My name is David Nidever and I just joined this internet
discussion. I'm very pleased by the level of discussion. I'm personally
very interested in evolution and science in general.
My views are very similar to Dr. Hugh Ross' and you've all
probably heard at least a little bit of what he thinks. He accepts all
the modern dating methods by modern scientists, the big bang, basically
all scientifically accepted theory, except for the theory of evolution.
That's the only big area in which I disagree with him. He does accept
the fossil record and the dates, but he has a weird way of interpreting
it all. He says that God created all life forms and that when they went
extinct he would re-create them just a little bit differently, and that's
why we have the patterns in the fossil record that we have. To me that
sounds the God of the gaps. I know that there are problems with
evolution at biochemical and genetic level, but I do see a lot of
evidence for evolution as well. So I don't find his arguments pertaining
to this area very confincing.
I do respect his work and am working on becoming a volunteer for
his non-profit organization "Reasons To Believe".
I really have problems with young-earth creationists. I don't
have any problem with the creationists part, I'm one myself, but I don't
like at all their approach to science.
I used to really believe everything they said when I was in high
school, but I was very ignorant back then. When I got to college and
learned more about what they were talking about I started seeing big
flaws in their teachings.
My major objections to them (I mean ICR most of the time) is that
they aren't a part of the scientific community. Just because you have a
PhD doesn't mean very much. You could be some wacko, motivated by
who-knows-what. This is clearly evident by the scientists that work for
the Flat Earth Society. We all know that the earth isn't flat, but this
society has scientists with their PhDs using modern physics to try and
prove that the earth is flat.
So PhDs are not enough. What scientists have to do is submit
their work to peer review and put it under the scrutiny of other
scientists. If this didn't happen we would have severe problems,
especially because of scientists that alterior motives for the science
they are pushing. I don't see ICR submiting or responding to other
scientists, even christian ones. I have heard many complaints from
people that said that they tried talking to ICR people, but they wouldn't
listen or budge an inch. This is my major problem with ICR and
young-earth creationists.
My other problem with them is that they are pushing a certain
twist on science. They start with the belief that the Bible is true, and
everything builds on it from there. What they end up getting is some
obscure theories of science which don't have much factual basis. Also
much of their theories are based on flood geology. There is so little
evidence for a universal flood that geologists gave up that view at the
turn of the century. It's really rediculous to believe it and that's a
major downfall for young-earth creationists.
Also they use the christian masses to propogate their ideas by
telling them have truths. They keep on bashing secular scientists and
theories with very arguments, but the average christian can't tell. It's
really sad for me to see so many christians taking it all in.
Now that I've given my bit about what I believe I think I'd like
to jump right into the dicussions at hand.
Oliver Beck in his last letter wrote about the interpretation of
the Bible. He talked about the "clear" interpretation. He said that
many objections to interpretations are because of our sinfulness, that
we don't want to accept what God is saying. He also said that if we
understand a passage we shouldn't say "there might be another
interpretation" and not accept what we've come to understand.
One thing that is certain is that biblical interpretation or any
interpretation is hard. Language is often seen as being very plain and
simple, but it really isn't. Meanings change and especially with ancient
languages it is hard to figure out what certain sayings meant. Of course
our knowledge of what life was like back then is very important in this
issue.
I remember a few times when my mother was telling me how a
certain passage really affected her and my dad would cut in and say
"that's not what the passage was saying". This is an example of how
different people's understanding of the Bible can be. Does Oliver's
principle still apply? How can it if different people get different
understandings of the same passage? Does the passage have a specific
meaning or is something different from everyone? It's not understanding
that we must have, but scholarly understanding. A baby can think it
understands when it probably really doesn't. We have to look at many
different things to come to a scholarly understanding of a passage and
that's very hard. There is much disagreement on passage, but on the
major issues there is much agreement.
I definitely don't understand how Oliver can say that the
paradigm of evolution does not work in the interpretation of the Bible. We
must see that the Bible is not the only truth. There is scientific
truth, historic truth and other truths can are just as true as biblical
truth and we must use these to try and understand the Bible better.
That's a major problem that I see with ICR. They only see biblical truth
as being true, or above other kinds of truth.
In the past many theologians have had their own ideas about
nature and they were accepted. The theory of evolution isn't any
different. It is our understanding of nature in the biological realm and
should add to our understanding of the Bible. What is so wrong or
uncomprehensibly bad about God using evolution for his own purposes, if
He made it? I don't see any big problem with the theory of evolution and
many other scientific theories in how they relate to the Bible.
About what the Bible says about science. I think it's very hard
to interpret what the Bible has to say about nature and science. Is it
literal or symbolic? I think we first of all have to see that the Bible
was not meant to be a science book and therefore we shouldn't expect it
to talk about science very much or in any depth. But I think if the
Bible does say anything about natural history and science it needs to be
true on some sense of the word if the the Bible is true. It's hard for
us to interpret what exactly the author was saying by certain words,
especially in Genesis 1. I don't think there is any conflict between
Genesis 1 and science. I think that if you get a really good
understanding of the landscape back then, and the language, and the way
people lived you won't find problems with what was said in Genesis and
natural history. That's been my perception of it so far. Some good
books about this subject are: "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross; "The
Biblical Flood" by Davis A. Young; and "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties"
by Gleason Archer.
Oliver also said that he put evolution in a different category of
science than say physics, and that is the study of the history of
nature. That's kind of true, but not really. ICR also uses this
agrument against evolution. It's not very good. In science there are
theories that are achronic, not constrained to any particular time. This
is true in physics, geology and evolution. The theory of evolution is a
theory about how life changes over time and it's applies just as much for
today and the future as it has in the past. Now, it's true that the
fossil record is very important for the theory of evolution, but it is
only one part of the study of biology and evolution. There is
comparative anatomy, genetic studies, bacterial studies, population
studies and more. The most striking evidence for me is the fact that we
have seen microevolution in bacteria. It's right there, present, in
front of us. How can we say that evolution is a theory of the past when
it is being used today to look and life and do experiments. Also, when
people look at the fossil record it's not just looking at the past, but
we also apply what we know about things in general, from studies
conducted in the present, to the past, so we can get a better
understanding of what was going. We can look at present animals and how
we can know things about them from their bones. We then use this to
intepret fossils. So we are using many universal laws and theories about
nature to study fossils. So evolution is not just about studying the
past, but about a universal theory that applies to all times.
Oliver also said that the dating methods weren't being
addressed. Well, I think that even if the dating methods were left out
and we went back to the time when these methods hadn't been discovered
yet we would find big problems for flood geology. This is because
geologists understand rocks and how geology works. This isn't just about
the dating, it's about the rocks and processes. Flood geology just isn't
a viable theory of how geology works, and you'll discover that when you
look at rocks.
By the way, there are many, many, many different dating methods
that are used by anthropologists, geologists and astronomers. Many of
them methods are very different but come up with the same dates. This
kind of corroboration from different sources shows that these dates are
probably very good, and 10,000 years for the age of the earth and
universe doesn't fit in there anywhere. As a physicist you should know
quite a bit about nuclear decay and things like that. I haven't done
much study of it myself, but I would like to in the future. I recommend
we all do a little research in the particulars of these dating methods if
we want to discuss it further.
How do you quote from other people's letters? I don't mean to
misquote anyone and with the <<< it seems a lot easier.
Oliver, are you in Stuttgart, Germany? I used to live in Germany
for thirteen years. Wie geht's?
David.