Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

> Please allow me a -broad- definition of
> 'creationist' in saying this, while acknowledging that
> I say it from outside of the American context.

I certainly approve, though it's unfortunately necessary to associate
this with a definition that states that a creationist is someone who
believes in a creation event and not merely someone who believes
creation science.

> Unfortunately, I don't see much +positive+ to offer in
> 'evolving creation' that does not ultimately
> contradict itself at one point or another. TE's, in
> uplifting '(natural) science' in the name of
> (neo-Darwinian) evolution, get things backwards. It
> seems that TEs and ECs are seeking a balance between
> science and religion that will inevitably be
> imbalanced with the 'progress' of scientific
> knowledge. They are tightrope walkers. What I mean is
> simply that evolutionary theory will not, nay, CANNOT,
> last forever! Provisionality of science dictates this
> inevitability. What will theistic evolutionists do
> when the paradigm of evolution is
> overtaken/overthrown? (Silence is heard, while YECs
> sing psalms.)

As much of YEC and ID involves endorsement of ideas that have already
failed the test of time, there's not much ground for them to hope in
such visions.

I see the YEC, ID, and militant atheists, not the TE's, as placing a
wrong emphasis on science over theology. In practice, much YEC and ID
says that having scientific support for one's claims is more important
than obeying God's laws about honesty.

Kuhn's paradigm model has significant problems, in particular the fact
that a new paradigm needs to be perceived as better explaining all the
relevant data than the old one (an important caveat being that the
question of what is relevant data and what is noise is shaped by the
paradigm). An old paradigm may be a simplified special case of the
new rather than simply wrong. In light of the success of evolution
over the past century and a half (with modifications, of course) as a
biological model, it seems highly unlikely that any new discovery will
completely overturn it all. Discovery of exceptions or novel aspects
and mechanisms or of a broader overarching model are more likely.

Nevertheless, I don't think TE would have much trouble in the face of
significant changes to our understanding of evolution. Although some
such as de Chardin have tried to revise theology in light of
evolution, to my reading most TE claims that evolution has relatively
little theological significance. (There is also the category of
misusing evolution as an excuse for heterodox or lazy theology, but I
would not include that as a valid example of TE.) Much of the TE
complaint about standard YEC and ID is that it too closely links their
scientific claims with theology. If advocates of YEC and ID
consistently asserted "Here's how I think things work, but if not I
know that God was just as involved and my faith is not harmed", there
would be much less difficulty in getting along. In fact, this is
often the message I get from talking with individuals. However,
popular advocates routinely claim that agreeing with their scientific
claims is a necessary part of being a good Christian. Of course,
evolution can potentially help us with particular details, such as
providing a link between Christ and other organisms that may relate to
the redemption of all creation mentioned in Romans 8, but this should
be conducted as an exercise in illuminating Biblically established
principles, not in modifying such principles.

> What can YOU (meant as plural form, i.e. ASAers) offer to someone who accepts
> the science of old earth and common descent, yet who doesn't accept the
> naturalistic assumptions of universalistic evolutionism? Please don't revert to
> the fig leaf of MN/PN ideology in answering such a question!

Not entirely sure what is included under "naturalistic assumptions of
universalistic evolutionism". The difference between methodological
naturalism and philosophical naturalism is key to dealing with any
attempt at dealing with science (or other aspects of daily life) and
theology, not just the issue of evolution. Once one understands that
God is at work in all that happens, whether it occurs according to
normal physical laws and patterns or not, then the question of
evolution can be understood as "Did God do it this way or that way?"
and all attempts to co-opt evolution as justification for atheism are
recognized as merely denying God's providence rather than substantial
arguments. Everyday experience shows that physical laws provide a
good guide to what to expect the vast majority of the time.
Theologically this is also expected (no uncontrolled rival forces
exist, unlike in polytheism; God is orderly; God gave us the ability
to understand how things work so as to be good rulers; miracles are
restricted in their use and serve the particular purpose of signs
pointing to God (not merely a designer); God is known through His
self-revelation, understood by the work of the Spirit and not by
clever study; etc.). Thus, there is nothing wrong with assuming that
physical laws are likely to provide a good physical description in any
given situation, while remembering that God is free to work otherwise
if He wants.

> For example, as a geologist, Christine, is there ANY possibility you would consider either a 'young' earth,' a 'young' birth of Adam and Eve (within the last 10,000 years) or a view of 'science' that accomodates (or at least doesn't disqualify) 'interventions' by (a) creator God in 'natural processes'? In other words, are you 'closed' on the viewpoint of an 'old' earth? <

As a geologist, I am willing to consider the possibility of a young
earth. However, every line of evidence I have examined that is
relevant to the age of the earth indicates that it is old and every
scientific young earth argument I have examined has been patently
false. Thus, I assign it an extremely low probability and see little
reason to take seriously new claims coming from sources that have been
100% wrong in the past. The fact that all arguments I meet are bad
does not prove that a good argument is not out there, but looking for
them doesn't seem like a good use of my time.

As to a young origin of Adam and Eve, there are at least three ways
that they could be fitted into an evolutionary framework-as physical
ancestors of all modern humans and whatever extinct forms were
spritually human; as a specific human pair chosen to represent
humanity out of an existing population of physically but not yet
spiritually human people, and as a more figurative understanding,
either the second scenario playing out numerous times in human
populations or else fully ahistorical and seeing them principally as
symbolizing the way in which every human rebels against God and needs
salvation. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Only the first
scenario mandates an early date for Adam and Eve. Following view 2,
correlating the agricultural and cultural activities in Gen. 4 with
the archaeological record would put them around 10,000 BP, so there's
little difficulty in considering a possibility that they are recent.

"Interventions", i.e. actions not in accord with physical laws, by God
are possible. I know of no good evidence that such has taken place
during the course of physical evolution, nor any theological reason to
expect them, but I would not rule out the possibility, either. Avoid
the false dichotomy of "inverventions happened exactly as claimed by
ID advocates" or "no intervention is ever possible." Cf. Ken Miller's
assertion when he spoke here of his belief in Biblical miracles.

>Further, what are you willing to do to either avoid or appease conflict?<

Stay away from people, not say anything, and numerous other tactics
that appeal to introverts. However, I presume you mean how one deals
with conflict or apparent conflict between science and Scripture.
Overall, we must remember that neither exegesis nor scientific study
is inerrant-both are human efforts, afflicted by finite knowledge and
understanding, mistakes, unconcious bias, and deliberate
misrepresentation. Thus, our understanding of both must be carefully
examined to see where the problem lies. Some things may be
unresolvable, perhaps from lack of data or lack of understanding, and
I think one must accept the existence of some loose ends no matter
what one's view.

> Please see the quotes below from TE perspectives.

> "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required
> believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction
> that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all
> mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.
> Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also
> heartless - a process in which the rigors of nature
> ruthlessly eliminate the unfit." - Kenneth Miller and
> Joseph Levine ("Scientific and Philosophical
> Significance," in "BIOLOGY: Discovering Life."
> Toronto:D.C. Heath and Company, 1994, p. 161)

This is not a quote from a TE perspective. It is incompetent
atheistic propaganda (it is contradicted later on the same page, not
to mention the rotten theology-competent atheistic claims must
accurately represent the theological views they reject). Although Ken
Miller, a Christian, is a co-author of the text in question, he did
not approve that sentence and corrected it in later editions. (I
forget if Levine or Heath and Company was responsible for slipping
that in.)

> "The common prevailing view of conflict between
> evolutionary theory and Christian faith is a false
> caricature. "

Yes, and the above quote is a good example of such false caricature
coming from atheists. However, theists ought to have enough
theological competence to reject such caricature instead of endorsing
it.

> > HOW in general (thinking mental framework, not specific
> > passages) do we discern what is to be taken literally
> > and what isn't? Particularly from the vantage point
> > of a lay person who isn't a scientist or a Biblical
> > historian?

The most important component is understanding what the Bible is
talking about. "The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to
believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man."
(Westminster Larger Catechism). If you are focused on something else
in a passage, then you are missing the point. There's other
information there, and understanding it can be interesting and useful
for understanding these main points, but there is definitely something
wrong with a reading that does not address those issues. Given that
this is its purpose, it can use metaphors, figures of speech,
fictional stories (such as parables), etc. when they suit the purpose.
 For example, the fact that smaller seeds than mustard seeds exist
should not bother us if we realize that Jesus was not dictating the
Guiness Book of Botanical Records but rather using the fact that one
of the tiniest seeds in use in the culture grew into something tall.
Again, taking into account passages on the non-corporeal nature of God
the Father, we see that references to His arm, mouth, etc. are
anthropomorphizing metaphors. Poetic language is especially likely to
contain more figurative language. Song of Songs 5:15a "His legs are
pillars of alabaster" does not mean she is in love with a statue; she
just thinks he looks marbleous. Ps. 31:12b "I am like a broken
vessel" does not mean David was a crackpot who thought he was an old
jar; rather, he feels ostracacized.

In any situation, figurative versus literal usage is distinguished by
two main lines of evidence. One is context, the main point of the
previous paragraph. The other is comparison to known physical
reality. (Use of established idioms such as "crackpot" might be
considered a third category, though this could be partitioned into and
ultimately traces back to the others). In the case of Biblical
miracles, there is typically a clear implication that the event
happened contrary to natural law. Those who witness it are surprised,
though they don't always profit by it. In contrast, Jeremiah 4:23-25
foresees the destruction of Judah in terms of total overthrow of the
created order-an apt metaphor of how it felt to Jeremiah, but the
actual event was only the destruction caused by the invading
Bablyonians (abetted by some neighboring peoples).

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.