On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:49:19 -0600, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
RC>I take the "Old-Earth Creationism" view. It is a belief which is
>based in part on scripture and in part on my limited understanding
>of various scientific discoveries and theories.
>
>Steve replied...
SJ>Same. It is a fallacy to say that our beliefs about creation
>rest on Scripture alone. *Everyone*, including the strictest YEC
>interprets Scripture in the light of his views of nature:
RC>I think this can be an overstatement in the sense that few
>Christians really hold the view that creation is "inspired" in the
>same sense and in the same way that scripture is. I agree with
>this, however, and would assert that we need to treat creation as
>the 67th book of the Bible. It must agree just as precisely with
>the other 66 as they agree with themselves.
Agreed. Both Scripture and nature are two `books' with the same
Author. Righly interpereted, they must agree. All views (Christian
or non-Christian) which pit either `book' against the other must
therefore be wrong in principle, even before we consider their
evidence.
RC>We have to remember something however. When we find an apparent
>disagreement between scripture and creation, we must ask ourselves
>one basic question, "Is the disagreement over what each really says,
>or over what we think it says?"
Agreed. It may be even more to the point that the "disagreement" is
"over what we think it" *should* "say". We all have our `Sunday
School' ideas about God and how we think He should operate. The
`books' of Scripture and nature tell us how He *does* operate.
RC>Steve said... (quoting Hodge)
SJ>"When the Bible speaks of the foundations, or of the pillars of
>the earth, or of the solid heavens, or of the motion of the sun,
>do not you and every other sane man, interpret this language by
>the facts of science?....
RC>Briefly on sanity: No man thinks himself insane. We are either
>sane and think nothing of it, or are insane and think very much that
>we are not. :-)
The word "sane" does not necessarily mean the opposite of "insane" in
the sense of stark, raving mad! It derives from the Latin "sanus"
= "sound", "healthy". The OED says it also means "of sound mind",
and the Macquarie Dictionary says its secondary meaning is "having or
showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense." IMHO all Hodge is
claiming here is that men with sound judgment interpret Biblical
language by their understanding of facts of science.
RC>We have certain conceptions of reality in our minds, and when we
>read scripture, we automatically conform it to our conceptions. It
>never occurred to me, for example, to interpret "pillars of the
>earth" (Job 9:6) to mean that the earth is resting upon giant
>granite columns--until, that is, a non-Christian suggested this
>meaning for the passage. Our conceptions of scripture and reality
>must be constantly adjusted.
Yes. Even the most ardent literalist must `spiritualise' some
passages. The Mormons claim that God has a physical body bone
because of passages that speak of God's "arm", etc., but even they
would not claim that when Scripture says "May you be richly rewarded
by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to
take refuge" (Ruth 2:12), it means that God literal wings complete
with feathers.
RC>Atheits, by the way, who try to use supposed contradictions in
>scripture to refute Christianity are on shakey ground because they
>can never be sure whether they are arguing about the true meaning of
>a passage or of some potentially erroneous interpretation of it.
Yes. The vast majority of apparent Biblical "contradictions" are due
to faulty interpretations about what Scripture actuall does say, or
perhaps more importantly about what it *should* say. For example,
some 20th century scientists feel that is an error for a 10th Century
BC Biblical book to state that a "circular" dish can measure "ten
cubits from rim to rim" and "thirty cubits...around" (1Ki 7:23),
since that would make pi = 3.0. It would only be an error if the
Bible was actually claiming that pi = 3.0, rather than giving an
approximation.
RC>Creationism is a fine example of this point. If the Bible said
>that the earth was created four thousand years (more or less) before
>the birth of Jesus, Atheists would have something to sink their
>teeth into, but as it is, the creation story in scripture can be
>interpreted to describe an old earth without modifying the language
>at all--we only modify our intepretation of the language.
Yes. There is no positive statement anywhere in Scripture about how
old the Earth is. The fact that Christians in previous ages may have
thought the Earth was created about 4,000 years BC, is neither here
nor there. It didn't change their core beliefs one iota, as it
doesn't today knowing that the Earth may be 5 billion years old.
Both Biblical and Church history shows that the Christian faith is a
dynamic (even `evolving'! :-) ) thing that involves a response to
the Word of God, within a current cultural context.
RC>Debates with unbelievers can actually serve a valuable purpose
>here--they can help us see where our ideas are weak and send us back to
>our studies (and our knees) to correct the problem. Old earth
>creationism as a Christian doctrine has risen out of ashes such as
>these.
Agreed. Church history abundantly shows that it is indeed "Debates
with unbelievers" which have forced Christian theologians to refine
their theological ideas. The current debates about Bible v science
and creation v evolution is just part of that ongoing process.
RC>Steve then quoted the following material (some deleted)...
SJ>"If the Bible cannot contradict science, neither can science
>contradict the Bible..." (Hodge C., "The Bible in Science," New
>York Observer, Mar, 26, 1863 pp98-99, in Noll M.A., "The Scandal
>of the Evangelical Mind", 1995, pp183-184)
RC>To which Pim replied...
PM>Of course not, they are two distinct entities, one based on faith
>and one based on science.
RC>This looks good on the surface, but it suggests that there is
>nothing in science that is expressed more as a statement of faith
>than of fact. Consequently, I think it is probably a difficult
>assumption to stand on.
Yes. This is the usual positivist misconception of science. Science
is based on faith that: 1. there really is a world out there; 2. that
world is rational; and 3. man's rational mind can truly understand
the rationality of that world.
These foundational beliefs of science are in fact inexplicable on
atheistic grounds. The non-theist Davies ponders "The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Science" but has no answer:
"Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only
incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often
blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. Though it is
usually taken for granted, it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply
mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use
of the scientific method....Nature's order is hidden from
us: the book of nature is written in a sort of code...What is so
remarkable is that human beings can actually perform this
code-breaking operation. Why has the human mind the capacity to
"unlock the secrets of nature" and make a reasonable success at
completing nature's cryptic crossword"? It is easy to imagine worlds
in which the regularities of nature are transparent at a glance or
impenetrably complicated or subtle, requiring far more brainpower
than humans possess to decode them. In fact, the cosmic code seems
almost attuned to human capabilities. This is all the more
mysterious on account of the fact that human intellectual powers are
presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no
connection with doing science. Our brains have evolved to cope with
survival in the jungle," a far cry from describing the laws of
electromagnetism or the structure of the atom. "Why should our
cognitive processes have tuned themselves to such an extravagant
quest as the understanding of the entire Universe?" asks John
Barrow. "Why should it be us? None of the sophisticated ideas
involved appear to offer any selective advantage to be exploited
during the pre-conscious period of our evolution...How fortuitous
that our minds (or at least the minds of some) should be poised to
fathom the depths of Nature's secrets." (Barrow J., "Theories of
Everything", Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1991, p172)
(Davies P., "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science", in Templeton
J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator",
Continuum: New York, 1994, p54)
This to me is an absolute show-stopper for non-theism. There is no
way that under Darwinist mechanism of fully naturalistic mutation and
natural selection, driven by survival in a local African environment,
the brain of an ape should develop into the mind of an Einstein. This
in fact was what made Wallace, the co-founder of Darwinism, abandon
Darwinism as a full explanation of biological reality:
"Alfred Russel Wallace, co-inventor with Darwin of the doctrine of
natural selection. Perceiving that the gap between the brain of the
ape and that of the lowest savage was too big Wallace announced a
heresy: "An instrument has been developed in advance of the needs of
its possessor." He challenged the whole Darwinian position by
insisting that artistic, mathematical, and musical abilities could
not be explained on the basis of natural selection and the struggle
for existence. Something else, he contended, some unknown spiritual
element , must have been at work in the elaboration of the human
brain...Darwin realized that this was dangerous. He wrote to
Wallace: "I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and
my child." If I read Eiseley correctly, Wallace never found an
answer to this difficulty and remained a skeptical Darwinist until
his death in 1913. Nor does Eiseley suggest that an answer is now
available." (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried", 1978 reprint, p102)
RC>Moreover, this statement is an oversimplification. There is
>considerable overlap in all of the various domains of human inquiry.
>As long as we maintain a balanced view--inclusive of all domains--in
>our study and debate, all is well. However, trouble arises when we
>exclude one or more of them from consideration.
Yes. Johnson points out that it is an important part of naturalistic
thinking to promote the stereotypes that religion is based on faith
rather than reason:
"One of the most important stereotypes in naturalistic thinking is
that "religion" is based on faith rather than reason, and that
persons who believe in God are inherently unwilling to follow the
truth wherever it may lead because that path leads to naturalism."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p198)
But there is no such thing as "science" without "faith", nor is there
a "faith" without "science". That is, "faith" must have some basis
in fact. Non-theists simply assume that faith is the antithesis of
reason, eg. Yockey:
"Science and religion have different and opposite belief systems.
Scientific beliefs are never absolute. Doubt is a virtue in science and
many well established theories have been replaced because of tiny
discrepancies. Faith on the other hand plays a central role in religion.
Doubters, who must touch the very stigmata to believe, are not well
regarded even if they are saints (John 20:25-29). A true believer
confronted with evidence contrary to his doctrine regards this as
merely a test of the steadfastness of his faith. The more his doctrine is
denied by experience and observation the more tenaciously he clings
to his holy faith." (Yockey H.P., "Self Organization Origin of Life
Scenarios and Information Theory", Journal of Theoretical Biology,
91, 1981, p27)
Apart from the incongruity of a theological argument in the Journal
of Theoretical Biology, Yockey is plain wrong in his interpretation
of John 20:25-29. The gospels depict the risen Jesus as being
particularly concerned with giving the disciples reasonable
evidence for their faith. For example, just before, in John 20:20
we read: "After he said this, he showed them his hands and side"
and even in the passage cited by Yockey Jesus in John 20:27
says to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your
hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
RC>The mischief in science comes from the tendency of people
>(scientists and non-scientists alike) to take up causes and fight
>for them until all rational basis for the cause has been eroded.
>Not all things uttered by a scientist are scientific--even many
>things represented to be scientific.
Agreed. And when a "scientist" makes pronouncements on ultimate
reality, the meaning of life, the existence of God and what God would
or wouldn't do, he speaks outside his field and should have no more
credibility than any other intelligent person. Indeed, as Johnson
points out, a "scientist" may have an undeclared vested interest in
wanting God not to exist, because scientists today have the role of
cultural authorities, that once was held by theologians. Johnson
writes under the sub-heading "Challenging the Priesthood":
"Dogmatism is a human characteristic that grows out of insecurity.
It is particularly pronounced in the case of individuals or groups
that hold power positions which are threatened by criticism.
Religious priesthoods have sometimes tried to protect their power by
forbidding the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages or
by taking a know-nothing attitude toward scientific observations that
threatened traditional ways of viewing the world. In our own day the
ruling priesthood consists of authoritative bodies like the National
Academy of Sciences, the academic and legal elites, and the managers
of the national media. The new priesthood, like the old ones, has a
vested interest in safeguarding its cultural authority by making it
as difficult as possible for critics to be heard. The modern
equivalent of excommunication is marginalization, which is much more
humane than physical punishment but just as effective in protecting
the ruling philosophy. Those who try to challenge naturalism are
confined not in a prison cell but in a stereotype, and the terms in
which the media and the textbooks report any controversy are defined
in manner designed to prevent dangerous ideas from getting serious
consideration. Whatever the critics of naturalism say is mere
"religious belief," in opposition to "scientific knowledge"; hence it
is by definition, fantasy as opposed to solid fact." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", 1995, pp198-199)
RC>Disclaimer: I am not saying that all rational basis for Darwinian
>evolution has been eroded. I am only making a point about a particular
>tendency of human beings and that scientists are not immune to it.
Agreed. I think that creationist apologists sometimes go too far in
arguing that there is no "rational basis for Darwinian evolution".
They actually play into the hands of the Darwinists because when
(say) a student from a fundamentalist Christian home discovers at
university there is some "rational basis for Darwinian evolution",
she may conclude that her parents/church were wrong and be more prone
to accept uncritically those areas of "Darwinian evolution"
that have less "rational basis".
IMHO there is a "rational basis for Darwinian evolution" at
least at the microevolutionary level. I have said before that
Darwin's name deserves to be permanently inscribed in science's
all-time hall of fame for his Special Theory of (micro-) Evolution:
"It is clear, then, that Darwin's special theory was largely correct.
natural selection has been directly observed and there can be no
question now that new species do originate in nature; furthermore, it
is now possible to explain in great detail the exact sequence of
events that lead to species formation. Moreover, although there are
some areas of disagreement among students of evolution as to the
relative significance of natural selection as opposed to purely
random processes such as genetic drift in the process of speciation,
no one doubts that natural selection plays an important role in the
process. The validation of Darwin's special theory, which has been
one of the major achievements of twentieth-century biology, has
inevitably had the effect of enormously enhancing the credibility of
his general theory of evolution." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis", 1985, pp85-86)
but
"However attractive the extrapolation, it does not necessarily follow
that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur
therefore any degree of evolution is possible. There is obviously an
enormous difference between the evolution of a colour change in a
moth's wing and the evolution of an organ like the human brain, and
the differences among the fruit flies of Hawaii, for example, are
utterly trivial compared with the differences between a mouse and an
elephant, or an octopus and a bee.... Whatever the merits of the
extrapolation may be in biology, there are certainly many instances
outside biology where such an extrapolation is clearly invalid.
where large scale "macro" changes can only be accounted for by
invoking radically different sorts of processes from those
responsible for more limited "micro" types of change. " (Denton M.,
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp85-87)
RC>I had said previously...
>
>I do not believe in evolution, I believe in God;
>
>To which Steve replied...
SJ>"I like this. It is the reverse of what I said to Loren about
>the "tainted" word "evolution". Ask an unbeliever why he/she
>doesn't believe in God and he/she will say something like "Because
>I believe in evolution". Ask a Christian why he/she doesn't
>believe in evolution and he/she will say "Because I believe in
>God"."
PM>And Pim countered...
>
>Of course there are many shades between these two. But I am curious
>why christians refuse to believe in evolution if the evidence
>supports this? Is it beyond their faith that god could have
>'created' us through these naturalistic means?
I find Pim's use of quasi-religious language: "refuse to believe in
evolution" interesting. This tells me that "evolution" is
functioning as something more than a scientific theory for Pim, ie.
a secular religion.
Of course it is not beyond Christians' faith that God could have
created us through naturalistic means. There is a branch of
Christians (eg. Theistic Evolutionists) who believe that most
strongly. But even creationists can accept God creating through
naturalistic means:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p14).
But the point is that it would not then be "evolution" it would be a
mediate creation.
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------