What’s really at stake?
I’ve been having a lot of discussions recently on the topic of creation vs. evolution and it would not be an honest statement to say I think it’s all a coincidence. Last week I attended a breakfast where Dr. David Jones, a scientist who is a Christian (not to be confused with a Christian Scientist), gave a presentation titled Evolution – Science or Religion? It was a pretty good presentation and he certainly is a bright man, though there wasn’t a lot he presented I hadn’t already heard. For one, I’m “leading” a group at our church right now through The Truth Project and Dr. Del Tackett covers much of the same material.
As I was saying, I thought the presentation was pretty good, but there was one thing that’s has now become the topic of discussion a number of times since and I thought I’d bring it up here. Dr. Jones mentioned that he is a proponent of the “old-earth” theory, i.e. that the earth is in fact billions of years old. He reconciles this with his Christian faith by stating that the scientific evidence is rather conclusive and why would God want to deceive us by making the earth appear older than it really is? He also stated that the arguments for the old-earth position are largely scientific whereas the arguments for the young-earth position are largely theological.
To me, it seems like there is a fundamental flaw with this line of thinking for Christians. Saying, “well, science says this and if we hold to that, it contradicts Scripture – therefore we go with science” means that we’re holding science over and above God’s Word. It is a magisterial use of science as opposed to a ministerial use of science. That is to say, rather than letting Scripture influence and shape our understanding of science, Dr. Jone’s view is allowing science to shape and influence his understanding of Scripture. I realize that there’s no conclusive evidence in Scripture that gives us an exact age of the earth, but it seems that no matter which way you slice it, if you try to use the old-earth argument to reconcile faith and science, you’re letting science win. And, more than that, it seems as though the old-earth position almost always presupposes that death was part of the picture pre-fall, which I believe has huge implications for how we view death and Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Granted, our salvation doesn’t rise and fall on whether we subscribe to the old-earth theory or young-earth theory, in and of itself. However, I believe it’s dangerous logic to follow as Christians.
I recognize this issue is complex, but I’d like to know your thoughts. Oh, and here are few articles I’ve read you might find interesting as well. Granted, they all come from the position of the young-earth proponents and a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, but I think they make a strong case. If anyone has some good reading from the “other side”, I’d love to see it. And by good, I’m not just looking for evidence of the old-earth theory by itself – I can get that from science. What I’m interested in is articles/books that make a strong case for reconciling the old-earth position with Scripture and the Christian faith.
From the Beginning of Creation
Adam and Ants
A Young Earth – It’s Not the Issue!
Searching for the “Magic Bullet”
Arguments Creationists Should Not Use
For me, the biggest issue to deal with in the old vs. young earth debate is death. Biblically, death is, was, and always will be bad, and I have yet to find an old earth model that acknowledges this, although, the approach taken over at http://swordandspirit.com, from what I can remember, does a reasonable job of this.
I’ve also wrestled with this on my own blog: http://joeburnham.com/church/2008/07/02/genesis-1-2-or-resurrection
Joe Burnham said this on October 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hey, I love your insight, and I thank you for coming to visit my blog and discussing a topic that I find very interesting. It is a great conversation starter for anyone, especially the non christian. You can then segue your way into God’s plan, etc. But anyhow, great blog!
Tony
Tony said this on October 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Tony, thanks so much for your kind words and more importantly, for a very significant reminder: of ultimate importance is the Gospel. In fact, that’s one reason I have such respect for Answers in Genesis. This is the first thing listed on their “Statement of Faith“:
I’m doing some research for a couple of presentations I’ll be giving on Creation/Evolution and so far, I haven’t found anything theologically troublesome about AiG. In fact, their science seems pretty solid too so they’re not just a bunch of fundamentalists who say “throw all science out – it can’t be trusted at all” but rather they have a ministerial use of science, i.e. that it should always be used in service to Scripture as opposed to trying to make everything in God’s Word conform to science.
Lying behind all this is a tension that’s difficult to hold. On the one hand, some of these “peripheral” issues don’t directly affect salvation so we need to be cautious of how far we push. On the other hand, there is still a danger – albeit subtle – so we need to have these discussions and study God’s Word to gain as clear an understanding as we can. It’s true that none of us will ever have a perfect understanding of God’s Word this side of heaven. But until the Lord calls us home, I believe it’s our responsibility to 1) proclaim the good news of Jesus crucified and risen for the forgiveness of sins and 2) study God’s Word continually, letting it speak for itself, in an attempt to understand it as best as possible so as to not get in the way of our proclamation of it (if that 2nd point makes any sense…)
The Rev Russ said this on October 21, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Hi Rev Russ,
you say ““well, science says this and if we hold to that, it contradicts Scripture – therefore we go with science” means that we’re holding science over and above God’s Word.”
my contention with this stance is that if Gods word is infallible (an assumption based on the books own claim at it), then it should stand the test of science, reverse engineering anything other than that is not following scientific method, a method that has been much more exact than the Bible ever has been….what say you?
Matt said this on October 22, 2008 at 8:14 am
Matt,
Thanks for your comments. I’m not even really sure where to start here, but I’ll do my best. I completely understand what you’re saying and I’ve heard this argument many times before.
What you’re failing to recognize is that, at some level, this isn’t about the Bible “standing the test of science”. My main underlying point here in regards to Creation vs. Evolution (or religion vs. science), is that science is, in a sense, a religion. It is a belief in a system that is believed to be infallible. It’s not a matter of one winning over the other, per se. My comment was directed toward someone coming from the same starting point as me – a Christian who also acknowledges science – a starting point that acknowledges there is God who has revealed himself through Scripture and the person and work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, for you and I to have a reasonable discussion is going to be difficult because I believe there is a God and you do not. I can throw all the evidence I want at you all day in favor of my point and I’ll probably get nowhere but to further frustrate you and anger you. The same goes the other way. Bottom line, as I’ve been trying to articulate on both blogs in this regard, is that in either case it comes down to a matter of faith. I’m comfortable with admitting that and I’m perfectly comfortable admitting I can’t “prove” everything I believe. All I’m asking is for you to reflect on your ideological standpoint and recognize that in fact, it is a faith. In fact, I’ve read your blog post about becoming an atheist and you mention (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you, in a sense, see yourself as your god now. So, whether you believe in science, yourself, or God…it’s all a matter of faith. You just believe that yours is more founded and provable which from your standpoint is true. I believe the same of mine. Trying to debate or argue one another to the “other side” again is somewhat of a fruitless discussion.
This is getting a bit off topic from my original post, but I appreciate your comments and I enjoy the discussion. As I said, I read your blog about your “conversion” to atheism and you certainly raised some valid and important questions. Perhaps I need to rethink what I’m doing on this blog and go in a different direction. The church has certainly done a lot of stupid things in the name of God, and we certainly have a lot to repent for including twisting the true heart of God’s work – the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But, I know you’ve heard that all before and I’m not trying to re-convert you – just laying out my cards.
The Rev Russ said this on October 22, 2008 at 8:44 am
@ Russ, thanks for such a speedy reply. Let me start off by saying that I am not trying to just be a troll here, my intention is just discussion from one ex-christian POV to one Christian POV. I hope you don’t view it in that way, i simply want to pose some of the objections i had whilst in the faith that helped me to remove myself from it.
I have to say that I deeply question your understanding of science if you put it in the same field as religion. To say science is a matter of belief or faith in the same way that religion is just astounds me.To also state that anyone believes science is infallible shows a low understanding of just what science is. Science is a process by which things are learned…a method, whilst Faith is belief in unseen things (you might call it the evidence of things not seen). These are two very very different scenarios only one of which has ever claimed infallibility. Science follows the pattern of Theory into Law…but Scientific Laws (gravity, thermodynamics, evolution) dont come from burning bushes or talking mountains (im not trying to sound fececious, i dont know if you can help it with this subject matter), they come from observable experimentation. At this point this is a question of mere definition….
Regarding myself being my own god, that line of thought comes from the idea that God did not create man, but that man created god—i just think we can create much more than that if we put our minds to it…we are the masters of this domain we are in (currently anyway)—that makes us the Gods of this world.
feel free to comment on my blog anytime russ, im just looking for a little discourse, challenge my understandings…its how we grow.
Matt said this on October 22, 2008 at 10:32 am
Matt, I appreciate your honesty and candor. I certainly do not see you simply as a troll here, but as one who genuinely believes your point of view is true. As one who feels the same about my faith in Christ, I can – to an extent – appreciate where you’re coming from.
You’re right, Matt, that science and religion are not exactly the same, as I may have painted and at some level here, it becomes a debate of semantics and definitions. I’m not sure how to best articulate my point here, but what I’m trying to drive at with science is that there is at some point where you’re taking something on faith. For example, the origin of the universe. Whatever your take on that is – big bang, creation, etc. – there is absolutely no one who can “prove” conclusively that they are in fact right. I believe the Scriptural account on faith, but aside from the Bible, I can’t show you documented proof, e.g. pictures, journals, etc. If you’re honest with the limitations of science, neither can any form of science – conclusively – prove any theory of the origins of the earth. Again, I’m not saying scientists are deliberately lying or that there’s some sort of conspiracy going on. I trust they genuinely believe their data to be accurate however, there is no documentation from “billions of years” ago without which, there is no 100% proof. Therefore, a belief in evolution, the formation of the universe is all founded on some sort of faith that cannot be conclusively proven. I’m not sure if I’m doing any better of a job at articulating my point here. I’d encourage you to read some of Stanley Fish’s work, who as I understand is not a Christian, but simply tries to drive home the point that there is no such thing as a completely objective point of view which, though it may sound contradictory, is different than believing in an objective truth. Read his three articles on atheism and let me know what you think. I’d challenge you to not read the comments on the blog until you’ve wrestled with it yourself.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/atheism/
The Rev Russ said this on October 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Hi, Matt has mentioned you quite a bit on his blog, so I thought I’d venture over.
This death before the fall issue has troubled me quite a bit. It seems that if there was no death and all carnivours where vegetarian that in effect we were recreated at the fall. Why would lions have fangs if they just needed to munch on grass.
But then I’m a simple fellow. I look forward to reading your blog more.
Robert
mulledvine said this on December 17, 2008 at 8:38 am
The other thing I wanted to say was regarding the use of science in a magisterial rather than ministerial sense. For me, the Bible needs to withstand evidential scrutiny as much as possible. If it were otherwise then faith would be blind and to me intolerable. The issue is whether the findings of science are indisputable (as opposed to generally accepted) and whether there is indeed a contradiction with Scripture. The age of the universe for me is almost at the indisputable level and trying to argue that God would create a universe with the appearance of age, and Adam with a belly button, just seem ludicrous.
But I also agree that accepting old universe theories has concerning theological consequences.
mulledvine said this on December 17, 2008 at 8:45 am
I’m curious. Where (Chapter and verse)does any individual book in the Old or New Testament claim that the entire book is the literal word of God? Absent the claim, I find it more likely that the claim was made rather after the fact–and likely to lend a gloss of authority to those who are (a)in positions of leadership, or (b) those who haven’t really read the highly variable anthology we call the “Bible.” So… chapter and verse, please. I’d say that’s a reasonable request.
Voltairetoday said this on December 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
@mulledvine – I can’t specifically answer why God created lions with fangs if they were only intended to eat plants. This is purely conjecture, but one possibility could be that of a change to adapt to environment, much like the famous “Darwin Finches” on the Galapagos Islands. For a lengthy discussion, I’d suggest taking a look at this article from Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i2/diet.asp.
As for your second comment, again my point is not that we throw science out the window but I hold Scripture to a higher authority than I do our scientific methods. It’s not about a “God of the gaps,” i.e. that everything we can’t figure out with science we just try to shove God in. I could go on here forever, but if you haven’t already looked – take some time and read the articles I linked to from Answers in Genesis – and just dig around there. They have people there who are far smarter than I am and they articulate themselves much better than I can.
@Voltairtoday:
You’re right – there isn’t any “chapter and verse” that says “oh, and by the way – this part of the Bible is to be taken literally.” It comes from a study of grammar and usage of the original languages (Hebrew in this case for Genesis) as well as context. In addition, there are different genres (poetry, narrative, epistle, apocalyptic, etc.) and each are read and understood differently. So for the creation account in Genesis, though there isn’t anything that explicitly says “this should be taken literally” there aren’t any features within the text that suggest it shouldn’t (see this page for a little more explanation: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2911)
In regard to a “literal” interpretation of the Bible on the whole, I never meant to suggest nor do I believe that the entire Bible is “literally” God’s Word. That is to say, we believe it is inerrant and inspired, but God didn’t just dictate to the writers exactly what they should write (hence the unique perspectives of the Gospels). (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2521, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21)
As for using the Bible for “power” (those in positions of leadership) I don’t deny that some in the Church have misused what God intended for good for their own selfish purposes. I has happened and it continues to happen today. As for those who take positions like myself and suggesting that it’s simply out of ignorance, I’ll concede that I don’t have the Bible memorized from cover to cover but there are those who take the same position as I do who have studied this Book for more years than I’ve been alive and still come to the same conclusion.
Finally, the whole business about believing in the Bible as God’s Word – there’s no way I can convince you, scientifically, historically, archeologically or any other way that this is truly God’s Word apart from faith. No amount of “evidence” I give you would suffice, I imagine. I could find 100 articles that would support my belief and you could find 100 that will refute it. As indicated on that last URL reference, “Christians believe what the Scriptures teach because they first believe in Jesus Christ. Christ is the object of faith, not the Bible.”
The Rev Russ said this on December 29, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Thank you, Rev. Russ, for a thoughtful reply. From my sincere perspective, it is an error to consider the anthology or collection of manuscripts as having such uniformity as to be called “the” Bible. I find considerable variability and, yes, human frailty and ignorance, along with books and passages I find inspiring. Two current authors I’ve recently read, John Shelby Spong and Jack Nelson Pallmeyer, argue convincingly (from my perspective) the same point.
My guess is that the Creation story was simply an early guess an allegory at best. The point: whoever or whatever is responsible for it 9in the writer’s mind God) intended it as good. Whatever the case, I cannot see that fussing over whether the story (actually there are two competing stories) of the Creation is literal, is relevant to the central message of Christianity… For those who must believe in not just literalism but even total inerrancy, I suppose “one threat unraveling destroys the whole garment” is a concern. On the other hand, God uses imperfect humans to work in his/her/its interest, so why is it so critical that the anthology known as “the Bible” cannot have human errors?
One example of many: the passage in either Leviticus or Deuteronomy (citation on request) has God suggesting disobedient youth should be brought before the assembly of the people to be stoned. Is that “the word of God for the people of God”?
voltairetoday said this on December 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I would say that it’s along the lines of the “one thread unraveling destroys the whole garment.” Ultimately, it’s belief in Christ alone for salvation that makes one a Christian, not their view on creation. However, my point (and the point of Answers in Genesis) is that there are serious implications for the Gospel if we start taking the creation account figuratively. The biggest being sin – the whole problem and reason for Christ. If sin was here all along – God created it – undermines Christ completely. Does that make sense? And you’re right, God did use/does use imperfect humans – it’s all He’s got to work with – but that doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture.
As for your Leviticus/Deuteronomy question – I can’t think of that specific example to which you are referring, but certainly there are plenty of laws given by God regarding stoning/death for a variety of sins/crimes. Does that mean they are for us today? Absolutely not. Those were laws specifically for Israel who lived as a theocracy under God. So were they in error? No. But do they apply to us today? No. Here’s a page that will explain it better than I can: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=7486
The Rev Russ said this on December 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm
@mulledvine – For what it’s worth, here’s an even better article from AiG that gives some plausible explanations for why lions have fangs, etc.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/origin-of-attack-defense-structures
The Rev Russ said this on December 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Rev. Russ. We’ll probably agree to disagree here, but as I hope to have said, it seems to me a mistake to conceptualize the assorted manuscripts as “the” Bible rather than an uneven assortment. “Uneven” not just in the literary genre, but in quality of thought and in literal or figurative accuracy. Given the primitive science and lack of measuring instruments of the time, the creation was an inexplicable mystery except to say God did it all.
The metaphor of the “thread and the garment” works as long as one sees the anthology as having the cohesion and design of a garment. That “unity” must be accepted not as a matter of logic or reason, but as faith.
Again, it seems to me the “idea” of the Bible as the perfect word of God is a claim not substantiated by the evidence. There is an approach I find more appealing: (1) Read the text (2) Read what tradition and scholars have to say…which is often in conflict and (3) use your own conscientious reason. If God created us in his/her/its image, our brains must serve a purpose.
Finally, I don’t buy the notion that “By Adam’s sin, we sinned all.” Rather it seems to me merely an admission that we are not automatons, and capable of making choices. That can have good..or bad..results.
The passage I referenced: “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother…all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die…. (Deut. 21:18, 21).”
I’d agree that the advice belongs to an earlier time, but strikes me as being as simplistic then as it is ridiculous today. I haven’t had time to read through the links you offer, and I suppose you haven’t browsed either the authors I suggested: Jack Nelson Pallmeyer or John Shelby Spong.
Again, my sincere conclusion is that the notion that “the” Bible (that collection of manuscripts) is totally inerrant (literally-figuratively-historically-scientifically) is chiefly promulgated by authority figures posing as spiritual experts, and those whom they have persuaded to accept the claim.
Jesus seems to have been at odds with authority, both among the religious experts and the Roman government. Obviously, I do not know much of anything, but I’d bet he’d have the most serious opponents in those camps today.
Best regards and the best of the New Year to you and yours.
voltairetoday said this on January 1, 2009 at 8:05 pm