Re: The wrong horse in evolution education

From: Peter Ruest <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Date: Fri Apr 07 2006 - 15:40:14 EDT

Hi Phil,
in order to keep posts at a reasonable size, I'll cut this discussion into two
parts.

philtill@aol.com wrote (6 Apr 2006 00:43:30 EDT):
> Hi Peter,
>
> thanks for such a thoughtful reply. I don't think I was actually making
> all of those assumptions (at least not most of them). My replies are below:

I am sorry that I apparently incorrectly thought you assumed these things!
Obviously, we have to be very careful how we interpret texts...

Below, I shall leave your text as it stands, but occasionally insert my replies.

> ==============================
> Peter wrote:
>
> Your argument rests on
> some assumptions which I have to challenge.
>
> (1) You assume that I think the biblical authors knew some modern
> science. This
> is a misunderstanding. I never claimed such an anachronism. Nor did I
> ever claim
> God taught them (or is teaching us) anything about modern science.
> Science is
> something we humans have to do on the basis of what now would be called
> "methodological naturalism". The reason for this is mainly theological:
> God does
> not want to impose on us faith in him, as this would destroy the basis of a
> personal relationship with him. You probably agree with this (perhaps
> apart from
> my claim that this is what I believe). I have never been taught any YEC
> ideas,
> and have never had any sympathy with such ideas when I encountered them.
> =========================
> From Phil:
> I totally agree with you and I didn't don't think I implied any of these
> things
>
> =========================
> Peter wrote:
>
> (2) You assume that God would not help his writing prophets to avoid errors
> about things their surrounding culture was probably unaware of. This is
> what at
> least contributed to the accommodation hypothesis. I don't see any
> convincing
> evidence for this. And given point (1), I am really surprised that it is
> even
> possible to find models harmonizing the ancient text with modern science,
> without imposing any foreign meanings on words and expressions. Of course,
> genres are important when interpreting texts, but the danger of determining
> beforehand what genre a given text "must be" has to be carefully watched.
> ========================
> From Phil:
> I don't want to assume this by any means. I'm an inerrantist, by faith,
> and would like to find explanations consistent with inerrancy. I've
> learned that inerrancy is more nuanced than I used to believe as a new
> Christian many years ago, but that increases my faith that inerrancy is
> correct rather than decreasing it.

I made the same experience.

> ========================
> Peter wrote:
>
> (3) You assume that a given biblical text can have only one single correct
> meaning. If I agree with you that the main purpose and meaning of Gen.
> 1-2 is
> theological, this doesn't close the issue altogether. I can still
> meaningfully
> ask questions about historicity, about inspiration, about possible secondary
> aims, etc. That biblical texts do occasionally have more than one meaning
> becomes very clear in prophetical texts, and in particular with the way NT
> authors sometimes quote the OT. Many of the prophecies we call
> "messianic" are
> believed to have a primary application to the prophet's own time and
> situation.
> Yet they also indicate something many centuries into the future, which these
> prophets themselves could not have thought out, but Jesus and the
> apostles did
> read these prophecies as pointing to NT times, and even into later
> eschatology.
> =======================
> From Phil:
> I partly agree on this one. I would want to make some more nuanced
> statements about secondary meanings but I don't see it as crucial to the
> discussion.

It would be interesting, though! Perhaps another time?

> ============================
> Peter wrote:
>
> (4) You assume (perhaps tacitly) that centuries-old traditional
> interpretations
> must somehow be right,
> ============================
> From Phil:
>
> I'll admit that I would be very hesitant before throwing out anything
> from the early church councils, just as I'd be hesitant scientifically
> to throw out something proven by Newton or Maxwell. But in the end I
> hold to Sola Scriptura, not church councils, and I'm a realist as
> science is concerned.

I agree. And as we have Newtons and Maxwells, on the one hand, but also
proponents of phlogiston and N-rays, on the other, there are "church fathers" of
quite different sorts. I heartily endorse your insistence on the primacy of
"Sola Scriptura"!

> ============================
> From Peter:
>
> such as the belief that Gen.1:27 deals with Adam and Eve.
> ============================
> From Phil:
>
> But here I disagree. I don't think my belief in this derives from
> church councils at all, but only from the natural sense of the text.
> That "sense" is of course what I wanted to discuss, because I believe
> that I see it and you believe that you see it, but we don't see the same
> thing. **If** I am seeing the true sense of the text, then I'd like to
> find how to quantify and verbalize that sense, and I'd like a vigorous
> discussion to test it.
>
> The best exegesis of Genesis 1-2 that I have ever read is by Mark Futato
> of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He published it in the
> Westminster Theological Journal and I forget the exact name but it was
> something like "Because it had rained." He argues for the framework
> hypothesis and his contribution is to show the structure of the text is
> very organically connected from chapter 1 to chapter 2. I would like to
> suggest that reading his exegesis might be the best use of an hour
> anyone will ever have for understanding Genesis, because he argues with
> such clarity and insight. When we see what "because it had not rained"
> is talking about in the beginning of chapter 2, and the extended
> parallelism in those few verses, then it really seems to be talking
> about the first ever rain and the first ever plants and the first ever
> man (ordered to discuss God's purposes but not in the order that science
> has determined).

I would love to read Futato's paper. Can you - or anyone else on the list - find
for me the reference (or even an e-mail copy)?

I also see a very organic connection from chapter 1 to chapter 2, but apparently
it is quite a different one from Futato's - according to what you wrote above. I
don't doubt that there is an extended parallelism in Gen. 2:5, "When no bush of
the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up-
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to
work the ground...". In my interpretation, which I think is much more natural
than the idea that this talks about the first ever rain - plants - man on earth,
it deals with the region in southern Mesopotamia near Eridu where Eden was: it
didn't rain there - therefore no plants when there is no man to construct
artificial irrigation systems.

> ============================
> From Peter:
>
> But a natural reading of the text conveys a continuous narrative going right
> through Gen.2:4, which with its beautiful symmetry points both back to the
> previous narrative, dealing with the whole creation, and forward to the
> following one, dealing with some new story, restricted geographically
> and with
> respect to generality.
> ============================
> From Phil:
>
> I have to respectfully (but strongly) disagree on this. A natural
> reading doesn't by any means convey a continuous narrative. Genesis 2:4
> doesn't appear to be symmetric at all, and if it is symmetric then it
> would appear to be at best an awkward symmetry and not a beautiful one
> because this kind of statement is never put in the middle of a passage
> like this. It breaks the flow of the narrative unexpectedly and without
> purpose if it is indeed a continuous narrative.

"These are the generations
1a of the heavens
2a and the earth
3a in their being created
               in the day
3b of preparing Yahweh God
2b earth
1b and heavens" (a literal translation of Gen. 2:4)

Do you see the symmetry? It is not awkward at all. It does not stand in the
middle of a passage, but between the creation story of Gen. 1:1-2:3 and the Eden
story starting in Gen. 2:5. These two stories stood on different clay tablets,
each with its final colophon (so the entire verse 2:4 belongs to the first one,
in accordance with Sumerian and Assyrian colophon conventions, linking to the
second one).

The symmetry: "These are..." points back to the creation story; "Yahweh God"
points forward to the Eden story, thus linking the two stories into a continuing
narrative. "Created" is /bara'/; "preparing" is /^asah/, thus indicating that in
1:1-2:3, God was working by both supernatural (creating the physical,
psychological, and spiritual dimensions out of nothing) and natural means
(evolution). "In the day" summarizes all six "creation days", showing that in
1:1-2:4, "day" is an extended period much longer than 24 hours.

The separation the JEPD speculations are forced by their prejudices to insert
between "in their being created" and "in the day" is extremely awkward,
destroying this beautiful symmetry.

Of course, the creation story (1:1-2:3) and the Eden story (2:5-25) are written
in different styles because they deal with quite different events, very
different scopes (global vs. local), very different personal relationships
(general humanity/creation vs. individual Adam+Eve/calling+faith).

> Below, you mention the colophon structure of Genesis. Well, this is one
> of those ten colophons, and colophons are never, never, ever put into
> the middle of the passage like this.

I agree. 2:4 is not in the middle of a passage.

> In Sumer they were *always* at the
> end of the tablet. The choice of the word "colophon" as the label for
> these passages tells us this. It comes from the Greek _kolophon_
> meaning summit, top, or end. According to my dictionary it means the
> notation at the end of a book giving facts about its production [which
> would be the case in Sumer], or the emblem of the publisher placed on
> the title page or cover. This term was applied to these ten passages in
> Genesis because they really appear to be colophons in a similar sense,
> except that are always at the start of each section.

Agreed - except that in Genesis, they are *not* at the start, either. The
Genesis tablets with their endstanding colophons and authors/owners are as follows:
(1) 1:1 - 2:4a, - (the heavens and the earth);
(2) 2:4b - 5:1a, Adam;
(3) 5:1b - 6:9a, Noah;
(4) 6:9b - 10:1a, sons of Noah;
(5) 10:1b - 11:10a, Shem;
(6) 11:10b - 11:27a, Terah;
(7) 11:27b - 25:12, Ishmael;
(8) 25:13 - 25:19a, Isaac;
(9) 25:19b - 36:1, Esau;
(10) 36:2 - 36:9, Esau;
(11) 36:10 - 37:2a, Jacob.
Each of the tablets (apart from the first one) includes only items which the
author/owner could have known from his own experience. The 12th section of
Genesis, including 37:2b - 50:26, does not conform to the tablet scheme: it
deals with Joseph's history in Egypt, where different writing customs obtained,
using papyrus.

> To say that this one colophons is the only exception of the ten, and
> that the author chose to break all tradition and to break his own
> ordinary use of colophons, choosing to plop it down in the center of the
> narrative for no compelling reason other than to create a kind of
> unexpected symmetry that he doesn't create anywhere else, well, that
> isn't very elegant. It really, **really** isn't the natural sense of
> the text. I'd have to say it is an extreme stretch. At best I think
> you can claim this supposed symmetry is an hypothesis. But that it is
> really one of the weaker parts of the interpretation, and its weakness
> needs to be outweighed by compelling strong arguments elsewhere.

Of course, the contents of the first tablet (1:1-2:4) cannot have been obtained
from any author's own experience. Therefore, instead of the author's name it
says "of the heavens and the earth". It's these only that could have
"experienced" and "testified" what did happen during creation. The author of
this text could only have obtained it by divine inspiration. The purported
"stretch" is no more extreme than what would have to be expected from these
special circumstances.

> Also, the writing style of Gen.1 is different than Gen.2, with the
> former being dramatic, structural and with repetitive rhythm and
> phrases, but the latter being conversational and just like the ordinary
> style in all the rest of Genesis that comes after it. Every one of the
> other 9 colophons has text after them just like what comes after this
> first colophon, but completely unlike what comes before this first
> colophon. There is really NO textual basis to claim that what comes
> before the first colophon is connected to the first colophon.

See above for the writing style: I agree that they are different - and must be
different due to different contents, contexts and aims. I also agree that the
creation story is different from all other tablets - and must be so.

But we have to attribute each of the colophons to the text that goes before, not
after it, because what follows concerns the sons of the men named, not
themselves, e.g.
10:1, "These are the generations of the sons of Noah... Sons were born to them..."
11:10,"These are the generations of Shem... he fathered Arpachshad..."
11:27, "Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram..."
25:12f, "These are the generations of Ishmael... These are... the sons of
Ishmael..."
37:2, "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph... was pasturing...".
Often the man named in a speculative header-colophon could not even know all
that the text following it contains.

> ===========================
> From Peter:
>
> And scripture doesn't say all humans became sinners
> through biological inheritance from Adam (cf. Rom.5:12ff),
> notwithstanding such
> interpretational traditions.
> ============================
> From Phil:
>
> I don't think the issue we are discussing hangs on the **mechanism** of
> the inheritance of original sin, whether it is biological or whatnot,
> but rather on the **topology** of our connection to Adam. Is it through
> generations of descent between us and Adam, or do we inherit death from
> him by some other connection? The Bible is very clear that the topology
> of inheriting salvation is not the ordinary one (descent), but by
> connecting directly to Christ by faith, like a star network with Christ
> as the hub and all of us connecting directly to Him, not through our
> parents or other intermediaries.

I agree that the Bible is very clear about the star network around Christ, which
is entirely independent of any descent or time sequence. Why then should there
be any other topology for the network linked with Adam or the first man? In Rom.
5:12ff, Paul places the two networks in direct comparison and contrast. There is
no indication forcing us to assume a different topology. Nothing indicates any
inheritance of "original sin" or death or descent from Adam. If we would assume
these, we would destroy the clear parallels in Paul's text.

> But the Bible never gives us any reason to believe there is a connection
> to Adam other than the ordinary one. The sense of Rom.5:12ff does to my
> mind imply that the assumed topology is ordinary descent. If Adam
> wasn't the forebear of all humans, then there is no topological way to
> understand how humans are connected to Adam. How in the world does
> **his** sin cause everyone else to do a sin and thus inherit death if
> there is no topological connection?

It doesn't. Rom. 5:12 very clearly says "because all sinned". The text doesn't
talk about descent at all, but instead gives a parallel which clearly excludes
descent. We are connected to Christ because of the nature of the spiritual life,
which has been given us through the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the body of
Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) - which corresponds to our conversion and being born
again. All humans are connected to Adam because of the nature of the natural,
fallen life, which is everyone's "because all sinned", the only precondition
being responsibility before God - which corresponds to our being "created in the
image of God".

> But if he is actually our forebear (or even if he just symbolically
> represents our origins from truly ancient times), then we can understand
> the topology of the inheritance of the sin nature and how this will
> cause us to do sins, even if the mechanism on that topology isn't named.

It would be tragical if this were true. It would imply that we inherited a
nature inherently causing us to sin. Would we then be to blame? Would we be
responsible? No, we would be something like puppets or robots - incapable of
genuine love, as well.

> Also, what Paul wrote is really misleading if there is no topology to
> connect all humanity to Adam, because readers naturally assume that
> there is a topology, and (by default) that it is ordinary descent. Now
> it's true that maybe Paul was ignorant about this. But it is certainly
> not like Paul to leave gaping holes in his arguments. That is contra
> his entire method in the book of Romans.

I don't see any misleading or gaping holes in his arguments. There is no
mistaking, we all have sinned and are in the same boat as Adam, and therefore
doomed to die, but we all can be saved, as there is the possibility of a new
beginning, in Christ, for all those who are ready to accept the gift of eternal
life. Nobody needs to know about common descent or inheritance or topologies or
whether or not Adam was the first man. The Bible is not given to teach us science.

The second half of this discussion follows in my next post.
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
Received on Fri Apr 7 15:41:41 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 07 2006 - 15:41:41 EDT