Feb
09
2010
Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?
Here’s a conference I would love to attend: Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? It will be held at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, March 12-13, 2010. It’s co-sponsored by the Discovery Institute. The goal is to equip pastors and church leaders to deal with issues of science and faith.
Here’s a description:
Are science and faith at war? Does science undermine or corroborate belief in God? Does faith suppress or inspire scientific research? Explore these questions and more at a series of regional two-day conferences sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Designed especially for pastors, seminary students, and other church leaders (educators, elders, deacons, board members), each conference will explore similar topics and themes and feature nationally prominent speakers. Each conference also will include information about practical resources for use in churches, church schools, adult education classes, and small groups.
And if you’re looking for well-informed introductions to these issues, from guys who know their science and their Bibles, two of the best books available are Jack Collins’s Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? and Vern Poythress’s Redeeming Science: A God-centered Approach. And the new go-to book on the evidence for Intelligent Design (especially from DNA) is Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. All three are speakers at the conference. See below.
Session 1: A Biblical View of Science and Nature
Vern Poythress
Session 2: The Role of Christianity in the Founding of Modern Science
Jack Collins
Session 3: Darwinian Materialism and Its Effects on Culture and the Church
John West and Jay Richards
Session 4: Redeeming Science: Biology, Physics and Mathematics
Vern Poythress
Session 5: Understanding the Days of Creation
Jack Collins, Vern Poythress, Jay Richards
Session 6: The Role of Worldviews in Apologetic Dialogue
Scott Oliphint
Session 7: The Case for Intelligent Design, Part I
Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer
Lunch and Q and A with Dr. Behe and Dr. Meyer
Session 8: The Case for Intelligent Design, Part II
Bruce Gordon, Jay Richards, and Stephen Meyer
Session 9: The Challenges of Theistic Evolution and Naturalism
Jack Collins, Stephen Meyer, Vern Poythress, and Jeffrey Jue
80 Comments
It is dispiriting to watch the modern Reformed community drift into the orbit of the Discovery Institute, whose defense of Intelligent Design does little to further Christianity, but could just as easily adorn Deism, Process Theology, Buddhism, and even Naturalism (on the premise that an infinite number of universes will sooner or later cough a world that has an appearance of design).
Brothers, are we under the authority of God’s Word, or not? Do we have a mandate to equip the saints to defend it, or not? Have we the courage to confront the rationalist, God-spurning scientific establishment, or not?
If the answer to any of the above is “yes”, whence all the talk of Frameworks, Analogical Days, Progressive Creation, Pre-Adamic Races, Theistic Evolution, Local Foods, etc.? Take a lesson from the little ones in our midst: ask them if the Bible really teaches such things.
For my part, I tip my hat to our creationist brothers, who see that the jewel of the gospel properly rests in the setting of a recent, good creation; a good creation that was ruined by the fall of the First Adam; a fall that paved the way for the Last Adam to redeem the whole shebang.
You know in your hearts that this is the united testimony of Moses, Isaiah, Christ, Paul, Peter, and John the Revelator. Should we not, then, listen to God’s men, rather than to the well-meaning rationalists at the Discovery Institute?
Dean Davis
http://www.CLR4U.org
Dean, When you say you tip your hat to our creationist brothers, do you mean the Muslim creationists, the Jehovah’s Witness creationists or the Mormon creationists?
Just curious.
For the record, I am a young earth creationist who believes in the trinitarian God of the Bible.
I’m pretty sure he was meaning people like yourself. :)
Well at least those who don’t agree with young-earth creation are being referred to as “well-meaning rationalists.” It didn’t take too long for the knives to come out–but “well meaning” is nicer than the usual language I have seen used by YECers.
By the way, I think you meant “Local flood,” not “food.”
Dean, if you knew much about Intelligent Design you would know that it does not take a position on the age of the earth. It simply argues that features we observe in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than a naturalistic one.
ID is not for/against a young earth.
Just take Paul Nelson for example. He is a YEC who is a leading proponent of ID.
Most proponents of ID do indeed endorse the Big Bang, billions of years, and some form of cosmic evolution,. . . Colson, Strobel, Ross, the faculty at Wheaton, etc). However, my objection to ID is not that it is compatible with biblical creation, but that it does very little to advance it.
I remember reading a Time Magazine article, wherein they put up a cartoon mocking the Intelligent Designer who didn’t create all women like Angelina Jolie, who “designed” Down’s Syndrome babies, etc.
There’s the rub, eh? No good creation, no headship of Adam, no fall, no “whole creation subjected to futility” . . . and no need of a holy Last Adam to redeem the mess.
My Bible says the apostle did not fight as beating the air. Give me a bloody biblical creationist any day.
Dean, you say:
“There’s the rub, eh? No good creation, no headship of Adam, no fall, no “whole creation subjected to futility” . . . and no need of a holy Last Adam to redeem the mess.”
Nowhere does ID theory deny/affirm these things that you attribute to it. It is neutral on such questions. It is purely a scientific enterprise that radically undermines the idol of Naturalism. That is its purpose, no more.
ID has an important part to play even though it is not the whole story. Rather than railing against it I think it would be better if you used its insights to our advantage. It has pretty much obliterated the idea that Natural Selection/Random Variation are capable of producing the life we see on earth. Why are you so unhappy about that?
No particular reason, except that having made its excellent point, it leaves people in their sins.
Yes, but it clears the way for others to preach the Gospel. There is a word called ‘team’ – let them play their part and you play yours. Few organizations are called to do everything.
ID is not meant to be an end in itself especially for Biblical Christians. The same goes for the cosmological, ontological, etc. arguments. They have their place but are not ends in themselves. They get you somewhere and answer certain questions but need to be used in tandem with the Gospel itself as found in Scripture.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
ID in an Christian apologetic is presuppositional rhetoric.
Westminster also hosted a debate that included Christopher Hitchens, but is clearly not atheist. Drawing a straight line from a Reformed school to the wholesale method and content of the Discovery Institute is so academically irresponsible and plain lazy. I’d suggest dealing with the issues themselves before you directly link two clearly different institutions.
Jared, if just one recent creationist had been invited to the discussion (I observe it is NOT a debate), I would have been less inclined to pull the trigger. It didn’t help, either, that Motyer, a faculty member at Westminster as I recall, authored the Framework Hypothesis, which nearly overthrew the biblical faith of R. C. Sproul and even now stains the Reformation Study Bible.
Just to let you know, Justin, there’s a typo in the title of this blog post that you may want to correct. You have “Friends of Foes?” instead of “Friend or Foes?”
I SO want to go to this conference!
You really need to read Prof Edgar Andrews book on this subject – ‘Who made God?’. Simply outstanding. If I remember correctly Tim Challies had it in his top books of 2009. Love it.
Wish I could be there.
You have to do some major scientific gymnastics, it seems, to be a young earth creationist. The conclusion that all of the species we have fossil evidence for coexisted with man and then lived and died in the last 6-10,000 years just seems very difficult to come to. With all of the techniques of dating the world–ice cores, carbon dating, red shift et al–we must admit at least the appearance of age.
What if, instead, we looked at the science and took it more or less at face value, and then, keeping our orthodox evangelical reformed views on Scripture, saw the creation account as more poetic than literal? Looking at Scripture metaphorically is nothing new. Surely there are not literal storehouses of snow in the heavens, etc. (Job 38:22)/.
And then, being reformed, what if we looked at the past 14 billion years of evolutionary history under R.C. Sproul’s great thought that “there are no maverick molecules” (Chosen by God, 27)? Then maybe those dreary, godless, evolutionary tales of ice ages, dinosaurs, and pangea become their own part of redemptive history. Think of the first few pages of Tolkien’s Silmarillion, the great symphony of redemptive history. Think of Calvin’s thought as creation being on the stage in the theater of the Almighty and that the beauty is not just a moral one but an aesthetic one as well, the drama of creation and history. Think of Piper’s thoughts on the resplendence of the glory of God, holding secret glories to himself in the microscopic and deep sea and outer space realms, glories that no one, until scientific advancement, could acknowledge. Now, apply those paradigms to the 10-billion-year fireworks show of the whole generation of stars that science says would have had to be born and die before our planet even began to form. Then you can see the focus zoom in on this little speck of dust in a seemingly random corner of the universe as it starts to cool and become green and blue and bear life. Then, as things come to a head, the capstone of this creation begins to emerge from its creatures, the one creature that would bear his image: humanity. Then God breathes life into this dust, that was once stardust, and relates with his creation.
Now, i definitely prefer scientific gymnastics to interpretive ones, but I don’t believe that this has to be inconsistent with a fairly conservative understanding of the Scriptures. Sure, there are different questions and problems if this is true, but I believe it is a thought worth entertaining.
Will, if it’s a question of doing gymnastics, I’d rather gymnasticize the data on ice cores, carbon 14, and red shifts, than the straightforward teaching of a perspicuous Bible that will judge us all in that Day.
As a matter of fact, however, no gymnastics are needed, since there are reasonable explanations for all the phenomena that evolutionists put forward in defense of billions of years.
For example, the fact that galactic red shifts are quantized is a clear indicator that this phenomenon is not a Doppler Effect caused by spatial expansion or galactic recession. End of Big Bang.
Also, Halton Arp has discovered astronomical bodies, KNOWN to be physically linked with each other, that sport vastly different red shifts. Nail in coffin of Big Bang.
Bottom line: No one knows what causes red shifts, but they are certainly not reliable cosmic clocks. For all we know the universe could be 6000 light years in radius, rather than 13.5 billion.
BTW, researchers have found C-14 (with its maximum half-life of 45K yrs.) in diamonds that are allegedly billions of years old. Mmmmmm. But a little Flood geology (and pre-Flood atmospherics) solves it all.
Do please read some of the better creationist books: John Byl’s God and Cosmos, Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Compromise, and Russell Ardnts’ Geocentricity, Relativity, and the Big Bang, Walt Brown’s In the Beginning, etc. Also, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org.
My book, written by a poor philosopher who pilfers from all of the above, is called In Search of the Beginning.
If you’ll study them carefully, you’ll be in good shape–without the gymnastics!
I found Jonathan Sarfati’s “Refuting Compromise” to be an excellent example of poor reasoning and ad hominem attacks. It would be a useful in a class studying logic or debate as an example of what to avoid.
There may be good books that exist for defending YEC, but that one certainly is not one of them.
Dean, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I still feel like I stand with a fair amount of evangelical scientists who look at cases like what you pointed out and refute and/or disbelieve them. At any rate, I guess it’s going to have to be me taking someone else’s word for it.
That still makes me wonder about such things as co-existing with dinosaurs, the evolution of the different races, etc. Of course I believe God’s ability and freedom to work such things in unexpectedly miraculous ways, but I don’t necessarily see a reason to take what still seem to me to be scientific leaps when the Bible doesn’t necessarily require them.
Thoughts? And again, really, thanks for the thoughtful response.
My main thought, Will, is that you seem to be halting between two epistemological opinions.
Should our faith in an inspired, inerrant, perspicuous Bible that clearly and repeatedly teaches recent creation be subject to, or overthrown by, scientific “evidence” that is consistently interpreted within paradigms (usually naturalistic and evolutionary) that will not let the God of the Bible in the door?
To illustrate: You mention “the evolution of the different races.” It seems you are assuming such a thing actually happened. You are looking at different “races” through the paradigm of the evolutionary model.
But now, put on your biblical glasses. The Bible says we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. There is only one race: Adam’s. At Babel the one race got divided into nations via a supernatural act of God, the confusion of language, which resulted in different “nations” relocating here and there. In time, through patterns of marriage and natural selection, different physical characteristics emerged in these nations. Voila! A viable explanation of the “races,” based on the premise of God acting both supernaturally and providentially in history.
Alas, try to publish a paper defending such ideas in the journal Nature, and watch your career swirl down the proverbial drain!
But here is the interesting part. The actual scientific evidence accords far better with the biblical model than the evolutionary. As you may know, since Mendel we have understood that there is a built-in genetic capacity for variation and adaptation in all living beings. This is not evolution, where new and more complex genetic material magically pops into existence. Rather, it is simply pre-existing genetic material combining in limited ways to allow creatures to adapt to their environments. So strange to tell, good science supports the creation model of slight variations within well-established kinds (what Darwin saw in his famous finch beaks), but contradicts the evolutionary model that posits creative mutations that as a matter of fact never occur.
Now back to the beginning. Though you were a ten year old with no background whatsoever in science, you could still say, “The Bible says there is only one race: the race of Adam and Eve, and that we are all descended from them, rather than evolved from primates. So, because I believe the Bible on the basis of its miraculous unity, typology, predictive prophecy, etc. (this is a really spiritual ten year old!), I believe God’s Word on the origin of the ‘races’, and so disbelieve the Darwinist explanation.”
This young man has his epistemological house in order. He’s on the rock, aiming his hearers to the God, Christ, and Worldview of the Bible. My prayer is that my Reformed and Evangelical brethren will go and do likewise.
P.S. Behemoth and Leviathan were some kinda creatures! (Job 40:15f). Culturally far-flung stories of dragons, thunderbirds, and sea-monsters must be based on something: maybe Job and his contemporaries had met a few such critters themselves!
P.P.S. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, digging around at Hell’s Canyon in Colorado, recently found “65 million year old” dinosaur bones with soft tissues oozing around inside them! Her evolutionist colleague warned, “Dude, the creationists will have a field day with this!” And they have!
Dean,
I see your book on amazon. Can you tell us more about it and what your background is?
Thank you for asking. An extended introduction to ISB, with sample chapters, is available at http://www.clr4u.org. So too is a brief bio. D
‘preach it, Will’ – and I hope you continue to trust the study you obviously have already done. I commend to you a book that might be found in the library by Bernard Ramm, “The Christian View of Science and Scripture”. It turned my life aright & helped make sense of the science I was beginning to pursue. Blessings!
“You have to do some major scientific gymnastics, it seems, to be a young earth creationist.”
I always thought this was true about the resurrection, the turning of water into wine, the feeding of the 5000, the parting of the Red Sea (Oh, I forgot, they crossed on a sand bar), etc… I just can’t figure out why God won’t stick to those pesky eternal, inviolable laws of “nature.”
Ah, true. But none of that stuff is observable. Age, or at least its appearance, is. I love and embrace and rejoice at the hurdle over natural laws in the miracles and don’t disagree that creation itself is a miracle. But please engage my whole idea, not just this little bit.
I think the apparent age of the wine was tasteable
Ha, that’s kind of an awesome response.
Can you play it out for me, though, through evolutionary history and the fossil record? Are you saying that humans did coexist with dinosaurs, all that stuff?
There will always be a lot of unverifiable issues when looking at the question of origins because we weren’t there to observe creation, nor were we there to observe other scientific and/ or miraculous phenomena in subsequent history. This is true for all parties in the dispute.
I am a YECer not first and foremost because of scientific evidence, but because of what I believe the Bible clearly says about origins. It boils down for me to an authority issue. Science is a notoriously tricky and shifting discipline. and there is far more speculation about science, history and the interpretation of data than most are willing to admit. Presuppositions drive data interpretation and conlusions when it comes to origins. One must examine his presuppositions and ask a lot of why questions.
When it comes to Biblical interpretation I am much more comfortable taking the text at face value. I get suspicious when it is not taken at face value. I begin to wonder what presuppositions drive the interpretation of the text. Is it the desire to conform the text to the ever shifting and illusive theories of modern science? I wouldn’t want to stake my belief on that shaky ground. What will we learn in 10, 15, 50 or a 100 years from now that will thrash the current consensus (if there is such a thing) of understanding the cosmos? Scientific understanding is unstable, the Word of God is not.
“Scientific understanding is unstable, the Word of God is not.”
True, but in areas like this, like the once-biblical belief of having a geocentric universe, we ought not rest on our interpretations as being the final word either.
And if we do take Genesis at “face value,” if we take the Bible as a whole just at “face value” then we come to apparent contradictions, which is where interpretation must come in.
The Word of God is infallible; our interpretations are not. Thus the need for some humility where Christians differ, as is most certainly the case here.
Taking the Bible at “face value” or “literally” is a bit of a tricky thing. For example, were I to take the Bible literally, I would need to believe in a solid dome that stretched across the sky, separating the waters above from the waters below, as per Gen 1:6-7. That’s what Genesis 1 literally teaches. Either you believe that (and NASA has been pulling quite a hoax all these years!), or you accept our scientific knowledge about our atmosphere to be true and then reconsider how we interpret the passage. So far, I haven’t come across anyone willing to make a case for a literal firmament, either having existed in the past or one that currently exists in the present. But if you must insist to take the Bible at “face value”, then it seems to demand you do.
Thanks Elliot.
I do need to point out, though, that some folks are making or at least have tried to make a case for a literal firmament. It’s part of a global flood theory. It seems to be a lot of conjecture, though.
Helpful resource,
I didn’t know that. Well, I have to give them credit for being consistent!
Beware of assuming that the debate about cosmic geocentricity is over. As a matter of fact, like our Lord himself, it seems to be rising from the dead!
Since Hubble, astronomers have observed all sorts of celestial objects that are found to be arranged symmetrically, usually in shells, around the Earth (the CMB, galaxies, galactic mega-walls, quasars, gamma-ray burst sources, etc.). Moreover, thousands interferometer experiments confirm that the ether does indeed exist, and that we appear to be sitting still in the midst of it!
This evidence is so threatening that the Copernican establishment has made up a whole new “Principle” to get rid of its biblical implications: the (unimaginable) idea that we live in a finite universe with no center and no edges; a universe in which every observer, on every particle of dust, would see galaxies arranged around him in shells!!!! And they call us Fundamentalists nut cases!
For more on this fascinating development, see Russell Arndt, Geocentricity, Relativity, and the Big Bang; Thomas Strouse, He Maketh His Sun to Rise; and R. Sungenis and R. Bennett, Galleo Was Wrong.
Could it be, brethren, that when the dust finally settles, we in the West will see that we zigged when we should have zagged? Could it be that the Bible really does teach cosmic geocentricity? Could it be that it really does view the universe as a finite sphere (likely much smaller than we now think), bounded by waters “above the expanse,” and revolving around the apple of His eye: US!
Could it be that the current collapse of Relativity Theory and the Big Bang, plus all the new observational evidence for radical cosmic geocentricity, will lead to a cosmological paradigm shift? And could such a paradigm shift revive the scientific establishment–or least some among them– by bringing them back to the God, Book, and cosmology of their fathers?
If so, in that Day the Lord will have some very special wreaths for that little band of modern “windmill tilters” (so they called Walter Van de Kamp) who–against Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, and all the rest–stood firm on the good Word of God!
Could it be that its really hard to take someone seriously when they are arguing for a geocentric universe? Yes, it can!
The thing is, creation is actually stupid-design when evaluated with modernist tools. There is so much waste and such a massive profusion of stuff that is simply “useless”. I am all for stupid-design. Praise the foolish God (1 Cor. 1:25).
Love,
c
Biologos is the foundation that Francis Collins directed before becoming the head of the NIH. They’ve got some interesting questions and propose helpful answers to them. Check it out.
The site is a pro-theistic evolution site. Darrel Falk recently wrote a significant (critical) review of Stephen Meyer’s Book (Signature in the Cell) and invited Meyer to respond. Meyer’s response was masterful. They can both be read there.
Looking forward to getting the audio tracks of this one!! We are ministering the Gospel in England and these topics are well up our alley here!!
Will,
Your 758am comment was well written.
I am no scientist, but I did get into the whole age of the earth debate plenty of times in college, especially in Anthropology. It has been 4 years now, but I remember thinking that the “fossil records” aren’t nearly so extensive as we are made to believe, and carbon dating isn’t nearly so reliable. There is a lot more conjecture taking place than I would have thought before going through those classes. And those classes were led by evolutionists.
In your estimation, is the fossil record reliable enough that we should assume dinosaurs existed as presented to us in the Museum of Natural History…or Jurassic Park?
Joey, thanks for the response.
I am no scientist either, but I also got into the debate, and from the other side of the table than where I am now.
Sure, there are folks who will lead us to believe that the fossil record’s extensive enough to basically prove evolution of its own right. I’m not saying that. It is definitely extensive enough, though, to prove to us that dinosaurs existed. And if you’re (not you you) gonna be a YECist, you’ve gotta do something with that. Coexistence seems a bit of a stretch, a stretch that we don’t need to necessarily take.
Why is it a stretch to believe in coexistence? The dates involved that are procured through Carbon Dating and such?
*carbon dating and such? * that would be the varied and corroborating radiometric methods. It is the way science is meant to be conducted, not the way it is sometimes characterized. Imperfect to be sure and not w\o self-discreditors, e.g., the recent “climategate”.
Believers have to be familiar with as much info to make informed decisions on what and what not to incorporate with their apologetic or believe concerning their theology. Conferences like these are valuable for that purpose. Even if certain of these individuals involved also put forth a distinct apologetic approach, it doesn’t mean that reformed folk will adopt it completely. Isn’t it to be expected that at least some insights from ID may be incorporated in a presup apologetic, whether of the van tillina or clarkian variety? I’m sure we can all think of some braod ID claims that would probably be rightly shared by reformed apologists.
ID presupposes a dogmatic standard of what can be considered intelligent. What is that standard? How do we know we are intelligent enough to identify what intelligence is?
And, so there we go, back to Scripture. Unless, of course, we are just humanists at heart….
Except Scripture itself affirms the use of reason (under God). You yourself just used it to make an argument in that sentence.
You ask ‘How do we know we are intelligent enough to identify what intelligence is?’. Because Scripture presents man as an intelligent being who is capable of rational thought (e.g Moses fled Egypt because he inferred that his murder would cause a negative affect – use of reason).
ID does not presuppose a ‘dogmatic standard of what can be considered intelligent’, rather, ID presupposes that using our God-given reason we can discern that a car engine is designed rather than produced by naturalistic processes. Or that a bacterial flagellum is designed rather than produced by naturalistic processes.
Scripture validates the use of reason (under God) so deny it and you deny Scripture.
henrybish,
I am not denying the mind, as that would be against Scripture, as you pointed out. But, without Scripture as the Archimedean point, what point do you have?
Yes, I use my mind, the rules of logic, etc., to make an argument. But, how do I justify that argument’s existence as having any sort of relevance or meaning apart from the Scriptures? I cannot.
You prove this point in your argument as well, appealing to “God-give reason”. But, ID is not an argument about reason, it is an argument about meaning, about origins and about history. These are distinct issues from “reason”, ones that the autonomous mind cannot fathom or create apart from Scripture (again). To reason (argue) from reason (the mind) to ultimates of reality is a humanist endeavor, not a biblical one. This is the rub I am pointing out, and the one that your comments fail to address.
The Scriptures never attribute autonomous power to the mind as a capable entity for obtaining truth. Even before the fall of Adam, revelation was necessary for him to know what was “right”.
Your move.
Chris, I am not denying Scripture as the Archimedean point, it is. But precisely because it is and because it validates the use of reason is why we are justified in using reason.
And that is exactly what ID does. ID reasons from cause to effect just like characters do all throughout Scripture. We observe hieroglyphic writing and using God-given reason we conclude that it must be due to intelligence. Do you deny that we can tell a car engine is designed using God-given reason? If so, where in Scripture does it say that we must not draw any conclusions about anything using God-given reason? Why does God give reason if we may not use it? How do you make decisions without using reason?
On what basis are you making this argument? I am making it on the basis that God has endowed human beings with the capacity to reason as is validated by Scripture. How about you?
Henry,
ID presumes that non-believers are going to follow you back to the same conclusions that you reach, as though you are not presuming the answer from the start.
This is contrary to the Scriptures, which says that the mind is in darkness as a result of the fall. The unbeliever ends up in whatever ultimate he wants, and there is no logic or reasoning you can create that will move him/her away from this.
Of course the world shows order, of course there is glory in it. But I see this because I am a new creature in Christ, not because I listened to a scientist’s reasonings. I do not need ID to show me the same things that I can see for myself with the Word.
I think you are confusing the mind with the act of thinking. I am distinguishing the two things. Unbelievers can reason quite well- they can be incredibly logical. But truth and logic are two separate things, and the truth is not available to the unbeliever. That is the rub.
ID is just the cosmological argument with a new title.
Besides, why can’t Christian scientists get on with their research without having to use it for the sole purpose of proving something to the unbeliever?
Chris,
ID does not presume that a soul can be saved by a mere argument. Where did you get this idea from? Some ID’ers are not even theists!
I am not denying that the grace of God is required for a sinner to accept where God-given reason leads. Even if the argument is airtight, without the grace of God the unbeliever will twist it and reject it. But does that mean we should not make the arguments?
On this reasoning it seems you would not preach the gospel or say any truth to any unbeliever because the natural man *cannot* receive it. But regeneration usually comes *though* us speaking words. God sometimes invests our words with power to change hearts.
I agree you do not need have to understand ID to believe in the design of nature. But to many this is a confirmation and reinforcing of a truth we already knew from Scripture. We can’t help that – it stands to reason that if God designed the world then signs of this design will show up all over the place.
You ask: “why can’t Christian scientists get on with their research without having to use it for the sole purpose of proving something to the unbeliever?” ID strengthens the saints (like Apollos’ vigorous debate with the Jews greatly encouraged the believers there) so I am glad they make it known. And if some non-believers can be woken up to the truth that God does exist then that is one step in the right direction. Not the whole way, but an important first step. Would you rather we not bother?
A final note, I do not believe logic and truth can be contrary, Scripture validates both. The reason unbelievers can make seemingly good arguments is that although the logic is good the premises are faulty. Or in the case of Dawkins not even the logic is good. You cannot have correct logic acting on true premises and end up with a conclusion contrary to Scripture.
Regards
Bish,
We are going in circles now. I never said that logic and truth were contraries, that is a ridiculous notion. What I said was that all men can be logical, but not all men can know the truth. The latter is only open to the believer (credo ut intelligam).
If “Intelligent” and “design” do not, by their very meaning, imply a “being” of some kind that did the designing and had an intelligence, then what does it imply? Christopher Hitchens has done a good job of blowing this kind of show-and-hide the cards thing wide open. The point is: just say it – God made the heavens and the earth, so it has glory and wisdom in it!! Quit pretending like it is some kind of hidden thing. Be frank.
On the contrary, I do speak the Word of God to the unbeliever, because this is God’s means of doing His work. But I don’t try and convince them that the watch they found on the beach was made by someone— they already know this. They just suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
ID doesn’t strengthen me. It is a nuisance because it denies one cardinal truth of the faith: men are fallen and are blind. The only men who it helps are those who need something more than the Word of God to show them the way.
Science as a discipline needs to move on to actual discovery, or reevaluate the meaning and end of the endeavor – it seems like the whole reason for professional science escapes the Creationist guys, and gets boiled down to proofs. How about a jet-pack, anti-gravity boots, a flying saucer, a car that runs on water, new crop-management tools, a bigger strawberry, a cure for cancer, etc. etc. etc.
PS- Moses fled from Egypt because Pharoah wanted to kill him. Even the beasts have a sense of self-preservation.
Or that a bacterial flagellum is designed rather than produced by naturalistic processes.
First part I’m good with. Second part, not so much. Are rocks not intelligently designed? What, exactly, comes about by a “naturalistic process”?
not sure what your question is exactly?
Small contribution to this fascinating discussion: evidence for an older creation is not limited to radiometric dating or processes which could be attributed to the effects of a catastrophic flood – everywhere we look we find evidence of an older earth, and an older universe. The very light from many of the stars in our sky is millions of light years away, and using powerful telescopes we can see light from galaxies billions of light years away. See Robert Newman’s listing of various points of evidence for an old creation in Zondervan’s _Three Views on Creation and Evolution_. If the universe is in reality only several thousand years old, its a pretty elaborate deception!
Gavin, how do you know the light we see actually emanated from the stars? How do you know that the stars are really millions of light years away? How do you know that the speed of light, in the beginning, was the same as it is today?
Do you see, brother, that even the publishers at Zondervan haven’t a clue about how God did it.
And neither do I. But I do know that he said the whole universe was formed in six astronomical days. How sweet it is to believe it.
Yes, for the benefit of Adam and his children, God created that universe with an appearance of old age, and that could trip someone up–unless he believed God’s Word. Then there would be no “deception” at all, just a refusal to believe one’s creator, and so be plunged into a bottomless pit of speculation, error, and gnawing uncertainty.
Again, how sweet it is to walk on the good, solid ground of the Word of God! Why not come join me? :)
Hi Dean,
thanks for your interaction, brother. I share your desire to stand upon God’s solid Word, but surely you are aware among even more conservative OT scholars there are a host of different interpretations of Genesis 1, so its a bit dismissive, to say the least, to portray all those with a different view as simply refusing to believe God’s Word. In my opinion, your rigorous skepticism of modern cosmological and geological evidence for an older creation clashes pretty brazenly with the certitude you have of your interpretation of Genesis 1. Your skepticism should cut both ways – not because Scripture is fallible, but because interpretations are.
Someone advocating geocentrism could argue exactly as you are.
Question: in your estimation, did Augustine (who believed in instantaneous, not literal six-day creation) refuse to believe God’s word (since he had a different interpretation of this text)?
Sorry, the appearance of age will not carry ‘the day’!
Gavin O; in reference to your question regarding Augustine; He did not have a different interpretation of the text. He excepted that Genesis was teaching (and the Hebrew used was meant to convey) 6 literal days, but for Augustine he could not conceive of the awesome mighty creator God taking so long and so despite recognising the intent of Genesis he decided to moot a different timing, ie instantaneous.
True science is Christian in its foundation; Christian scientists in previous centuries concluded that because God was a God of order there was/is purpose in investigating said creation to discover its rules etc
Macro evolution (molecules to man) is not scientific in any sense of the word. There is no evidence for it at all, it is just an assumption doggedly held to despite all the evidence to the contrary.
D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference:
‘Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.’
There has never been a mutational change that added information to the DNA.
Micro evolution (changes within a kind) is observable, testable and verifiable.
Evolutionists normally mix the two together and point to micro evolution as ‘proof’ that macro evolution is true.
At its heart Evolutionism is a religion. It has never been scientific as it fails all dictums of said science;
It is not observable, testable or verifiable.
Hi Glenn,
I am with you on macro-evolution in the sense of “molecules to man”: I don’t it squares with the fossil record (e.g., Cambrian explosion) or the irreducible complexity of many systems we see in living organisms (e.g., the cell). I also think it runs into Scriptural problems with Genesis 2, Romans 5, and I Corinthians 15, and theological problems with the development of the soul and problem of human death before the fall.
I do think the scientific evidence for an older universe, however, is very strong; and I don’t see any (conclusive) Scriptural or theological problems with it.
On Augustine: Alister McGrath had a helpful article in CT on him: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html
blessings,
Gavin
Hi Gavin
J. Sarfati, in his book Refuting Compromise, describes at length the views of the so-called church fathers as to God’s method of creation.
Out of a group of about 20-30, spanning some four centuries, only three (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) regarded the days of creation as figurative, yet these too still concluded that the world was only a few thousand years old.
Six day creation continued to be orthodoxy throughout all Christendom, up until the Copernican revolution and the Enlightenment. When, as a result of turning away from Scripture, evolutionary theories began to be considered, creationist orthodoxy succumbed to the advance of “science.”
It is, then, not a matter of exegesis, as you try to argue by pointing to different views held by modern OT scholars, but a matter of epistemological authority. Does Scripture “rule” over science, or science over Scripture?
I have a quote in my book from a famous English Hebrew scholar, in which he says that, so far as he knows, not a single OT scholar disputes the fact that the Hebrew Bible teaches a literal six day creation. This, plus the history of interpretation in the Church over the centuries, is decisive.
Bottom Line: The reason modern OT “evangelical” scholars have all these odd interpretations of Genesis 1 is not because the text is obscure, but simply because it clashes with “science,” and because, in their mind, “science” trumps an inspired, inerrant, perspicuous Bible whose cosmogony is either wrong or pitifully unclear. Go figure.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Blessings,
D
I am thankful for the church fathers; however, from their perspective one should not be surprised at their observations about the age of the earth.
We have the same Bible they had, Barry, so what has changed, such that ours is now the preferred “perspective?” The “assured results of modern science”, I suspect. So then, science really does rule over Scripture, right?
Hi Dean,
the fact (very different versions of) young earth creationism were standard in pre-modern theology is not, for me, conclusive; after all, geocentrism was also the prevalent view until (legitimate) scientific advances over-turned it. I’m sure you would dissent if I asserted that geocentrism is not a matter of exegesis, but a matter of epistemological authority, on the basis of Psalm 104:5: “he set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” This issue just isn’t that simple.
You seem suspicious of knowledge yielded by the modern thought. Modernity has yielded many problems, to be sure, but it has also resulted in many advances in scientific knowledge that we all benefit from, such as medicine, cars, cell phones, etc. We must be wary of the danger of being unnecessarily anti-scientific.
I wouldn’t say Genesis 1 is obscure, but I would say it requires sensitive exegesis in light of (1) its quasi-poetic genre, (2) its historical context, as the front-end of a book explaining the covenant identity of God’s people to them just before entering the promised land. In my view, the LAST thing on the author’s mind is whether the universe is 5,000 old, and if you read that way, you run into all kinds of problems (like the earth being catapulted into orbit at the creation of the sun).
But I don’t expect to convince you! Just throwing in my two cents on this issue.
Blessings,
Gavin
Strange indeed that thousands of Jewish and Christian theologians failed to discover the “quasi-poetic” nature of Genesis 1 until Copernicus came along.
As for the historical context of Genesis. 1, I can’t find a trace of covenant theology in it. What I do find is a much needed revelation of the origin of the universe, and a crucial declaration that when God created it, he created it good.
Thereafter I find an account of the Fall, of how Adam wrecked everything. Shortly after that, I begin to see God entering into covenant with a chosen people, based on faith in the Last Adam who was yet to come. So again, you cannot be loyal to the gospel without being loyal to its cosmological setting: Creation and Fall.
We do agree, however, that it’s a big problem to think that on the fourth day God catapulted the Earth into orbit around the sun. My solution is follow the Scriptures by asserting that he didn’t, but that he catapulted the sun, moon, and stars in orbit around the Earth.
Now, Gavin, where will you get your solution: from the Bible or from (the latest speculation of) science? :)
Blessings,
D
D
Dean,
good brother, I can see we won’t convince each other! Thank you for your interaction nonetheless. I’ll check out your book sometime. Blessings to you.
Gavin
So, let me get this right – you believe the sun revolves around the earth?
Yep, and the stars as well, both being embedded in a finite spherical firmament full of ether that carries them along in its bosom. This is essentially the view of Galileo’s cosmological opponent, Tycho Brahe, who placed the Earth at the center, the Sun and stars in orbit around the Earth, and the planets in orbit around the Sun–a configuration that explains the apparent motions of all heavenly bodies just as well as the Copernican system.
Interestingly, the 19th century interferometer experiments conducted by Michelson and Morley confirmed the geocentric and geostationary view. Their device was skillfully arranged to use beams of light to determine whether or not the Earth moves through the ether. The “null result” floored the entire scientific establishment for 25 years, since it showed not only that the Earth is not moving, but that the Earth is the one still point around which the celestial sphere revolves (guess who does the revolving).
Einstein erected the entire edifice of Relativity Theory in order to avoid what everyone knew was the simplest, most natural solution: geocentricity. For more on this dire development, see Russell Arndt: Geocentricity, Relativity, and the Big Bang.
Elsewhere in this exchange I have mentioned some of the observational evidence favorable to geocentricity, evidence that forced modern Copernicans to invent the fabulously non-sensical Cosmological Principle (see above).
The best short biblical case for geocentricity is found in Thomas Strouse’s little book, He Maketh His Sun to Rise.
The best short historical and scientific case is found in Philip Stott’s Vital Questions.
The best in-depth study is found in Galileo Was Wrong, by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett.
But the only way to know anything for sure, Elliott, is to pray your head off and try with all your heart to determine what the Bible REALLY says on the matter.
May He bless you as you do!
d
[...] Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? 11 February 2010 No Comment http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/02/09/science-faith-friends-of-foes/ [...]
Pretrib Rapture Trivia
Who’s the “Protector of the Principality of Pretribulatia”?
Edward Irving? John Darby? C. I. Scofield? Tim LaHaye? Someone else?
Media figure Joe Ortiz knows the answer. It’s in his “End Times Passover” blog. The one dated Dec. 29, 2009.
If you’re Calvinist, you’re predestined to see his blog. If you’re Arminian, you can choose to see it.
It will be too late to find out the answer to the above trivia question if the rapture happens!
I would recommend a recent book by Paul Garner called ‘The New Creationism’ by Evangelical Press I think (I have loaned mine out to someone). In it he looks at all the latest research done by creation scientists showing how the observable data does fit a young earth model (in. Red shift, geology etc).
I found it to be a very fair, very interesting, and eye opening treatment of the subject. Rather than the usual rant against evolution this is putting a positive model in its place.
It seems creation scientists are making progress with many of the questions raised above.
Just found that the author has a blog: http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/
And I recommend a book, “The Creationists,” by Dr. Ronald Numbers. It’s a pretty fascinating and accurate history of creation “science.” Also, a recent book, “The Lost World of Genesis One,” by Dr. John Walton, who challenges the way in which we have traditionally viewed this chapter.
Good for you, Richard. Wish that “The Creationists” was required reading for those on all sides of the debate. (Unlike the New Creationism) this is an objective account by a respected historian.
Someone mentioned RC Sproul in a comment. Do you realize that he ‘converted’ to a YEC a few years back?
Does anyone know of other reformed people who are YEC? Sadly, I find them to be few and far between.
Louis Berkhoff, bless his free-thinking heart, was a recent creationist, despite the defections of Hodge and Warfield.
Douglas Kelley, author of Creation and Change (Mentor). This was the book that snagged RC for the creationist camp.
John Byl, author of God and Cosmos–mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and elder in a Reformed church.
Finally, be sure to visit http://www.reformation.edu, where you can savor not only the provocative writings of Philip Stott, but some of the creationist and geocentric classics, written by such Reformed thinks as Walter Van de Kamp.
God give you joy in the journey!
Thanks, Dean!!
And Ellen White and the early Seventh Day Adventists were big time proponents of young-earth creation–see “The Creationists,” by Dr. Ronald Numbers.
L.O.L.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
Science is not an objective endeavor. It is driven by pre-theoretical commitments and philosophies. There is NO WAY that anyone can hear what the rocks say, apart from it is already being said in their hearts.
[...] Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (HT: Justin Taylor) [...]