On Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:03:26 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
>"The question is not whether "Evolution is a scientific theory", but
>whether or not it is *inherently* an anti-theistic theory."
>Let me ask something. If a view could be proposed which retains the
>doctrines of 24-hour days in Genesis 1, a historical Adam, a historical Eve
>taken from Adam's Rib, a historical Fall, a historical Flood which matches
>the Biblical description, and a real Tower of Babel, but yet incorporates
>evolution and an old earth, would you view evolution differently?
I don't necessarily view all the above as Biblical. I am not a YEC.
>Assuming that such a view could exist, would you then be less
>inclined to view it as inherently antitheistic?
If evolution is "*inherently* an anti-theistic theory", it would not
change matters if Biblical events could be harmonised with it. The
late great Dr Carl Henry drew attention that Biblical Creation and
Evolution are antithetical concepts:
"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple
primitive reality temporarily differentiated by immanent activity into
increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
development." (Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion", in Henry C.F.H.,
ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", 1968, Baker, p252)
The real issue is: do we as Christians hold Biblical theism as our
primary metaphysical framework and try to fit the scientific facts
into that framework, or do we hold naturalistic science as our primary
framework and try to fit the Bibical facts into that?
I believe the clash of ideas on this Reflector are between two
primary metaphysical systems of thought. To talk of trying to fit
24-hour days and a literal Adam and Eve to "evolution and an old
earth" IMHO misses the point. What Henry rightly points out is that
the very terminology used in the debate grants the primacy to science:
"The terminology of debate today is largely fixed not by the
theological endeavour but by the scientific enterprise, especially by
the secular philosophy of science which today hold the ideological
initiative" (Henry, p252).
The point is that if God has actually given us a unique written
word of revelation (albeit at an ancient time, in an ancient culture
and in ancient pre-scientific thought-forms), surely this is very
relevent and entitled to the highest priority?
Try a little thought experiment. What if science discovered embedded
in an ancient Jurassic fossil layer a complete flying saucer, far more
advanced in technology than ours, complete with the remains of aliens
and a full 66 volume set of Encyclopaedia Galactica, representing the
accumulated wisdom of this advanced civilisation. Would not science
give it a higher priority than our own comparatively primitive
science? Of course it would!
If we who are Christians really believe that God has spoken uniquely
in and through the 66 volumes called the Hebrew-Greek scriptures, why
do we tacitly assign that a lower priority? This is independent of the
very real issue of interpreting those ancient Hebrew-Greek writings.
The alien spaceship's writings would be even more difficult to
interpret, but that does not take away from the fact of their
in-principle higher priority.
No doubt there are points where this analogy breaks down, but surely
the big picture is clear? This is *not* about denying facts or a
crucifixion of the intellect. Rather, it is all about setting the
right *priorities* in our thought life. In the end, is naturalistic
evolution a second master that we cannot successfully serve along with
Biblical theism?
1Ki 18:21 "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long
halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if
Baal, then follow him..."
God bless.
Stephen