about being "culturally irrelevant." In the eyes of Athenian philosophers, Paul was certainly part of a cult. Prove that this was a bad thing.

Moreover, I doubt that Chaplain Mike has a good grasp of either "science" or the Galileo affair. I realize I'm not working with much data here so I would be quick to revise this assessment. But I have generally found that people who refer to "science" as some monolithic enterprise and "the findings of science" as some consistent, monolithic entity have not studied the history and philosophy of science. His casual reference to Galileo fits in with this assessment in as much as he doesn't seem to be aware of some important and relevant information. Some of that information was pointed out in the comments (e.g., Galileo was something of an intellectual thug and he was perfectly willing to use unsound arguments to advance his position). As it turns out, Galileo did not make a good case and Bellarmine clearly had the stronger position. Indeed, there are significant parts of Galileo's position that nobody today holds because Galileo rejected Kepler's modifications of Copernicus. When Galileo wrote his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he ignored Kepler altogether even though Kepler's position fit the data every bit as well as did Copernicus' system. Even at the time, there weren't many Copernicans among the ranks of "cosmologists" and many were skeptical of or rejected the Copernican theory for good, "scientific" reasons. That Chaplain Mike refers to the Galileo affair as "the classic example" of Christian ignorance appears to be quite ironic.
Brad Donovan  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:56 am
Arrgg! Another famous guy who mocks those of us who take the Bible as is! Why is it that every modern scholastic is so eager to be manouvered by the lust of relevence? He looks so smug. According to him, I'm not very "mature" for denouncing evoloution as a doctrine set up by fools against the God of Heaven and His Christ. I'm an irrelevent sectarian? Well.... I might be, but not for that...... sheesh.
Gianni  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:17 am

"...marginalized, totally marginalized... and I think that would be a great tragedy for the church... for us to become marginalized ..."

I totally agree with Professor Waltke.

And I'd put it this way. There's no surer way for a theologian to end up marginalized by history than to try really hard to avoid being marginalized by whatever happens to be the scientific consensus of his times.

__________________________________

"We are much more mature by this dialogue we are having."

The dialogue so far looks like this:

Scientist: "The data is overwhelming."

Mature theologian: "OK."

__________________________________

This is so Al Gore. The science is settled. Let's believe in evolution, or we're all gonna die. The ultimate argument.

Andrew Roggow  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:27 pm
Number 3 is a very good point that I have used as well. Scripture says that death was the price for sin, but evolution requires lots of death. Any Christian who believes in evolution has a problem here.
JP1  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:30 pm
evolution within species or adaptation shouldn't be feared,. Its the "Origin of Species" variety that must be opposed. Yet they constantly confuse the two within debate.
Tim Brenner  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:52 pm
I am by no means a believer in evolution, but the comments have sparked a question in my mind that I've had for some time now regarding the role of death in the creation. If Adam was to climb a tree and fall thirty feet onto his head, would he not be killed as any one of us would be? I understand that he had a different spiritual nature than we do (before the fall), but I don't see where he would be different from us physically in any way. This makes be wonder then, in what manner was death introduced to the world through sin? If Adam could have died apart from anything to do with sin, which it seems to me like he could have, then wouldn't it also make sense that physical death was always part of the created order?

If this is the case, carnivores possessing sharp teeth for tearing the meat off of their less fortunate, grass eating neighbors makes more sense. Why would God have originally created them this way if there wasn't physical death before sin?

Also, even after we believe and are given new hearts, though we don't die spiritually, we still die physically. This perhaps suggests that physical death was never the problem, since the Bible states the"sting" has been removed, yet we still die.

I do however think that there will be neither in the new heavens and earth, when the lion lays down with the lamb. Just wondering, so don't start gathering stones just yet.

Tim Brenner  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:17 pm
There is of course Gen. 1:30 which states that everything ate plants for their food, but that still doesn't answer the question of Adam's, or anything else in creation, physical vulnerabilities. A stray cat loses to a speeding truck every time, before and after the Fall.
Will S  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:25 pm
Tim, you do believe that a post resurrection body will not die right? Why would a pre fall body be different?
Brad Donovan  Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:08 pm
To join the party here, I think there is a vast difference between a pre-fall Adam, and a post-resurrection me. I would argue from analogy. Jesus, who is the first fruits of the resurrection, possessed some qualities that Adam did not have before the fall. He has wisdom, or the knowlegde of Good and Evil. He also has the ability to pass through walls. The fact that Genesis is silent about whether or not Adam could do that before and not after the fall may or may not be important.... heh.

Still, I would argue that by use of analogy we can fairly safely say that post-resurrection bodies, abstractly considered, are superior in every way to pre-fall ones. The maturity theme in scripture is one thread of possible arguement. The idea of glorification and attaining to everything Adam ought to have, and that done in Christ, also comes to mind.
Gianni  Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:02 am

Tim, that's a good question.

Likewise, we would perhaps find it hard to see how the post-resurrection body cannot possibly die even if dropped from a helicopter, if we hadn't been given some glimpses of what Jesus can do after he exits the tomb. In the case of Adam we have no such hints, only God's Word about what did happen and about how death entered the world. So Will's analogy is good, because it directs us to what we actually know. Brad's objection may be correct regarding the maturity aspect, but speculative when it attempts to answer Will's point from that angle.

However, good as Will's point is, we have to talk about Providence. When we ask whether Adam was immortal before the Fall there's the risk we don't know what we are asking. Does providential immortality count as actual immortality? Are the elect immortal before they are born again? Could Jesus have died due to complications during birth? Theoretically, in a way, we can say that some things might have happened. But it was not to be. Some things that, we think, could have conceivably killed Adam, like a mountain-sized meteorite crashing right on top of his head (although, you know, theoretically possible) were actually utterly impossible because of God's decretive will. The world that God created had no speeding trucks. Meteorites don't just fall from the sky. People don't just climb tall trees.

In God's plan, death had to enter the world through sin, not through a "natural accident". Death had to be an alien element intruding spectacularly in God's good creation due to man's disobedience.

Not only that, but Adam had to be fully convinced that this was indeed the case. But would he have been fully convinced, if he had observed instances of death all around him ever since he was created? Like it or not, it's a fact of history that there was actually a living creature that was the first one to ever die. The Bible wants us to believe that that particular living creature was the animal that gave its skin so Adam and Eve could be clothed.

Sooner of later someone will mention the Tree of Life. I'll do it. That tree has a somewhat mysterious role here, I grant that. But I refuse to use that element of the story beyond what Scripture says, to cast doubt on what the story clearly wants me to believe. I agree with James Jordan that the Fall (from innocence, not from the tall tree) probably took place quite soon after the creation was completed. I remember Jordan says it was the first Saturday. Adam was one day old. Totally believable. Not much had sufficient time to happen. Before you knew it, Adam sinned and death was there. If the grass could survive one day without the light of the yet-to-be-created sun, I don't see why the animals couldn't have survived two days before Adam sinned.

Not that God was ever in a hurry, hoping Adam would eat the forbidden fruit before he or any mammoth would fall from a cliff and die. But the history of the world had to make sense from the beginning, and the Word of God had to be true, trustworthy and credible to Adam, as well as to us, when it tells us that death came through sin.

So Tim, when you ask, "If Adam could have died apart from anything to do with sin, which it seems to me like he could have, then wouldn't it also make sense that physical death was always part of the created order?", you get everything backwards and upside down. The answer is that Adam could not have died apart from sin, which means that it doesn't make sense that physical death was always part of the created order.

Gianni  Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:18 am

Tim, as for the sharp teeth of carnivores, first, I don't know that God created them that way.

We are clearly told that nature was cursed due to sin, and that this curse was externalized and expressed in ways that were both visible and painful, through striking physical changes to the original creation.

Having said that, some bats, deer, rodents and even dinosaurs are vegetarian in spite of their sharp teeth. Not exactly a smoking gun.

We are expressedly told that animals ate grass. I can't get past the impression that we are told that for a very good reason. Just follow the plot. I don't get the impression that the writer of Genesis is bending over backwards to convince us that animals have always been dying, and that they were dying before the Fall just as they do now. I don't think Paul got that impression either.

Kirsten Miller  Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:40 am
It's tragic and frightening to see an older gentleman who has spent his life in the church talk and think like this. I pray God will keep me faithful to His Word all the days of my life.
Chris Donato  - Five Counter-Confusions  Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:15 am
1) It seems to me that what Waltke wants to say is that if you confess that the triune Creator is the Lord and the Giver of life, while at the same time denying the truths revealed through the study of God's world, then that's tantamount to death. The lie is betrayed.

2) This is just a matter of someone responding: "I can't suppose any such thing; it'd be like supposing the sun revolves around the earth." Science is, of course, an ever-changing thing, but there are a few principles we just can't suppose differently (like the universe being really old, for example).

3) Death only gets its sting from sin. Moreover, as far as I can tell, only humans were given the Tree of Life to sustain them indefinitely.

4) I believe what I'm told from non-believers all the time. So do you. Especially when they're the experts. I don't presume to teach others about cosmogeny (beyond the very basics), and I don't expect to be told how to fashion a good sentence by a physicist.

5) This post displays, as few other things could, the unfortunate consequences of sticking one's head in the sand. There's hardly anything counterintuitive about that.
Gianni  Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:54 am

Chris,

Suppose an expert of physics begins his book on the origin of the Solar System in this way.

"You all have heard of the God of the Bible, the Creator, in whose awe all the inhabitants of the world are called to stand, because He spake, and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, because on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Well, suppose for a moment that this God doesn't exist. Now, how could this peculiar bunch of rocks and gasses we call the Solar System have come to be, then? And how could it have ended up being arranged in this particular fashion? In my book I will try to answer these questions."

Is this the kind of expert I, a Christian, should believe? Suppose I want to prove here that I do not embrace death.

Suppose further that for a very extended period of time his collegues will discuss and explore in minute and esoteric detail the various possibilities, ramifications, objections, and reformulations of this basic approach. When considering all that noise, should a Christian say in response "I'm impressed", or "What a waste"? Have you read Swedenborg on the origin of the Solar System? Have you read Laplace?

"I had no need of that hypothesis." - Pierre-Simon Laplace, replying to Napoleon, who had asked him why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on the origin of the Solar System.
Gianni  Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:58 am

Waltke has only embarrassed himself. He is unaware of what the secularists are really saying, and he is unaware of what his own team mates are saying. He has spoken like only a professor can speak who is thoroughly unfamiliar with both sides of the issue, but who doesn't want to be marginalized by the secularists. The effect is that he will be marginalized both by his team mates and by the secularists. That's the price one has to pay for the lust of relevance.

And Kirsten, amen to that.
Luke  Thursday, April 01, 2010 4:50 am
Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0
jon Erik Ween  Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:07 am
As any good scientist would know "all theories/models are wrong, some are useful". See http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory. So why could not a christian, who is also a scientist, use provisional theories to gain better understandings of God's creation? The problems (on both sides) is when we laps into unjustified dogmatism. Scripture is concerned with the fact that God created ex-nihilo, not how he created. Evolution helps us understand certain things about the creation, how species diverge, for example. Origins are a different matter. Would that we all would know our limitations.

jon
Chris Donato  Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:34 am
Gianni,

First, let me state (because such things do not communicate virtually) that my tone is light. Doug dishes a lot out, and I only hope to be dishing a little back. It's like pub-talk for me. Second, know that my concern is for the church, and my conviction is that YEC is detrimental to her health.

In Fesko's Last Things First (see the introduction for download on the Christian Focus webpage), he writes, "Many within the Reformed community accept the conclusions of creation science without investigating its presuppositions [founded by a 7th-day Adventist and perpetuated by dispensationalists]" (p. 18 ). Fesko goes on to discuss "the hallmark hermeneutical principle of dispensationalism" — "strict literalism" (p. 19). What is perplexing to Fesko is "that many within the Reformed community will reject dispensational eschatology but embrace its interpretation of creation. …If one applies a consistently Reformed hermeneutic to the interpretation of Scripture, he must reject [dispensationalist and creation scientist] conclusions. Reformed theology neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic" (pp. 19, 21).

To my mind, this is the fundamental starting point when discussing these issues, Gianni.

What's more, your example of what an intro to a physics book might say betrays a deep misunderstanding both of what Gen 1 actually says and the relationship between science and faith.

Science, by its very nature (as is currently understood), must bracket the metaphysical (with apologies to all my presuppositional friends). It cannot explore divine causation, for it concerns itself only with empirical data. Thus it deals with the demonstrable and falsifiable, and not with divine activity (science, therefore, cannot prove or disprove the existence of God).

This is not to suggest that the eyes of faith don't see divine activity thoroughly involved in the creative act, because everything that science discovers is another step in understanding how God has worked or continues to work through the material world and its naturalistic processes.

In short, Gianni, I fully expect a physics book to bracket the metaphysical. I don't need my hand held by a Christian physicist to be lead into doxology when contemplating the wonder of the physical universe.
Otto Wetzel  Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:47 am
Adding to Chris's comments, I would say that the YEC movement has largely failed because of its refusal to deal with tough scientific issues with more than a glib dismissal of evolutionary theory. It's not been able to explain, for example:

1. The fossil record shows life progressing from simplest (at the bottom) to more complex (at the top). YECs can argue that flood geology accounts for fossils, but they cannot explain why the fossil record looks anything like it does.

2. If the flood had been global (and the Genesis text does not demand that it was), tropical animals who now live in the Amazon jungle would have had to cross Arctic ice - did they wear parkas? Kangaroos would have had to traverse the ocean - did they build boats? I have never seen any hard-headed YEC attempts to explain the logistics of animal life repopulating the globe.

3. Modern studies have verified the accuracy of radiometric dating, which shows that the Earth is millions of years old.

Doubting the YEC schema is not a matter of rebelling against God's word - it is a matter of rejecting a theory filled with special pleading and utter IMPOSSIBILITIES.
Mark F  - utter IMPOSIBILITIES....  Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:27 am
God cannot make old rocks?

For that matter, God cannot create fossils?
Otto Wetzel  Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:06 pm
Mark F,

So in other words, you're suggesting that God made the Earth with dead animals already fossilized in it, even though the original state was allegedly one with no animal death?

And God made it LOOK as if rocks were old when they really weren't?

And let me guess...He teleported animals around the globe after the Flood and quickly adapted them to their new environments?

If this is the best that YECs can do, then I think it's safe to say the movement is dead.
Gianni  Thursday, April 01, 2010 3:52 pm

"my tone is light."

Chris, I win. Mine is lighter.

"Second, know that my concern is for the church"

I never doubted that. But of course, that's what they all say. I don't mean to sound offensive. Simply a matter of fact. My concern is for the church, too. With so many people concerned about the church you would think the church has nothing to worry about, don't you think?

"and my conviction is that YEC is detrimental to her health."

Obviously. You are wrong.

"In Fesko's Last Things First (see the introduction for download on the Christian Focus webpage), he writes, "Many within the Reformed community accept the conclusions of creation science without investigating its presuppositions"

Heh. Been there, done that. He's not talking about me.

Now does Fesko warn anybody about accepting the conclusions of secular humanism without investigating its presuppositions?

But I also want to say that many within and without the Reformed community accept a lot of good stuff without investigating its presuppositions. So failing to investigate the presuppositions of stuff is detrimental to the church's health only if it's bad stuff, not if it's good stuff. So Fesko's point is relevant only if YEC is bad stuff, which he (or you) has yet to prove so far.

"[founded by a 7th-day Adventist and perpetuated by dispensationalists]" (p. 18 )."

Chris, I knew that John Calvin affirmed that creation occurred in six days about 6000 years ago, that he believed that thorns, carnivorous animals, earthquakes, are all troubling consequences of the Fall of man, and that he taught that our planet was utterly devastated by a worldwide Flood, but I didn't know that he was a 7th-day Adventist. Mmm. I wonder who the dispensationalists might be who have perpetuated this strange doctrine. Let me guess: Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper?

"Fesko goes on to discuss "the hallmark hermeneutical principle of dispensationalism" — "strict literalism" (p. 19). What is perplexing to Fesko is "that many within the Reformed community will reject dispensational eschatology but embrace its interpretation of creation. ...If one applies a consistently Reformed hermeneutic to the interpretation of Scripture, he must reject [dispensationalist and creation scientist] conclusions. Reformed theology neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic" (pp. 19, 21)."

That, or else even adventists and dispensationalists can read Genesis right and more like Calvin did than many Calvinists. But being a regular reader of Mablog that does not even perplex me anymore. Lord, before I forget, I thank you for Henry Morris and John Whitcomb.

But why stop there? Many within the Reformed community who reject dispensational eschatology will embrace the dispensational interpretation of the texts dealing with the bodily resurrection of Christ. The horror!

True, you will remind me that the dispensationalists do not own this interpretation, as John Calvin interprets those texts in the same way they do. But he interprets also Genesis in the same way they do.

"To my mind, this is the fundamental starting point when discussing these issues, Gianni."

No problem. That's a good starting point. I'm going to win anyway.

"What's more, your example of what an intro to a physics book might say betrays a deep misunderstanding both of what Gen 1 actually says and the relationship between science and faith."

Chris, you miss the point. First, that was not any physics book: it was a book on cosmogony. You know, like the first book of the Bible. And secondly, whether or not I deeply misunderstand Genesis, science, faith and baseball is irrelevant: all secular books on origins implicitly have that introduction.

Well, thanks for refusing to answer my question about experts. Or for answering it, in fact.

"Science, by its very nature (as is currently understood), must bracket the metaphysical (with apologies to all my presuppositional friends)."

Understood by whom? What happens if a scientist refuses to bracket the metaphysical? Will he be arrested? Or does he only end up embracing spiritual death? Say he refuses to bracket the metaphysical through trying to determine the origin of the Moon on the assumption that God didn't just put it there one day.

"It cannot explore divine causation, for it concerns itself only with empirical data."

Well then why don't you tell them to shut up, when these experts presume to tell you that the world didn't come about the way Genesis appears to teach? Don't you believe in divine causation? What do they know about divine causation?

What? You disagree regarding what Genesis appears to teach? Suppose that, regarding what Genesis appears to teach, you agreed with Calvin and with all the other adventists. Would you tell the experts to shut up then?

"Thus it deals with the demonstrable and falsifiable, and not with divine activity"

Then why do I have an obligation to believe your expert when he tells me what divine activity may or may not have accomplished, and in what it can or cannot have consisted?

"(science, therefore, cannot prove or disprove the existence of God)."

But it must assume the existence of God, and in fact it does, whether your experts like it or not.

"This is not to suggest that the eyes of faith don't see divine activity thoroughly involved in the creative act, because everything that science discovers is another step in understanding how God has worked or continues to work through the material world and its naturalistic processes."

But these experts are not discovering anything: they are only inventing a story. They do that because they need one. Their story is intended and designed to replace our story. Just ask them. They didn't come up with a theory of evolution where God is masterminding all the evolutionary work behind the scenes. They came up with a theory of evolution in order to explain the world apart from God. But we have our own story. It doesn't make any sense to throw away our story in order to replace it with their story after we have reinterpreted it with the eyes of faith. That's an insane thing you are doing, Chris. Man does not get to invent the history of the world. Certain things either happened or they didn't. I don't care if a theory is internally consistent. I don't care if some mysterious commitee has decided to enforce this strange superstition that in their working hours scientists are forbidden to assume that God exists. I don't care if it's always possible to reinterpret a story with the eyes of faith. When we talk about the origin of the world we are talking about history. We are not dependent on the secularists to come up with godless stories in order to then reinterpret them, to their immense frustration, with the eyes of faith. We already know the history of the world. We already know what happened.

"In short, Gianni, I fully expect a physics book to bracket the metaphysical."

They can refuse to give God any role in their stories, but they cannot bracket the metaphysical. To refuse to give God a role in the story of the origin of the world is a metaphysical position.

"I don't need my hand held by a Christian physicist to be lead into doxology when contemplating the wonder of the physical universe"

Ah, nice touch. Funny, I don't feel like I need my hand held by a Christian physicist either, to be lead into doxology when contemplating the wonder of strawmen.
Gianni  Friday, April 02, 2010 4:41 am

"This is not to suggest that the eyes of faith don't see divine activity thoroughly involved in the [evolutionary story]."

It's good that you want to see things through the eyes of faith, Chris. But the problem is that you are way too slow when you do that. You should do push-ups, lose some weight, and train more.

You wait until the secularists are done with their excavations and observations, have interpreted the data according to their presuppositions, arranged the whole thing nicely in a story, and published the story in a book. Then you walk in, buy the book, read their story, and sit down to interpret it with the eyes of faith, possibly in the company of a cup of coffee and a muffin.

You are one slow man of faith. You should be much faster. Act earlier. You should rise up early in the morning and run, not walk, with your Bible in your backpack, to see the data with eyes of faith, and interpret it according to our story, before the dust of the excavation site has settled.

It's the data that you should see and interpret with the eyes of faith, not the story. You already have a story.

It doesn't matter that you put a lot of faith into it, as you certainly have to in order to believe and reinterpret all your experts tell you to believe. Yours is a case of misdirected and mistimed faith. Bad timing and wrong target.

You see, Chris, there is one thing, no, two, that are really, really detrimental to the church's health. One is that often we have too little faith too early. And the second one is that we have too much faith too late. I'm sorry to say, Chris, but in this area you are guilty of both.
Chris Donato  Friday, April 02, 2010 6:20 am
"Mine is lighter."

Yeah, lighter in a smart-assy kinda way. But, then, my lighter is pretentious. I eat Kashi, not muffins, after all. Don't be a hater.

Clearly, we're at a hermeneutical (if not epistemological) impasse. The only point I can honestly recognize and affirm was this: "Suppose that, regarding what Genesis appears to teach, you agreed with Calvin and with all the other adventists. Would you tell the experts to shut up then?"

Absolutely I would. But the axiom with which I approach Gen 1 precludes this from ever being a possibility—unless, of course, said experts presume to say something definitive about the metaphysical. To which I would respond, "Shut up and do your job. Science cannot detect ultimate origins, or telos for that matter, it can only seek to explain the empirical data."

Maybe you get this, and possibly you just don't care, but to deny the ability of any man to evaluate data truthfully is to deny the imago Dei in them. All men have truths accessible to them as they look upon the natural world (e.g., how old the rocks are). The fall doesn't eradicate God's image in man; he might be less human as a result, but he's still human, even if in his unrighteousness he suppresses the truth about the creator.

By the way, that axiom with which I approach Gen 1 is, following Bultmann, that the Bible can't be taken seriously in our modern context.

No, not really. Though that's what you're accusing me of thinking. Seriously, my axiom is basically what Fesko wrote: A responsible reading of Scripture "neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic." This necessarily precludes creation science.
Lyn Perez  Friday, April 02, 2010 9:13 am
Bruce wrote a clarifying reponse: From Bruce:

1. I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it now, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.

2. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

3. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

4. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

5. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

6. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

7. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

8. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

9. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).

Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament
Reformed Theological Seminary “
misericordia  Friday, April 02, 2010 3:45 pm
Too late. Irrelevant. Wilson has already informed us why Waltke said what he said. It's because he lusted for relevance.

I guess all those anti-FVers hastily ascribing ungodly lusts and motives to Wilson's party hasn't taught him anything.
Gianni  Friday, April 02, 2010 5:32 pm

"Yeah, lighter in a smart-assy kinda way. But, then, my lighter is pretentious. I eat Kashi, not muffins, after all. Don't be a hater."

Chris, may God bless you. I am just trying to make myself clear after I heard someone accusing me of cultism and of havig embraced spiritual death and you showed up to support him. Just trying to lighten things up a bit. The muffins were metaphorical. It's all in good spirit. I'm serious when I sound serious, and I'm kidding when it sounds like I'm kidding. But even then I am trying to make some point. I'm serious about the fact that you err badly, but rest assured that there's no hate involved.

"But the axiom with which I approach Gen 1 precludes this from ever being a possibility—unless, of course, said experts presume to say something definitive about the metaphysical. To which I would respond, "Shut up and do your job. Science cannot detect ultimate origins, or telos for that matter, it can only seek to explain the empirical data." "

It can only seek to explain the empirical data? But Chris, you don't realize you are giving back to them with one hand what you had just taken away from them with the other. When you tell them that they only have the freedom to explain the empirical data, they will use that freedom to tell you the story of ultimate origins, which you just forbade them to do. Science cannot but explain the empirical data in the context and form of a story. And secular science will do it in the form of a story where God has no role at all, as they keep Him out on purpose. But in so doing they are presuming to say something definitive about the metaphysical.

It's grotesque that at that point you step in and start injecting some biblical words like "God" and perhaps "Capernaum" into that story in order to be able to tell it to the Church without sounding like an atheist (an insane strategy also called "seeing things through the eyes of faith"). It's too late. Secular scientists have already done with the data what you also should have done with it: interpret it according to your story.

And look, if you feel you lack the skill or the time to do it, it's okay: just support and listen to those Christians who are doing it. The division of labor is a biblical concept, you know.

Note that whether or not God has a role in the story of origins is crucial to the plot of the story. Take the story of the origin of the Sun. The scientist excludes God, because he doesn't want to embrace spiritual death. Oops, wrong answer. He excludes God because that's what good scientists do, he is told. So he is left only with matter, time, chance, and natural forces and laws which are presently known to him. Out of these ingredients he has to come up with a story for how the Sun was born. There may have been several attempts at such story. One thing all these stories have in common is that the making of the Sun took more than one day. Can't be otherwise. Common sense. Supposing God didn't just show up and put the Sun there one Wednesday afternoon, and supposing it was therefore all due to small particles randomly bumping into each other, the making of the Sun quite obviously took a long time. But this is a story that started with the crucial assumption that God didn't do it. Now why on earth do you believe even for a moment a story like this? And this even before some adventist, possibly from Geneva, notices that some details of this story contradict the Bible. But if you start instead with the story of the Bible, in which God shows up and actually puts the Sun there one Wednesday afternoon, then you don't need to talk about gazillions of years, particles, gravity, dust and forces to account for the birth of the Sun. The story is completely different depending on whether God has or doesn't have a role in the story.

When you pick the atheist's story with the dust and the gravity and the gazillion of years and say that's the way God created the Sun, you are not thinking like a Christian. You came in too late with the eyes of faith. You don't need to rewrite their stories. You already know how the Sun was born. What you should do with your eyes of faith is to interpret all further data excavated or observed by the scientist in the light of your story.

"Maybe you get this, and possibly you just don't care, but to deny the ability of any man to evaluate data truthfully is to deny the imago Dei in them."

I get it and I care, but I am not denying any of those things. I do believe that unregenerated man likes to suppress the truth, though.

"All men have truths accessible to them as they look upon the natural world (e.g., how old the rocks are."

It's not so simple. As you know, rocks don't come with convenient labels indicating the year of production. Scientists already believe a story before they study a rock. There are many complications and assumptions involved.

I encourage you to do some reading on the history of science, for example regarding the battle for the age of the world. I don't mean the battle between creationists and their opponents, but the internal battle and bitter quarrels among the secular scientists after Lyell from the 1830s to the early 1900s. Read for instance the candid account by evolutionist Bill Bryson in "A Short History of Nearly Everything", chapter 5 and 7. Find out why different models and values for the age of the world were rejected and substituted with new ones. Note what the driving motivation was. How and why certain consensuses were formed and not others. The reason for dissatisfaction with certain values for the age of the world. How different natural clocks give different ages. On what basis certain clocks were dismissed. What assumptions regarding the history of the world are embedded in the use of certain methods.

Here are some quotes:

"Therefore it followed that the Sun and its planets were relatively, but inescapably, youthful. The problem was that nearly all the fossil evidence contradicted this..."

"Darwin and his geological friends needed the earth to be old, but no-one could come up with a way to make it so."

"But even with radiometric dating ... it would be decades before we got within a billion years or so of the Earth's actual age. Science was on the right track, but still way out."

Next you said,

"By the way, that axiom with which I approach Gen 1 is, following Bultmann, that the Bible can't be taken seriously in our modern context. No, not really. Though that's what you're accusing me of thinking."

Funny, but not true. That lazy, simplistic, stereotypical generalization is not even close to what I have accused you of doing. You have not paid attention. Please read again my posts.

"Seriously, my axiom is basically what Fesko wrote: A responsible reading of Scripture "neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic." This necessarily precludes creation science."

Chris, I won't say that this is a ridiculous excuse for irresponsibly avoiding the heat of the battle, because although that's what it generally is, I don't know your heart. Perhaps you simply are not interested in this topic and the Fesko axiom sounds to you like a good reason to stay out of it. In this case, I hope you will reconsider the points I made in my posts.

But besides "creation science" your axiom also precludes John Calvin, accusing him of poor discernment, of irresponsible hermeneutics, of abandoning Reformed theology, of being cultic, of being detrimental to the church, of being a closet 7th-day Adventist, of causing the marginalization of the church, and of embracing spiritual death, all in the name of being consistent with his legacy, and all because he takes the Bible at face value from the first page. Chris, what I don't understand is why Fesko has waited more than four hundred years before revealing to the world this dark side of John Calvin. If he had published these findings before Lyell and the Origin of the Species I would have found his thesis more compelling.
Derrick  Friday, April 02, 2010 7:34 pm
What follows is my response to Chris. I see that there isn't a lot of repetition with Gianni's response so at least I have that going for me.

“Absolutely I would. But the axiom with which I approach Gen 1 precludes this from ever being a possibility-unless, of course, said experts presume to say something definitive about the metaphysical. To which I would respond, ‘Shut up and do your job. Science cannot detect ultimate origins, or telos for that matter, it can only seek to explain the empirical data.’”

And one of Gianni's points is that they do in fact say and/or presuppose plenty about metaphysics. Moreover, the statement that “science” seeks “to explain the empirical data” is a rather large issue in the philosophy of science that has sparked much debate. For example, what exactly does it mean to “explain” data and why does it need to be explained? I'm not sure if you realize it or not but you've actually stumbled into a 400-500 year old running debate about the most basic nature and purpose of science. And it is far from settled that the task of science is to “explain the data.” And I'm just talking here about secular philosophers of science; I haven't gotten to the Bible yet. So for example, are you aware of the serious and unresolved tensions inherent in the two most commonly stated goals that science should “be empirical” while trying to “explain the data”? This may well be THE problem in the philosophy of science. It sunk the logical positivists and it chewed up Popper as well. I hope you don't think you've solved it. But let me get more specific and focused here. Please prove that the process known as “inference to the best explanation” (IBE) is a valid knowledge-gaining process. Without it, your entire position falls completely.

But before you do that, you need to see just have far down the rabbit hole goes. So far, I’ve allowed a major secular premise to go unchallenged. This assumption basically amounts to a separation between epistemology and ethics. With this separation, epistemology in general and science in particular are seen as more or less value-neutral activities. Sure, most will admit that the activities of science can lead to ethical/unethical consequences, but scientific inquiry in general is fundamentally seen to be based on concepts like logic, validity, consistency, data, accuracy, and impersonal, “automated” judgment. Rarely do people think that the very center of science (or logic for that matter) is judicial authority and ethical obligation. But this is just another example of secularization whereby inherently religious, ethical, and personal concepts are stripped down until what is left is compatible with man as the measure of all things.

This will never do. As “philosophically” problematic as IBE is (and it pretty much leaks like a sieve), its biggest problem is that Yahweh has not ordained it to be a judicially valid knowledge-gaining process. For at the heart of ‘knowledge’ is distinguishing between truth and error, and it should be completely obvious that (1) God has ultimate authority to define the criteria by which truth and error are distinguished and (2) He has authoritatively given us such criteria. Knowledge is far from an abstract, impersonal, “mechanical” concept. The heart of knowledge is authority and fidelity (e.g., a false witness is an unfaithful witness – unfaithful to God’s law as well as to his calling as a witness). It is ethical and judicial to the bone; it is faithful, personal judgment according to criteria provided by an authority. And rebellious secular man has no standing at all to declare which processes are and are not epistemologically authoritative.

This is why IBE, as useful as it is (and it can be quite useful if its limitations are understood), does not have the judicial standing required to accomplish what you need it to accomplish. It does not have the authority to produce knowledge which means that theories about what happened one million years ago (or whatever huge number you prefer) can never be true and you can never have knowledge about such a time period. Thus, the thing you are trying to defend suffers from wholesale epistemological failures at the most fundamental level possible. The very heart of humanism is the autonomous attempt to “be like God, knowing [i.e., authoritatively declaring and determining] good and evil.” Or in this case, knowing truth and error. You really shouldn’t join in this endeavor.

“Maybe you get this, and possibly you just don't care, but to deny the ability of any man to evaluate data truthfully is to deny the imago Dei in them.”

That's a mighty big straw man you're dousing there. Perhaps you could rephrase.

“All men have truths accessible to them as they look upon the natural world (e.g., how old the rocks are). The fall doesn't eradicate God's image in man; he might be less human as a result, but he's still human, even if in his unrighteousness he suppresses the truth about the creator.”

Don't look now but you just answered your own concern. “... if in his unrighteousness he suppresses the truth about the creator.” And I'm not simply referring to all of the self-conscious and intentional suppression, I'm also referring to the more subtle and/or forms of suppression that the individual isn't being maliciously intentional about. For him, what he's doing is simply “common sense,” “obviously true,” or the like. As it turns out, people are influenced/guided/cajoled/directed by far more than “just the facts.”

Moreover, when I look upon the natural world, I see a rock. What I don't see is the age of the rock. Unless I or someone else saw the rock being formed (or, e.g., it was video tapped), the age of the rock is a non-empirical quality. Quite a bit more is required to get to that quality than simply looking upon it, and it is that “quite a bit more,” not the bare, unqualified ability of man to lean things by looking at the world, that is being contested here. Thus, you are burning a straw man.

Additionally, where did you get the idea that one of the purposes of the created order was to tell us how old the created order is? The claim that we can (and should) find the age of creation by looking at creation presupposes that one purpose of the cosmos is to tell us how old it is. But if that is not a valid purpose of the cosmos, then the whole effort lacks legitimacy. In other words, the very attempt to find the age of the cosmos by looking at it presupposes a teleology of the cosmos. And you thought “science” was only about data and “explanation”?

As it turns out, God never claimed that we should look at creation in order to determine its age. Secular scientists have assumed that they could and should attempt this, but in so doing, they have presupposed a teleology with respect to creation that simply doesn't exist. The purposes of creation were determined and explained by God, and He has never said that one of those purposes was to find the age of creation. Thus, the attempt to do so is illegitimate; it lacks the proper epistemological warrant.

“Seriously, my axiom is basically what Fesko wrote: A responsible reading of Scripture “neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic.” This necessarily precludes creation science.”

First, to what authority should one go to find this “axiom”? Hopefully the answer is somewhat more authoritative than Fesko's ipse dixit. If the answer is “the Bible,” where in the Bible would that be? If the answer is something other than the Bible, explain how something other than God's word has this kind of epistemological authority over God's word (after all, that which interprets defines). Where did this authority come from and how do we know (in the judicial sense of the term) about it? How does this methodology not undermine sola scriptura as well as make a metaphysical mess by allowing something/someone within the created order to define God's breath? Additionally, calling it an “axiom” makes it sound rather important and fundamental. What other “axioms” did God fail to mention in His word?

Second, the axiom contains some important terms/phrases that don't define themselves. So before any assessment of it can be made, one would need to know what the necessary and/or sufficient conditions are for something to be properly labeled a “textbook” of subject X. For example, if one thinks that the Bible makes certain claims about some animals and plants, would that be embracing the Bible as a biology textbook? If the Bible made claims about certain areas of land, bodies of water, countries, would that be embracing it as a geology textbook? In addition, the term 'overly' is of course question begging. What are the criteria by which Fesko distinguishes overly, properly, and inadequately literalistic?
Jane Dunsworth  Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:57 am
The whole problem with this endless argument is that Genesis is not science, it's history. It doesn't purport to tell us "how" things happened, but that they happened and who did them, and when. And who are you gonna believe about history -- a scientist?
Chris Donato  Saturday, April 03, 2010 6:21 am
And who are we gonna believe about science — a theologian?
Chris Donato  Saturday, April 03, 2010 6:33 am
Gianni, my tone is still light. Does that mean I win?

I'm not finding much to disagree with in your recent post, including the point where I don't think this discussion is as important as both Waltke and (possibly) you think it is. A few points, nevertheless:

1. Regardless of whether or not a scientist speaks of ultimate origins, I'll not grant him the point. And I don't know of any responsible ones that do. E.g., most physicists bring us to a very few moments after whatever happened a long time ago to kick this whole thing off (call it the Big Bang or whatever). That's not origins; that's an attempt to trace development. Origins is a theological question; not a scientific one.

2. I don't fault my pre-modern forebears for reading the Bible like everybody else around them. They were pretty harsh with respect to Copernicus, and they were wrong, because the lenses through which they were reading certain portions of Scripture were scratched, just like ours are. I'm not suggesting that we've arrived at some perfect hermeneutical place, but I do think, at least with respect to Gen 1, we're at a better place than they were.

3. To state it as clearly as possible: Our story (the story of Scripture) doesn't contradict the story proffered by scientists with respect to cosmogony, not because it cannot, but because it does not.
Jane Dunsworth  - What science?  Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:02 pm
Chris, my point is, this isn't about science. It's about history. Genesis says God (who) created the world (did what) at a certain time (derivable from the genealogical record) over a certain time period (in seven days.) Those are all historical propositions -- no science there at all, as far as I can tell.

If you have problems with the ICR/style creation science, that's another matter. But ICR can be wrong in all their theories, and Genesis will still be at odds with Waltke, requiring a choice between Waltke's method and Genesis' record.
Chris Donato  - I got the point...  Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:22 pm
But Genesis says God assigned functions to an already existing wasteland (did what) at a certain time (yes, derivable from the genealogical record) over a certain period of time (seven literal days). In this schema, there is truly no anachronistic reading of science back into the text.

Your first point, that in Genesis we see God "creating" (assuming material creation, not functional) is clearly a scientific proposition. The irony is that adopting the perspective you've laid out, with respect to that first point, is what's at odds with Genesis.
Gianni  Saturday, April 03, 2010 6:53 pm

"Gianni, my tone is still light. Does that mean I win?"

No. Now your tone is too light. Who said that the lightest tone wins?

"I'm not finding much to disagree with in your recent post, including the point where I don't think this discussion is as important as both Waltke and (possibly) you think it is."

I trust you understand Chris, that I didn't mean that as an endorsement or a compliment. You're wrong in what you think about creation and you're wrong in thinking it doesn't matter.

Having said that, I'm finding it problematic to harmonize your words here with the following things you have said so far.

"there are a few principles we just can't suppose differently (like the universe being really old, for example)."

It doesn't sound like you don't think it's not very important if we think the universe is not really old. There, four negatives in a sentence. Do I win any prizes for that?

"my conviction is that YEC is detrimental to [the church's] health."

It doesn't sound like you think YEC is not going to affect the church's health one way or the other to any significant degree.

"If one applies a consistently Reformed hermeneutic to the interpretation of Scripture, he must reject [dispensationalist and creation scientist] conclusions."

It doesn't sound like Fesko, whose axiom you claim as your own, doesn't mind what one does with creation science when he applies a consistently Reformed hermeneutic to the interpretation of Scripture.

"Maybe you get this, and possibly you just don't care, but to deny the ability of any man to evaluate data truthfully is to deny the imago Dei in them. All men have truths accessible to them as they look upon the natural world (e.g., how old the rocks are). The fall doesn't eradicate God's image in man; he might be less human as a result, but he's still human..."

Setting the strawman aside, it doesn't sound like you think that refusing to believe that a secular geologist is right regarding the old age of rocks, denying as it does the imago Dei in man, is a trivial matter.

"Seriously, my axiom is basically what Fesko wrote: A responsible reading of Scripture "neither embraces the Bible as a textbook of science nor employs an overly literalistic hermeneutic." This necessarily precludes creation science."

It doesn't sound like you think that coming to reject evolution while reading the Bible is not a sufficient proof for condemning a man of irresponsible hermeneutics.

"Regardless of whether or not a scientist speaks of ultimate origins, I'll not grant him the point. And I don't know of any responsible ones that do. E.g., most physicists bring us to a very few moments after whatever happened a long time ago to kick this whole thing off (call it the Big Bang or whatever). That's not origins; that's an attempt to trace development. Origins is a theological question; not a scientific one."

With this logic you would be ready to swallow the whole Greek mythology -- Hesiod, Homer, Marge, all of it -- if you just could get them to admit that they don't know where Chaos comes from. Gotcha! If Hesiod concedes the point, you will call him "responsible" for his honest readiness to bracket the metaphysical, and you will proceed to inserting words like "multitudes", "Jebusites", and "behold" in his story, so it won't sound suspicious during Sunday School. "Irresponsible" instead will be the word you use for any Christian who prefers to stick to Genesis.

Chris, Chris, Chris, look at me: the story! Get it? It's the story that counts. What is the biblical story? Get a child to read Genesis and then ask him!


CHRIS: Tell me about Planet Earth.

SCIENTIST: Well, once in this region of space there was no sun, no planets, no moons, only this solar nebula that was spinning, and, but you have to understand that many stars were already formed, and galaxies too, because the universe was expanding, and, did you know that heavier atoms were formed through the explosion of even older stars, so that in fact we are made of stellar dust, which is why Crosby, Stills Nash and Young...

CHRIS: What do you know about life?

SCIENTIST: Okay, there was a pond, right? not big, not small, a normal pond, like, some billion years ago, because the atmosphere was different, right? and then a bunch of chemicals found themselves in this small pond, and then suddenly: tada! a storm! A huge storm, with lightning and all, and whaddoyaknow, bang! A lightning hits the pond. Now you have to know that when these chemicals...

CHRIS: Tell me about dinosaurs.

SCIENTIST: Dinosaurs are cool. They were the descendants of the first forms of life that conquered the dry land after fish got legs, which is another story, but dinosaurs... man, dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years, and some of them were among the most terrifying killing machines our planet has ever seen, and they all got wiped out long before man appeared, when this huge meteorite fell, except that you know what, surprise surprise, dinosaurs and birds actually...

CHRIS: What about human beings?

SCIENTIST: It's a long story, but basically what happened was that, long before the ice age, but many aeons after amphibians emerged, well, you know primates -- some of them had a problem involving trees, bananas, and lions, but then one day...

CHRIS (visibly worried): Mmm. I see. But what happened before the Big Bang?

SCIENTIST: Heh, how should I know?

CHRIS (visibly relaxed): OK. For a moment there I suspected that you were trying to teach me a story about the origins of things.


"I don't fault my pre-modern forebears for reading the Bible like everybody else around them."

So now we agree that the charge that YEC was started by adventists and dispensationalists collapses to the ground like a very sleepy reader of this conversation.

"They were pretty harsh with respect to Copernicus, and they were wrong, because the lenses through which they were reading certain portions of Scripture were scratched, just like ours are. I'm not suggesting that we've arrived at some perfect hermeneutical place, but I do think, at least with respect to Gen 1, we're at a better place than they were."

A better hermeneutical place? But how do you know that Calvin was wrong about YEC? Let me answer that: you welcome secular scientists do the corrections and tell us where we should modify our story.

Now unless I completely misunderstand what you are saying to Jane, I can tell by your answer to her that you believe in a form of the gap/reconstruction theory. Seven literal days, recent creation week.

Am I reading you right?

Now how is this position radically at odds with YEC in terms of hermeneutics? What problem of exaggerated literalism did you see in "creation science" that can't be detected in your position as well? The faulty interpretive method of Scripture by YEC was a foundational issue for you, I recall.

Now it seems to me that the "literalness" was a huge red herring. You are happy to take the Bible "literally" regarding the seven days of creation, and regarding the genealogies, aren't you? And you go "literal" regarding the creation of Eve, the Garden of Eden, the talking serpent, don't you? But you refuse to go "literal" regarding the creation of the sun and the moon and the Flood of Noah, correct? And you have a problem with God creating heaven, earth, and all that is in them in the space of six days, am I right?

"To state it as clearly as possible: Our story (the story of Scripture) doesn't contradict the story proffered by scientists with respect to cosmogony, not because it cannot, but because it does not."

You are confident that it does not because you have chosen to interpret Genesis ad hoc, in such a way that, bar his pre-Big Bang speculations, you can agree with the average contemporary scientist in all that he wants to say.

Tell me Chris, what do you make of what the experts say regarding early man? You know, the ape-man connection, the stone age, the birth of agriculture, the timing of it all.

And what do you make of Exodus 20:11?
Chris Donato  Monday, April 05, 2010 7:24 am
Gianni, a couple of nits:

1) I do think this conversation is important, but I don't think it leads to "spiritual death" one way or the other.

2) Our Reformed forebears thinking that the earth was relatively young, and that Gen 1 is describing the material creation of the cosmos is not the same thing that Morris, Ham, et al. are doing (i.e., reading the text as if it can be explained according to modern scientific terms and thus creating an alternative science). Creation science finds its origins in an Adventist and has been perpetuated by dispensationalists.

3) How can a particular reading of Genesis 1, rooted as it is in its original context, with great pains taken to remain faithful also to the language in which it was written, be "ad hoc"? Further, the very fact that the church has made great steps archaeologically, philologically, etc., informs me that we're in a better hermeneutical place. We simply know more about the time and place of the various writings found in Scripture—on every count—than our forebears knew. And this often leads to better socio-grammatical exegesis. Following the trajectory of the Reformers on this score. The principles undergirding YEC are not.

4) Meaning (finally!): No, not a gap/reconstruction theory, since exegetically that's untenable. Genesis 1:1 reads, loosely: "In the initial period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it.” Whether or not the narrow focus is on the "land" (i.e., Israel, I suspect) and God's preparation of it for his people (and through them, the blessings would spread to the whole world), I'm not sure yet. It could simply be focusing on God's assigning functions to the entire cosmos with the express purpose of preparing his cosmic temple (and people thus represent God in it, as they fulfill the dominion mandate).

Regardless, and to answer your last question, I suspect we'll never find a "missing link" between us and former, now extinct, bipedal hominids. But I'm perfectly fine with the "consensus" about the general timing of all this—archaeologically, we see evidence of humans dating to about 30,000 years ago; genetically, we infer dates going back to about 200,000–270,000 years ago.

If, then, the creation in view in Gen 1 refers to functional creation only, then Exod 20 is pointing back to that literal week when YHWH, Israel's covenant Lord and creator God, inaugurated his cosmic temple, in which he "rested" on the 7th day, thereby taking up his presence among his creation, which doesn't "exist" without it.
Derrick  Sunday, April 04, 2010 5:17 am
Chris said:

"Your first point, that in Genesis we see God 'creating' (assuming material creation, not functional) is clearly a scientific proposition."

There's nothing clear about this claim. In fact, a critical presuppositional aspect of this claim has been challenged without reply. But from another angle, this claim has already been refuted. Gotta watch those unfortunate consequences of sticking one's head in the sand. ;-)
Chris Donato  Monday, April 05, 2010 6:39 am
Derrick, I'm not going to enter a black-hole discussion on epistemology. I didn't disagree with many of your comments anyway.

Nevertheless, reading Genesis 1 and imputing the meaning to it that it's describing a material creation about 6,000 years ago is, indeed, clearly a scientific proposition. The somersaults creation scientists as they take the text and explain it in the manner they do is horribly anachronistic. One can posit YEC (b/c "that's what the Bible says") without attempting to explain it according to modern science all day long. That's way more respectable.
Gianni  Monday, April 05, 2010 3:02 pm

"1) I do think this conversation is important, but I don't think it leads to "spiritual death" one way or the other."

Fair enough. Glad we sorted that one out. Glad we sorted it out by disagreeing with Waltke and agreeing with the gist of what Wilson said, in spite of the fact that in your first post ("five counter-confusions") you said Wilson was confused about this.

"2) Our Reformed forebears thinking that the earth was relatively young, and that Gen 1 is describing the material creation of the cosmos is not the same thing that Morris, Ham, et al. are doing (i.e., reading the text as if it can be explained according to modern scientific terms and thus creating an alternative science). Creation science finds its origins in an Adventist and has been perpetuated by dispensationalists."

I am fully aware of this and several other weaknesses in their approach. Yet their basic defense of the historical reading of Genesis (nothing new that Calvin hadn't seen already) has been spot on, and their theories, harmonizations and speculations on how certain things might have happened have served the laudable and vital purpose of giving hope and food for thought in the right direction during hard times.

Probably the most valuable aspects of their legacy is actually what you are blaming them for, that is, their passion for interpreting raw data with the eyes of faith according to our story, i.e. their admittedly tentative harmonizations and speculations on how things might have happened in practice. That's the same kind of work apologists have always been doing to answer tough questions on, say, alleged contradictions between the Gospels and secular sources or historical matters of alleged fact.

Whether or not all their theories will stand the test of time won't alter the fact that the project of looking at raw data with the eyes of faith according to our story using the terminology of modern biology, geology, astronomy and paleontology was exactly what needed to be started at a time when secular humanism was interpreting raw data according to their godless presuppositions and writing a parallel history of the world meant to replace God's history of the world.

If this particular project was started by adventists, then praise God for the adventists. If this project is condemned by Reformed theologians, then so much the worse for Reformed theologians. But the adventists most definitely didn't come up with the concepts that are the main reason of conflict with secular science, i.e. a young age of the world and a worldwide flood. In this sense YEC is clearly the historical position of the church.

"How can a particular reading of Genesis 1, rooted as it is in its original context, with great pains taken to remain faithful also to the language in which it was written, be "ad hoc"?"

Well, it can. Not the first time, won't be the last. How, you ask? Well, exactly in the way you are doing it: by unnecessarily attacking the historical position of the church for all the completely unconvincing reasons you could find, and by unnecessarily wanting to replace it with an interpretation which, although unfortunately it happens to be consistent with the history of the world according to secular humanism, at least it is completely unobvious.

"Further, the very fact that the church has made great steps archaeologically, philologically, etc., informs me that we're in a better hermeneutical place. We simply know more about the time and place of the various writings found in Scripture—on every count—than our forebears knew. And this often leads to better socio-grammatical exegesis. Following the trajectory of the Reformers on this score. The principles undergirding YEC are not."

Chris, I have read a lot. I have been around. I have read nothing to convince me that I should modify the historical position of the church and the prima facie impression that the Bible teaches that the world is about 6,000 years old, that the Noah's Flood was universal, and that death came through sin. It appears I am not alone, which comforts me and suggests I may not be delusional.

Also, I notice that without exception those who take the opposite position have a very shaky understanding of the history and philosophy of science, have little patience for epistemological questions, and are downright philosophically naive when assessing the merits of the scientific consensus. The fact is, Chris, that the church has made great steps also in these more philosophical areas, but it seems somebody, instead of boasting a more modern, polished and up-to-date outlook than those crazy old Yeckers, is hopelessly in need to do some reading and catch-up.

"Meaning (finally!): No, not a gap/reconstruction theory, since exegetically that's untenable. Genesis 1:1 reads, loosely: "In the initial period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it.” Whether or not the narrow focus is on the "land" (i.e., Israel, I suspect) and God's preparation of it for his people (and through them, the blessings would spread to the whole world), I'm not sure yet. It could simply be focusing on God's assigning functions to the entire cosmos with the express purpose of preparing his cosmic temple (and people thus represent God in it, as they fulfill the dominion mandate)."

Well Chris, this is a good example of ad hoc. I see no reason at all in the text, follow me closely here, NOT to conclude that your interpretation is correct, which is also the case, BUT more interestingly to conclude that it's not the case that Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. You are certainly aware that nobody before Darwin and Lyell ever dreamed or needed to dream that this could be what Genesis says, let alone that Calvin's reading is irresponsible and brings great harm to the church. You must also be aware that this kind of urge to find alternative interpretations of this text (and not just any kind of alternative interpretations, mind you, but the kind that is going to prevent a clash with the ungodly) has shown up in extremely suspicious times. So while you are not giving me any reason to abandon the historical position of the church, let's see if your new reading can be sustained without having to rewrite the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

"Regardless, and to answer your last question, I suspect we'll never find a "missing link" between us and former, now extinct, bipedal hominids. But I'm perfectly fine with the "consensus" about the general timing of all this—archaeologically, we see evidence of humans dating to about 30,000 years ago; genetically, we infer dates going back to about 200,000–270,000 years ago"

But Adam had a son who was a farmer. Another son was a shepherd. Adam himself tended a garden. He had nephews who were the fathers of metallurgy and music. The experts tell us a story in which agriculture showed up around 10,000 years ago. So according to the experts Adam could not have lived before that. So those boys who were dating girls 30,000 years ago were not sinners. Why did they date the girls then? According to the experts Australian aborigenes have lived down there for over 40,000 years. That means that according to the chronology of the experts they are not descendents of Adam and Eve. This has tough implications regarding their status as human beings and their status regarding original sin, which was transmitted to Adams' children. How about the second Adam? Did he come to save the Australians? Were there actual people busy doing who knows what (for according to the experts at that time dating was not discovered yet) for hundreds of thousands of years, who in spite of looking pretty much like us and Adam and Eve, yet were not in need of forgiveness and redemption? How many things do we need to fix as we inspect the soteriological pipelines of Berkhof? Can't you see that this is not the biblical story, but an alien story, hopelessly at odds with ours? You will tell me, perhaps the scientific consensus is mistaken here. Well, on what other things could the consensus be mistaken, then? If the Bible brings a theologian like you to disagree with the scientific consensus once, what will stop the Bible until it has completely covered the scientific consensus with rotten tomatoes regarding 101 issues? I invite you to consult the John Byl website I mentioned above.

"If, then, the creation in view in Gen 1 refers to functional creation only, then Exod 20 is pointing back to that literal week when YHWH, Israel's covenant Lord and creator God, inaugurated his cosmic temple, in which he "rested" on the 7th day, thereby taking up his presence among his creation, which doesn't "exist" without it"

But Exodus says that it was in six days that God created the heavens and the earth, and all they contain. That is, heaven, earth, and all they contain are the stuff God created in those days. No matter how you try to make it point and reference, it doesn't say that in six days God assigned functions to heaven and earth. There is no reason in the text to understand Exodus as saying anything different from what any child would get out of the text. Christopher Hitchens would eat you alive if you treat the Bible like that: forget relevance and respect. There's no reason at all to reject the historical reading and read the Exodus text the way you do, except the desire and intention to harmonize it with the billions of years of the experts, no matter how much you fool yourself into thinking that you are not doing that.

Finally, if you define "to create" as "to assign functions", how do you know that God created the world? What happens to the Creator/creature distinction? If the Exodus use of creation language points back to the mere rearrangement of stuff of Genesis, why wouldn't all the other biblical uses of creation language? Or does it depend on whether the text implies that the experts are mistaken?
Derrick  Monday, April 05, 2010 4:53 pm
"Derrick, I'm not going to enter a black-hole discussion on epistemology. I didn't disagree with many of your comments anyway."

That's weird because I certainly disagreed with yours. At any rate, suit yourself. That black hole is only about the definition, standards, purpose, and limits of the thing you seem to be very interested in employing and defending. If nothing else, I hope you are beginning to see that scientists cannot help but to do metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and teleology. These subjects are shot through their conceptual schemes, assumptions, methods, and models. The question is not if they will do these things but whether they will do them well or poorly.
Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:03 am
Chris, Gianni has pretty much covered how I would have responded, and a great deal more. I just want to make certain you understand that your last reply to me is utterly unconvincing because it is based on a reading of Genesis that I find wholly implausible. IOW, I'd have to believe that Genesis taught creation ex chaos rather than ex nihilo for your devastating critique to affect me, but I can't imagine why I'd believe that.
Chris Donato  Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:02 pm
Gianni wrote:
Quote:
"Glad we sorted it out by disagreeing with Waltke and agreeing with the gist of what Wilson said, in spite of the fact that in your first post ("five counter-confusions") you said Wilson was confused about this."


I'm only disagreeing with Waltke that it's as important as he suggests. I gather you think this whole bit is as important, just in the opposite direction. I think you're both wrong, then. And Wilson is still confused, both with respect to the analysis of the situation and, presumably, his exegesis regarding the creation narrative.

Quote:
"Also, I notice that without exception those who take the opposite position have a very shaky understanding of the history and philosophy of science, have little patience for epistemological questions, and are downright philosophically naive when assessing the merits of the scientific consensus."


Unfortunately, you heap a whole lot of nonsense on your interlocutor, choosing instead to engage a position instead of a person. I've not revealed a quarter of things/beliefs that Derrick imputed to me. And your penchant for monologue in the course of a conversation is funny. But the exegesis of the biblical text is what really interests me, and so I will not respond by rolling out what I know with respect to history, philosophy, science, etc. I will not defend my presuppositions any more than you do. Lame, I know.

Quote:
"Chris, I have read a lot. I have been around. I have read nothing to convince me that I should modify the historical position of the church and the prima facie impression that the Bible teaches that the world is about 6,000 years old, that the Noah's Flood was universal, and that death came through sin. It appears I am not alone, which comforts me and suggests I may not be delusional."


Small comfort. Nietzsche wrote that "in individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

At any rate that's fine. But we're done, then (because anything I will write can be found in any number of books out there). I'm sure the new interpretations offered in the face of heliocentrism were also deemed "convenient."

In the end, I'll stand with Warfield, not Wilson:
Quote:
"The religious bearing of this question is that if we answer that evolution has been proved to be true, then we must adjust our theological thinking to it; but if we answer that it is as yet a hypothesis on trial, we are at liberty to wait a while and see whether it be true before we adjust our thinking to it” (Evolution, Science, and Scripture, p. 117).
Warfield further expressed his own view in his 1888 Anthropology lectures:
Quote:
“I am free to say for myself, that I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Gen. 1 & 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”
Gianni  Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:20 am

Chris, one retraction before I proceed.

I regret I said "I am fully aware of this and several other weaknesses in their approach" when commenting on this paragraph of yours: "Our Reformed forebears thinking that the earth was relatively young, and that Gen 1 is describing the material creation of the cosmos is not the same thing that Morris, Ham, et al. are doing (i.e., reading the text as if it can be explained according to modern scientific terms and thus creating an alternative science). Creation science finds its origins in an Adventist and has been perpetuated by dispensationalists."

The part about the sin of "creating an alternative science" slipped by me unnoticed, and I now realize I ended up giving the impression that I agree with you about that too. For the record, I disagree with a number of relatively minor aspects of ICR-type approach, from the dispensationalism to the whole public school project, from the occasional anachronistic reading of modern concepts in ancient texts to the needless suspicion against finding literary devices, patterns and symbolisms in Scripture, from the overrating of what natural revelation can accomplish, and to the occasional implicit reliance on the ability of the fallen mind to objectively assess the evidence (the latter seen more in Morris than in Whitcomb and Ham, who have been rather consistent presuppositionalists). But "creating an alternative science" is not one of the sins of the creation scientists. That's the sin of the secularists.

Okay, let's move on.

"I'm only disagreeing with Waltke that it's as important as he suggests. I gather you think this whole bit is as important, just in the opposite direction. I think you're both wrong, then. And Wilson is still confused, both with respect to the analysis of the situation and, presumably, his exegesis regarding the creation narrative."

You're way wrong. I don't believe that you or Waltke are even close to embracing spiritual death. As for Wilson, I'll speak for him only in this respect, that you said he was confused, not generally, but in all his five points, the first one being the point where you now agree in substance with Wilson against Waltke.

[Gianni:] "Also, I notice that without exception those who take the opposite position have a very shaky understanding of the history and philosophy of science, have little patience for epistemological questions, and are downright philosophically naive when assessing the merits of the scientific consensus."
[Chris:] "Unfortunately, you heap a whole lot of nonsense on your interlocutor, choosing instead to engage a position instead of a person. I've not revealed a quarter of things/beliefs that Derrick imputed to me."

You prove my point, thank you very much. When I wrote that paragraph I was not referring at all to your dialogue with Derrick, but to your clear inability to follow what I was saying. Yes, Derrick was the one who first wrote down the word "philosophy" and the phrase "philosophy of science", and he did it in a scholarly fashion, but he wasn't the first one who brought up those issues. That was me. The fact that now you thought I was referring to Derrick shows that you didn't even realize that from the very beginning I was framing this discussion in terms of the philosophy of science. Derrick was amazed that you agreed with him while he disagreed with you, which he interpreted as a clear sign that you don't know what he was talking about. I come to the same conclusion here: I am talking all the time about philosophy of science, and when I tell you that people like you are shaky on the philosophy of science you think I must be referring to something Derrick said. As for "epistemology", again Derrick explicitly used the word, but I was talking about epistemology all the time. Why, even you had early on a faint realization that perhaps I was talking about epistemology when you said "Clearly, we're at a hermeneutical (if not epistemological) impasse." You told Derrick that you are not willing to enter a black-hole discussion on epistemology, but you did. Only, you have no idea of what is going on. You are a textbook example of what I was saying: without exception those who take the opposite position have a very shaky understanding of the history and philosophy of science, have little patience for epistemological questions, and are downright philosophically naive when assessing the merits of the scientific consensus.

"And your penchant for monologue in the course of a conversation is funny."

But Chris, where in the Bible does it say that it's a sin? Eh? Where?

"But the exegesis of the biblical text is what really interests me, and so I will not respond by rolling out what I know with respect to history, philosophy, science, etc. I will not defend my presuppositions any more than you do. Lame, I know."

Glad we keep on finding things we agree on.

"Small comfort. Nietzsche wrote that "in individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.""

That's a mighty two-edged sword, you know. You are going to hurt yourself, brother. Now here's something worth remembering. Here's a brother in Christ who throws Nietzsche at me as a warning against the madness of upholding the historical position of the church over against pagan mythologies. I'll hang this warning on the wall in my studio.

"At any rate that's fine. But we're done, then (because anything I will write can be found in any number of books out there)."

I disagree. You are providing real-life examples of the cluelessness syndrome I mentioned above that I won't find in books. Please keep talking.

"I'm sure the new interpretations offered in the face of heliocentrism were also deemed "convenient.""

Apples and oranges. In that case no massive rewriting of the biblical history of the world was necessary -- only a switch of perspective let we all lose balance and fall down, and the quick realization that the Bible speaks about the sun through the language of appearance, just like we all do. Big deal. It didn't cause big waves in the church, either. But in this case -- boy, you are asking me to throw large sections of both the Bible and my brain away.

"In the end, I'll stand with Warfield, not Wilson: Quote: "The religious bearing of this question is that if we answer that evolution has been proved to be true, then we must adjust our theological thinking to it; but if we answer that it is as yet a hypothesis on trial, we are at liberty to wait a while and see whether it be true before we adjust our thinking to it” (Evolution, Science, and Scripture, p. 117)."

Warfield is talking here like a man could conceivably talk in 1888, that is 29 years after Darwin talked -- like a man, mind you, who had evidently failed to pay attention when Charles Hodge 14 years earlier said that Darwinism is essentially atheism, which, if you look at the dates, was essentially the first thing Warfield heard Hodge say when he entered Princeton. You are talking like a man who thinks 122 years have not passed since then.

Secondly, what's your point? That evolution has been proved? When was that? Or that evolution is still a hypothesis on trial, in which case we are at liberty to wait a while and see whether it be true before we adjust our thinking to it?

"Warfield further expressed his own view in his 1888 Anthropology lectures: Quote: “I am free to say for myself, that I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Gen. 1 & 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution."

Chris, Warfield also thinks you are the victim of a "pure illusion" regarding the genealogies of Genesis. His discussion on the genealogies is frankly so bad it's embarrassing. So much for his reliability as a commentator of Genesis. But Warfield also believed that all human beings are children of Noah, which he didn't think was "opposed to evolution" then, but today he would be hard pressed to deny.

Also, Warfield was naively off regarding what he thought the scientific consensus had come down to. In 1911 he writes: "The theologian ... can scarcely fail to take away [the well-grounded conviction that] the tremendous drafts on time which were accustomed to be made by the geologists about the middle of the last century and which continue to be made by one school of speculative biology today have been definitely set aside, and it is becoming very generally understood that man cannot have existed on the earth more than some ten thousand to twenty thousand years."

Regarding the position of several scientists who believed in hundreds of millions of years as the age of the habitable earth, i.e. the time needed for evolution to do its job, Warfield says: "These tremendously long estimates of the duration of life on earth and particularly of the duration of human life are, however, speculative, and, indeed, largely the creation of a special type of evolutionary speculation -- a type which is rapidly losing ground among recent scientific workers."

And,

"The motive for demanding illimitable stretches of time for the duration of life, and specifically for the duration of human life on earth, has gradually been passing away, and there seems now a very general tendency among scientific investigators to acquiesce in a moderate estimate -- in an estimate which demands for the life of man on earth not more than, say, ten or twenty thousand years."

The "recent scientific workers" he is referring to above include, first, Lord Kelvin. Warfield believed that Lord Kelvin's findings about the age of the sun had laid to rest the dreams of hundreds of millions of years Darwininsts needed to support the theory. Not only was Warfield wrong, he was misinformed regarding what was really going on in scientific circles at the time. Beside the fact that, of course, Lord Kelvin had already been dead four years when Warfield listed his research as the first reason why the old-age Darwinians were wrong about the age of the world, Lord Kelvin had heard, four years before dying, of the discovery of radioactivity by Rutherford, which was immediately used by the scientific consensus to demolish Kelvin's estimates for the age of the sun. Radiometric dating was invented and employed six years before Warfield thought Lord Kelvin had demolished the idea of hundreds of millions of years.

So much for Warfield's reliability in assessing and discerning both the trajectory and the driving force of the science of his day.

Note also how Warfield is highly selective regarding which findings from the science of his day he finds reliable, even challenging the atheistic scientific consensus with recent research made by Christians like Lord Kelvin based on (alleged) theistic assumptions, which is something you disapprove of me.

So regarding Warfield let me paraphrase something a participant in this discussion has said: "I fault some of my pre-modern forebears for not reading the Bible like everybody else around them. They were pretty soft with respect to Darwin, and they were wrong, because the lenses through which they were reading both certain portions of Scripture and the science of the day were scratched, just like ours are. I'm not suggesting that we've arrived at some perfect hermeneutical and epistemological place, but I do think, at least with respect to assessing both Gen 1 and the scientific consensus, we're at a better place than they were."

As for your position that the Gospel of John begins, not with the declaration that the Word was with God at the creation of the world, not with the proclamation that He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew him not, not with the affirmation that all things were made by Him and without Him was not any thing made that was made, but with the declaration that the Word was with God when functions were assigned throughout the heavens and the earth, that He was in the very world where functions were assigned by Him, and that all functions were assigned by Him and without Him was not any function assigned that was assigned, I spit on that position. Move away, Chris, you're standing in the wrong place -- here goes: SPIT. Have a nice day.
Chris Donato  Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:38 am
Quote:
You prove my point, thank you very much. When I wrote that paragraph I was not referring at all to your dialogue with Derrick, but to your clear inability to follow what I was saying. Yes, Derrick was the one who first wrote down the word "philosophy" and the phrase "philosophy of science", and he did it in a scholarly fashion, but he wasn't the first one who brought up those issues. That was me. The fact that now you thought I was referring to Derrick shows that you didn't even realize that from the very beginning I was framing this discussion in terms of the philosophy of science.


This just can't be left standing. You unfortunately assume so much, based on a statement that you've misinterpreted, and then you proceed to construct a diatribe against it. Come on, man. You both were saying essentially the same things, and including him in my response above was simply the equivalent of one stone—without the killing.

So, I'll say it again, "Clearly, we're at a hermeneutical (if not epistemological) impasse." Why keep bringing it up? Can't the coversation continue without re-hashing all the background material? Why must I beat my chest (like possibly my ancestors did)?

Finally, I never once suggested that all instances in Scripture that speak of God "creating" have to do with God's separating and assigning functions as portrayed in Gen 1. Yet another example of wasted words based on assumption.
Gianni  Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:37 am

"This just can't be left standing. You unfortunately assume so much, based on a statement that you've misinterpreted, and then you proceed to construct a diatribe against it. Come on, man. You both were saying essentially the same things, and including him in my response above was simply the equivalent of one stone—without the killing. So, I'll say it again, "Clearly, we're at a hermeneutical (if not epistemological) impasse." Why keep bringing it up? Can't the coversation continue without re-hashing all the background material? Why must I beat my chest (like possibly my ancestors did)?"

Chris, I will also say it again, now in a simpler form, so you won't get confused: "When I wrote that [without exception those who take the opposite position have a very shaky understanding of the history and philosophy of science, have little patience for epistemological questions, and are downright philosophically naive when assessing the merits of the scientific consensus] I was . . . referring . . . to your clear inability to follow what I was saying." Why do I keep on bringing it up? Because you keep on saying that I misunderstand. But there's nothing you say that would cause me to modify my assessment. What would? Go back to the beginning, and starting with the book of physics and Laplace all the way down, try again.

"Finally, I never once suggested that all instances in Scripture that speak of God "creating" have to do with God's separating and assigning functions as portrayed in Gen 1. Yet another example of wasted words based on assumption."

All commentators have always agreed and, I venture to say, will always agree that both Exodus 20:11 and John 1 presuppose and point back to Genesis 1. You want to avoid the force of the Exodus passage, which is devastating to your view that the Creation Week does not include the creation ex nihilo of the actual heavens and earth, by saying that Genesis 1:1 is a helpful summary about the assigning of functions that took place during the Creation Week, and does not teach that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo.

Well, I asked you to tell me how you know that God created the heavens and earth then, and you didn't answer. I asked you, if the Exodus use of creation language points back to the mere rearrangement of stuff of Genesis, why wouldn't all the other biblical uses of creation language also teach that? You didn't answer to that one either. I asked whether it depends on whether the text implies that the experts are mistaken, and again I received no answers. I went on to conclude then that you must mean that John is also, like Exodus, referring to the assignment of functions. Now you are telling me that you don't believe that. Have all commentators of the Gospel of John been wrong for the last two millennia? Just making a list of the things you are asking me to fix before I embrace your view. I have a feeling it won't be a short list.
Chris Donato  Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:00 am
1. Hebrews 11:3 is a good place to start, biblically, to posit creation ex nihilo.

2. Since re'shiyth ("beginning") in the Hebrew refers more closely to a period of time, as opposed to a point in time (see Job 8:7; Jer 28:1), Gen 1:1's "beginning" has the subsequent period of seven days in view, not a point in time prior to the seven days.

Fast forward to John 1:1, and of course you have a clear allusion to Gen 1. Nothing theologically is undermined by restricting John's usage of "beginning" to what it originally meant to Moses' audience. But who's to say that two biblical authors who use the same word must use that word in the exact same way every single time? That leads to tortured exegesis. Context is king.

It could be that John also has an eye on material creation, thus implying the "time" "before" creation (so this text becomes a proof text for the preexistence of the Messiah, etc.), but you'd have to bring that into the text (and John, as a Jew in the midst of Hellenism, just might have). Still, from the biblical point of view, the story of God's preparing the cosmos as his temple so that he could rest (rule) in it, for the sake of the crown of his creation—people who reflect his image in service to him—is the "beginning" par excellence. It's really the only "beginning" that counts.

3. Regarding Exodus 20:11, this hasn't been avoided. I just don't think you've thought through the ramifications of what I'm saying. That text simply refers back to the end of that period of time that God was working to prepare the cosmic temple—Genesis 2:2. On the Sabbath, he ceased from his previous activity (the prior 6 days), and the Israelites were to follow suit.

Genesis 1 is all about the creator God preparing his dwelling place among his people, and subsequently calling his people to serve him therein (post fall, of course, he narrows this further in mercy as he takes up residence in the temple of Zion). It is the place from which he rules.

None of this avoids the force of Exodus 20:11. It, in fact, enhances it, providing as it does in a more theologically robust archetype, or pattern, for his people to follow, vice-regents (representatives of the creator God) they are called to be.
Gianni  Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:35 pm

"1. Hebrews 11:3 is a good place to start, biblically, to posit creation ex nihilo."

So get this, folks. Here we have a man who bends over backwards to deny that Genesis teaches that in the beginning God actually, really, in fact created the heavens and the earth, and who also says that the truth that God actually, really, in fact created the heavens and the earth can only be grasped by faith in what God says in Genesis. All together now: HUH?

People, be careful. Possibly, this man also thinks that nobody believed in creation ex nihilo until the Epistle to the Hebrews broke the news, so don't say I didn't warn you.

"2. Since re'shiyth ("beginning") in the Hebrew refers more closely to a period of time, as opposed to a point in time (see Job 8:7; Jer 28:1), Gen 1:1's "beginning" has the subsequent period of seven days in view, not a point in time prior to the seven days."

Nobody here is saying that "in the beginning" refers to a point in time prior to the seven days. In fact, nobody here believes there was a point in time prior to the seven days except you, just to remind you what your position is. I say "in the beginning" refers to the beginning of the creation week. Why? Because Ex 20:11 implies that there was no heaven and earth before day one of the creation week; Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning; and Gen 2:1 says that by day six the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. You want to believe that Gen 1:1 does not say anything about the actual creation of the heavens and the earth, in spite of the fact that that's verbatim what the text says, and in spite of the fact that Ex 20:11 says that during the creation week God made not only the stuff inside the heavens, the earth and the sea, but also the heavens, the earth and the sea themselves.

Furthermore, your distinction between points in time and periods of time is irrelevant: whether the creation of the heavens and the earth took place in a nanosecond or during the period of ten hours is immaterial to me.

Moreover, as a matter of simple logic, even granting the fact that the word "refers more closely to a period of time", it doesn't follow that "Gen 1:1's "beginning" has the subsequent period of seven days in view": you have to prove that "in the beginning" means "in the subsequent period of seven days" and cannot mean "in the beginning of the seven days". As I pointed out, Ex 20:11 implies that there was no heaven and earth before day one of the creation week, since it says that during the creation week God made not only the stuff inside the heavens, the earth and the sea, but also the heavens, the earth and the sea themselves. The summary of Gen 2:1 confirms this one more time, and when we come to Gen 2:4 it's just this side of getting boring.

(For anybody who has lost track of why Ex 20:11 is important, Chris agrees with me that the genealogies of Genesis show ("yes, derivable from the genealogical record") that the Creation Week ("seven literal days") took place in recent times (I say around 6,000 years ago, I understand that he basically agrees), but he denies that this means that the so-called young earth position is correct, because he allows for as many billions of years before the Creation Week as anybody cares to require from him. No, I am not among those who require from him that sort of thing. Chris cannot admit that Gen 1:1 and Ex 20:11 mean what they say, because he fears he would be forced to embrace not only the Flat Earth Society, but even the historical position of the church. I keep telling him that not all his fears are founded.)

"Fast forward to John 1:1, and of course you have a clear allusion to Gen 1. Nothing theologically is undermined by restricting John's usage of "beginning" to what it originally meant to Moses' audience."

Nothing, except that you mean I would have to remove "Creator" from the list of names and attributes of Jesus Christ. Not a big deal, I know, but it bothers me to print again the list. The ink cartridge is almost empty. But doesn't Hebrews 11 tell us exactly what Gen 1 meant to Moses' audience?

"But who's to say that two biblical authors who use the same word must use that word in the exact same way every single time? That leads to tortured exegesis. Context is king."

Well, Mr. Context, when exactly were you appointed as Minister of the War Against Tortured Exegesis? Was it before you decided that Gen 1:1 is trying very hard to tell us that in the beginning God didn't create the heavens and the earth, or was it after you understood that Ex 20:11 is bending over backwards to press upon us the truth that the heavens and the earth were not among the toys that God created in the space of six days? As for John and Moses, prove that the traditional interpretation of "in the beginning" in both books is impossible because of the context.

"It could be that John also has an eye on material creation, thus implying the "time" "before" creation (so this text becomes a proof text for the preexistence of the Messiah, etc.), but you'd have to bring that into the text (and John, as a Jew in the midst of Hellenism, just might have)."

"It could be"? It "could be" that John had an eye on material creation in his first chapter? Tell me the name of one commentator who finds that idea problematic. No, Mormons and Hindus are not allowed. All commentators have always pointed out that John's "en arche" is verbatim from the Septuagint's translation of Genesis 1:1. Everybody knows what John is doing, except you. But even you find it hard to resist the impression that John is talking about material creation. One can flee only from so many prima facie impressions in one day. But instead of reasoning back from John to Genesis and therefore back into the arms of the historical position of the church, saving not one but two prima facie impressions with one blow, you are so determined in your war against Genesis and all prima facie impressions, that you would rather believe that John misunderstands Moses but happily ends up saying something which God never revealed before but is nevertheless true, by means of importing Hellenical mythologies and misreading Genesis through the eyeglasses of Hellenism. The problem here is obvious, Chris. According to Wikipedia, wearable eyeglasses were invented only in 1284 AD.

"Still, from the biblical point of view, the story of God's preparing the cosmos as his temple so that he could rest (rule) in it, for the sake of the crown of his creation—people who reflect his image in service to him—is the "beginning" par excellence. It's really the only "beginning" that counts."

That's an assertion, not an argument. Nothing that you say here, except the totally gratuitious "par excellence" and "the only...that counts", is incompatible with taking Gen 1:1 at face value.

"3. Regarding Exodus 20:11, this hasn't been avoided. I just don't think you've thought through the ramifications of what I'm saying. That text simply refers back to the end of that period of time that God was working to prepare the cosmic temple—Genesis 2:2. On the Sabbath, he ceased from his previous activity (the prior 6 days), and the Israelites were to follow suit."

I just don't think you have ever read Ex 20:11 once in your life.

"Genesis 1 is all about the creator God preparing his dwelling place among his people, and subsequently calling his people to serve him therein (post fall, of course, he narrows this further in mercy as he takes up residence in the temple of Zion). It is the place from which he rules."

How is that mutually exclusive with taking Gen 1:1 at face value? How does any of that render the historical position of the church illegal, and the Westminster Confession of Faith mistaken?

"None of this avoids the force of Exodus 20:11. It, in fact, enhances it, providing as it does in a more theologically robust archetype, or pattern, for his people to follow, vice-regents (representatives of the creator God) they are called to be."

Chris, please speak to me normally, stop staring at me in the eyes, and quit swinging that pendulum in front of my nose. Won't work. Everybody's watching you. I know you're getting desperate, but it's unbecoming. Pull yourself together.

About the Proprietor

proprietor

RSS Feed Twitter Feed goodreads Feed Facebook Page

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina
Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

Blogroll

Touchstone
Internet Monk
Federal Vision
Al Mohler
A Twofer
Peter Leithart
David Field
Pyromaniacs
Highlands Study
Basilica
N.T. Wright
James White
Postmillennialism
Reformation21
Boars Head Tavern
Frank Turk
David Bahnsen
Justin Taylor
Bayly Blog

Tim Challies
Mark Horne
Wedgeworth
Xon
Green Baggins
Politeuma
One Flock One Shepherd
De Regno Christi
Biblical Horizons
Westminster Project
Logos Redux
The Avenue
Heidelblog
Remanations
Mike Bull
Daniel Newman
Right Mind
Debbie Maken

David Cassidy

Pastors Blogroll

Randy Booth
Dale Callahan
The Avenue
Rogers Meredith
Steve Hemmeke
Virgil Hurt
Peter Leithart
John Barach
Garrett Craw
Tim Gallant
Jeff Harlow

Alan Burrow

Ben House
Jamie Soles
Toby Sumpter
Gene Helsel
Todd Davis
Sean Brandt
David Bostrom
Brian Penney
Brian Penney II
Joe Thacker
Jerry Owen

Joost Nixon