Hi @dcscccc,
I am content to let your arguments stand on their own.
In Christ,
Gary
That sounds a bit judgemental. However, without being antagonistic, I merely meant what I said. I never said that evidence can’t be true because its driven by an atheistic world view. However, it is nevertheless true, that an atheistic world view drives this particular approach to the evidence.
So, what didn’t I say? I did not say that Christians should not make use of theoretical models or theories with philosophies that don’t fit our worldviews. I implied that evidence can be true inspite of an atheistic worldview. But at the same time, just because it can be true in some cases, does not mean it is true. The caution is that the worldview can influence both the gathering of evidence and the interpretation of evidence. I’m sure you know that worldview influences which stories are reported in the news, which questions are asked, which witnesses are interviewed, and even how the answers are encouraged. This is even in a field which prides itself on “objectivity” in reporting.
Just like in news reporting, scientific investigation into things that relate to evolution is also not a purely objective science. We see this most obviously in how things are reported about new finds, whether fossil or genetics, or geology, or astronomy, but what is more difficult to ascertain is how this influences the actual scientific reports, since it does this more indirectly, and less obviously. But there is no doubt that worldview influences this process as well.
You can see an example of this in the presumed evaluation of prayer as Patrick keeps mentioning. The worldview overlaying this supposed study of prayer presumes that all benefits of prayer are materialistic, immediate, and direct. The only benefits are naturalistic benefits that can be indisputably measured. That is a worldview that influences the scientific process. It is a wrong measure, and therefore a flawed study.
Certainly the evolutionary model is generally anti-thetical to Christianity, because of its basic assumption that God is not allowed in it. Ironically, even though many christians believe in miracles, they have been convinced by the evolutionary mindset that miracles are not possible in creation, and therefore all the evidence must suggest a non-miraculous method of development. Not only that, but evolutionary thinking does not presume a natural law or order for evolutionary development, but rather a lack of law and order for accidental development, all serving under the god of much time or essentially timelessness.
So yes, as a general theory, it is dangerous to christianity… it convinced Charles Templeton and many others to say, “Farewell to God”. Does that mean none of the discoveries can be used? No. But to assume that individual cases of species separation, or hybridization, or natural selection, or mutation, must “prove” that man evolved from microbes goes far beyond the evidence. To assume that there is no such thing as a common designer, for example, is not a scientific conclusion but a worldview conclusion.
It is the lack of awareness of the worldview impacts that create the hazards for using the theory. Furthermore, using the theory is not the same thing as being subservient to the theory, which is a position many or most evolutionists have put themselves into, including christians who call themselves evolutionists.
I mostly agree with this also, John, and I’ll put any minor disagreement to one side since it’s pretty minor.
When I use the word “fundamentalist” in that linked essay (An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective and Future Directions), please keep in mind that I wrote that as an historian engaging in historical analysis. The second paragraph spells out the specific distinctive of “fundamentalism” that is relevant to my analysis of contemporary evangelicals (whom I distinguish from fundamentalists for the purpose of that analysis). Perhaps I’m misreading you, John, but I sense some resentment on your part simply for making that distinction, which is historically meaningful. I’m not engaging in any type of name-calling. Quite the contrary. The word “Fundamentalist” was first used in print in the USA in July 1920, as a self-chosen label for those conservative Protestants who intended to “do battle royal for the fundamentals” of Christian faith. Here is the immediate context in which that word was first used:
“We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’ By that name the editor of THE WATCHMAN-EXAMINER is willing to be called. It will be understood therefore when he uses the word it will be in compliment and not in disparagement.”
The WATCHMAN-EXAMINER was a Baptist periodical, and the editor (Curtis Laws) was writing about himself and his friends. He intended it to be a positive referent to his point of view. I use the word as an historian, conveying to my readers that fundamentalism is all about rejecting aspects of modernity, including evolution. There’s nothing pejorative in such an analysis; I’m just doing good, accurate history.
Ted, you are doing your best, I am sure. But sometimes when we transfer from history to making judgements about modern situations we end up reinforcing what we don’t want to. So if fundamentalist was used by this Baptist editor, it is now often/usually taken out of context. How many people know what fundamentals were being emphasized in 1920, for example? How many of those have changed? How many others agreed to be called fundamentalist? etc.
It reminds me of the discussions of “black”, negro, colored, african-american" as trying to make distinctions in terminology. Or the terminologies of “indian, redskin, native, aboriginal, first nations”. We know all of these are historical terms, but the one we use demonstrates our contextual framework, or demonstrates the philosophical approach to the issue.
You should know that fundamentalism as you quoted it, was not just all about rejecting aspects of modernity… it was an effort dedicated to maintaining certain faith fundamentals, some of which could be argued to reject certain traditional approaches to Christianity. The term has become perjorative, and as such I suggest it be avoided.
During the latter half of the 20th century, the terms fundamentalist and fundamentalism, both of which had existed since 1920, became even more polysemous than they had been since that year. Their usage to signify various kinds of people and phenomena expanded to hitherto untouched extremes. Originally Christian theological nomenclature, they were applied to a seemingly ever-widening variety of people and ideologies. Basketball coaches who emphasised such basic skills as dribbling and passing were dubbed ‘fundamentalists’. Portfolio managers who concentrated their analyses on the financial details of individual companies rather than basing their fiduciary decisions on macroeconomic market trends were similarly called ‘fundamentalists’. Muslims who militantly defended their faith entered political and journalist rhetoric as champions of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. Mormons who continued to practise polygamy despite the abrogation of that phenomenon by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were described as ‘Mormon fundamentalists’. Generally terms of opprobrium on the lips or in the pens of people who denigrated what they were describing, these two terms had long undergone what semanticists call ‘pejoration’ Frederick Hale1 Affiliation: 1School of Ecclesiastical Sciences, North-West University, South Africa
John,
This will be my last comment on this particular theme. You (and others) are of course free to add what you wish.
It’s indisputable that the word “fundamentalist” is now applied quite broadly, such that the late Stephen Jay Gould even referred to “scientific fundamentalists” at one point (by which he meant scientists who used science to attack religion). And, the word is usually used today as a pejorative tossed at others whose views one categorically rejects. We are on the same page here.
It’s equally indisputable that the word “fundamentalist” has been, historically, simply inseparable from the conversation about evolution among American Christians–indeed, more broadly among Americans period. Like the word or not, it was the banner under which William Jennings Bryan led his crusade to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools in the 1920s. Like it or not, it was the banner under which Jerry Falwell proclaimed his Christian faith in the 1970s and 1980s, when he published “The Fundamentalist Journal” (RELIGION : Falwell to Discontinue Journal).
Falwell actively promoted the YEC view, to such an extent that faculty at his Liberty University had to subscribe to that position (and to the best of my knowledge, they still do have that expectation). Somewhere around 1980, I recall seeing an advertisement in a Christian magazine, soliciting letters of support for Falwell’s view of evolution, offering as an enticement a free copy of Henry Morris’ book, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, which now apparently is finally out of print (Remnant Books).
When Morris resigned from VPI to start the ICR in San Diego, he went there at the invitation of people affiliated with another leading “fundamentalist,” Tim LaHaye (http://sdcc.edu/about-sdcc/history-sdcc), though I think LaHaye now prefers to call himself an “evangelical,” probably for the same reasons that you don’t want me to keep talking about “fundamentalists.”
In the article you don’t like, I focused on “evangelicals,” whose more open attitude toward science I contrasted with that of “fundamentalists.” This is also historically based. If you read the final section of my latest column (http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/genesis-and-geology-at-yale-the-days-of-creation), you will see how Morris and Whitcomb wrote their famous book, The Genesis Flood, at least partly in order to combat the influence of Bernard Ramm. To borrow from my own column: In the opinion of Westminster-trained theologian Kevin Vanhoozer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the Baptist Bernard Ramm “must be considered one of the foremost American evangelical theologians of the twentieth century. Only Carl F. H. Henry’s works are comparable in quantity and quality.” Ramm, like Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, and many others, identified with a group originally called “neo-evangelicals,” who held more progressive views about modernity and those Christians who embraced it than did the “fundamentalists” who opposed them every step of the way. That’s the context in which the article I pointed you toward embeds its analysis.
Basically, John, the first generation of creationists (in the YEC sense) was up to their ears in “fundamentalism.” For a long time, that was the accepted word, to such an extent that what is now called simply IFCA used to wear the word proudly in its name (http://www.ifca.orgsite/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140043237&sec_id=140007594). A lot of churches still belong to that organization, which has changed in name only. Their attitude includes open hostility to “evangelicals”, as seen in this statement (from the site I just linked) back in 1969: After some
consideration the matter was resolved in 1969 by adding to the IFCA Doctrinal Statement definitions of “Movements Contrary to Faith.” These included Ecumenism, Ecumenical evangelism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and New Evangelicalism. These movements were declared to be “out of harmony with the Word of God and the doctrine and position of the IFCA.” The distinction I was making corresponds to the distinction between the views of the IFCA and the views of what they called “New Evangelicalism.”
If you really don’t like this analysis, John, you’re always free to offer your own. But, the legacy of this dispute continues, whether or not one uses the “fundamentalist” word to identify one of the principal groups. You can change the language, if you wish, but you can’t change the facts of the matter.
Not a “literary person,” apparently… a “relevance theoretical” person 
1 Like
I am not trying to change the facts of anything. I am expressing my personal opinion on the use of these terms in the present day context, by those who do not qualify or limit the use to a very specific context. It irritates me the same way the use of the term Native as exclusive to aboriginals seems to imply that the rest of us, cannot call this land our home and native land. So you can take this as being a general complaint, not limited to your use only, but to the way these general terms become perverted, and then used pejoratively by others. I think you are not trying to use it perjoratively, but it is a fine line between your intentions and the perceptions of others.
I think this is a bit of a sideline, and should be put to rest. I am halfway sorry for bringing it up. The real issue is the worldview that influences scientific investigation.
[quote=“johnZ, post:99, topic:3498”]
But the same is true for evolutionists. They are wholly committed to rejecting or ignoring any evidence against evolution, no matter what is presented. They are wholly committed to ignoring their false predictions and conclusions in terms of its impact on the viability of the theory of E. They are wholly committed to revising their theory, rather than revising their faith in the theory.
[/quote] This is their worldview.
John,
Let me respond in brief rather than draw this out into an elongated interchange.
You contend that transitional fossils are still missing, but transitional fossils are obvious to me and mainstream biologists. You suggest that dcsccc has shown that all my comments about whale evolution are false statements; while I don’t believe his short responses have done anything of the sort. I’m very familiar with this sort of impasse and it is pointless to go on.
However, I will continue to object to the false notion that evolutionary conclusions are the result of a worldview. At face value, how could all the intricacy and breadth of evolutionary theory that has developed over 150 years of natural study really arise from the biased fabrication of scientists? This is the grandest of conspiracy theories. I am keenly aware of atheistic leanings among scientists, but we must separate the value of scientific conclusions from the worldview of individuals that make them. It is so frustrating to see you claim that my scientific colleagues don’t know that they are fooling themselves. As I have mentioned before, I am most concerned that this is the negative witness of the evangelical church to the scientific community of which I am a part.
I understand that your particular worldview motivates you to reject evolution. It does not at all follow that an acceptance of evolution as a scientific description is comparably determined by worldview. That is the false dichotomy we are trying so hard to dispel. There are large numbers of Christian scientists who are convinced by the evidence for evolutionary theory and understand its usefulness. This is not about correct science being determined by correct worldview.
4 Likes
Gary, many scientific conclusions are valid regardless of the worldview of the scientist. This is not as much the case for evolution. This is not about fabrication, although there have certainly been cases of it, which to me demonstrate the bias and inclination of the investigating scientists. This is not about “conspiracy” either.
When I first began to read the blogs and forum posts on biologos, I stated that I was not necessarily a YEC, that possibly the world was older before the first day, or even perhaps before the fourth day. I was looking for a comprehensive way to determine that, for consistent logical answers that indicated that science was a gift of God, and not something to eliminate the need for God. The type of responses and comments I have seen, have been driving me steadily towards a more YEC position, because of the lack of cogent and logical arguments from evolutionists, mostly on the scientific side, although on the scriptural side, their arguments are also not convincing. The responses of evolutionists to the 101 objections to evolutionary old age, are absent or are not convincing.
My worldview may incline me to reject evolution, possibly. But as I have said before, God could use any method to create the world, as he chooses. When TE people ask why God would deceive us in nature, I respond with he question, why would God deceive us in scripture? So my starting assumption is that God would deceive us in neither nature nor scripture. But we know that we have been deceived by both. The list of 101 objections to evolutionary old age demonstrates that something in nature is not melding, not consistent with other things in our observations of nature, and thus somehow there is contradictory evidence. And it is obvious to me that worldview leads one to choose one type of evidence over another, even though this is not a conspiracy.
Correct science is not determined by a correct worldview, I agree. But an incorrect worldview can change the focus and interpretation of scientific evidence, especially in the historical, sociological, and psychological sciences. This is indisputable.
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing your personal journey in this last post. I believe I understand your thinking better than I did before, although I still do not see why you conclude that the arguments for evolutionary history are not cogent or logical.
I’m thrilled that we can agree on this: “my starting assumption is that God would deceive us in neither nature nor scripture.” This is absolutely my foundational position, so I proceed knowing well that God’s inspired Word and his natural creation will not conflict. First, it is certain that God is the sovereign Creator of all things and he holds all things together in every moment. Where we differ is that I am convinced that the natural creation reveals a long and intricate evolutionary history, while you conclude it does not.
For me, the significant question is how is God supremely sovereign while there are also scientific descriptions of an evolutionary past. I think the key is in understanding that evolutionary descriptions do not eliminate God at all. I (and most folks at BioLogos) promote a biblically-based, historically orthodox view that God works through the things of nature that he created. I invite you to read my post on this topic: Where is God in Nature? - Article - BioLogos . We are all products of a modern western culture that tends to think incorrectly that if something is described in terms of naturalistic processes that God is eliminated from that part of the world. But this is not how the Bible or prominent past theologians describe the interaction of God and nature. Perhaps this critical topic of “divine action” is underlying the split in our thinking.
I was very intrigued when I read that you were looking for a way to determine “that science was a gift of God, and not something to eliminate the need for God.” Yes, this is so important! My view is precisely that scientific descriptions of evolution marvelously reveal how God has brought about the diversity of living things on earth. He has not been absent; he is the master artist! As an evolutionary biologist, I exalt in giddy joy at every new evolutionary description that fills in the picture of God’s masterpiece. I DO think science is a gift from God, and so did Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Warfield and many others.
All the best,
Gary
From more of a big picture perspective I appreciate the summaries of conversations at the Biologos booth. I sense that due to Biologos and other sources, there is shift taking place that is actually framing the questions about origins differently - and bringing some healthy scrutiny to long held assumptions that may not be accurate. Thanks for establishing some beach heads and slowing the process down for some reflection and consideration.
2 Likes
Thanks for your note. On that note, it is important to realize that primarily i have difficulties with the evolutionary theory because of what nature reveals to us. (regardless of my motivation). For example, while there may be 5 common objections to evolutionary creationism, I find many, many more objections to it, as given in the 101 objections to old age alone, for example. Another objection, which I was reminded of today, includes the dramatic cambrian explosion, which occurred in a supposed short time frame. The explanation I saw indicated that if the entire postulated earth history was a football field, this explosion occurred in only four inches of the twelve yard line from the touchdown(present day). Dr. Marcus Ross (Ph.D. in Geosciences and Professor of Geology) explains how the Cambrian Explosion defies evolutionary predictions. It is at this time that phylum level divisions begin, all of a sudden, in an entirely unpredictable, and non-reasonable fashion. You see, this is science… we would not expect this, based on scientific predictions of the theory. Thus it calls the theory into question.
Then, we have a salt content in the ocean which by all normal measurements, considering the most generous possibilities for salt accumulation, still cannot achieve an age for the oceans based on salt content, of no more than 62 million years, much less than one tenth (acutally about 1.4%) of the amount required for ocean age to match the theoretical 4.5 by. So which method is more reliable? It is obvious to me that science reveals that the methods being used are not consistent with the evidence; these scenarios should match. Since they don’t match, I begin to doubt the radioactive method, not only because of this, but also because it is clear that assumptions about starting points have already been demonstrated to be mistaken and incorrect. So since I do not think God would deceive us in nature, then it is clear that we are deceiving ourselves, most likely in our incorrect assumptions.
God would also not deceive us in nature by somehow miraculously allowing dino dna in collagen, proteins and blood cells to survive for 60 million years, when normal scientific evidence would indicate that it simply could not and would not survive that long in a fossil.
God also would not deceive us in nature by miraculously permitting us to find C14 in material such as coal, diamonds, and other places which would be considered to be millions or billions of years old, when the half-life of C14 would lead all C14 to disappear after 100,000 years. Again, this clearly indicates that we have deceived ourselves in our assumptions about natural events.
Would we think that God has deceived us in nature when we look at a line between two sedimentary layers which has no erosion evidence, which is flat and planar (a disconformity) that supposedly represents a gap in time of 300 my, without any signs of erosion?
Would we think that God would deceive us into thinking that rock layers can be bent and curved without cracking and distortion and destruction, without conditions that would destroy the fossils embedded in these layers, if the bending and folding did not occur while the rock had not yet formed?
Would God deceive us into realizing that the moon could not have existed as long as 4.5 by under its present conditions of recedence from earth, since it would have been too close to the earth, and this would have caused a major catastrophe or impossibility of continued existence?
Why? I don’t get the joy, and I don’t get the giddiness. To me, its like being giddy and joyful about a multi-vehicle accident on the highway, which no doubt God allows, and no doubt which God uses for all his majestic purposes, to lead people to himself, and to the care of others. Still not something to get giddy about…
Okay, John. You have made your position clear. I had tried to leave behind fruitless exchanges about natural evidence and dialogue about something that might be productive. Still, your response is a list of evidence arguments straight from the pages of young-earth creation organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. There are extensive rebuttals elsewhere to the faulty assumptions and conclusions in all of this. Please understand that continuing to throw out this stuff and claiming that your position is “clearly” demonstrated is not accomplishing anything.
At the same time, you lightly pass over my real world concerns that you ARE telling the massive community of my scientific colleagues (both Christian and non-Christian) that they are so biased that they do not realize they are fabricating evolutionary history and are fooling themselves. You also gloss over my crucial suggestion that you may be incorrectly looking at the way our transcendent God interacts with his natural creation. Both young-earth creationists and atheists insist that God must be a blatantly interventionist God or he doesn’t exist, and both are out of step with Christian orthodoxy. I have had enough.
2 Likes
This is incredibly profound, @GaryFugle. Thank so you much for your contributions to this discussion.
3 Likes
Your response indicates I have irritated a nerve, Gary. I guess that’s good, but its also sad that your assumptions make you disregard the actual content of what I have said. When evolutionists use the argument that God would not deceive us in nature, creationists are not supposed to be upset. But when creationists use the same argument, it scratches a nerve. It just proves that scientists are as emotional as anyone else I guess. Ignore my comments about fabricating (which is your assumption, and which I have denied). Somebody is fooling themselves… why take it so personal? You also assume I am glossing over your suggestion… again, your response is emotional, not factual. You are entitled to tell me I am incorrectly looking at how God interacts with his creation? I am not entitled to tell you about my own response and reaction to that comment?
I don’t want to gloss over your comment
This is wrong, because even if God was blatantly interventionist, most atheists simply would not recognize nor acknowledge it. Christians already acknowledge God is interventionist, since they believe in Christ’s death and resurrection as a fulfillment of prophecy. They recognize God’s intervention in choosing the people of Israel as well. One more or less intervention will not change the basics of that. So I will simply say you are greatly oversimplifying things(sadly), and pushing people into one camp or the other. The YEC I read clearly indicate that evolutionists can be christians, even if they are inconsistent in their theology. So your oversimplification is simply dead wrong. (and, technically, I don’t really read AIG, at least very rarely, and don’t use them as a reliable source, although I realize that at one time AIG and CMI were connected, but not for the last ten years).
Thank you for your patience and clear exposition of many points on this thread. On the specific quote below:
Are there specific resources you think do a particularly good job exposing why these common anti-evolutionary arguments are false? We agree the arguments are false but it would be helpful to have specific pointers here for people who are still looking for answers on this.
Nuno, Gary may give you a better location for rebuttals, but Christy has already provided one on rationalwiki, which has evolutionary old age responses to every one of the 101 objections to old age evolution, all in one article. 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe - RationalWiki However, you will have to decide whether these responses are adequate. Creation.com in its 101 objections… in the questions and answers below the article, has also already rebutted many of the responses to these objections. Age of the earth
Agreeing that the arguments are false without examining or even being aware of the evidence would seem to be rather unscientific. However, you may presume the arguments are false, and it would be nice to have uncontested evidence that verifies that, wouldn’t it?
@johnZ - first of all, I’d like to acknowledge YEC’s commendable commitment to faith in God and Jesus Christ. While we may differ in how we interpret some parts of the Bible, there is a much deeper core of Christian values and theology that should be much more emphasized than it usually is.
When it comes to the topic at hand, I completely agree with you that there is no evidence like primary results supported by recent and established publications in major journals. And indeed it is good to go over this primary evidence ourselves, when time and expertise permit, to see if the argumentation is sound and supported by multiple lines of evidence.
Unfortunately this has not been what I have found whenever I have looked into YEC materials. Instead, I have often found misrepresentation of results, limited coverage of the literature and wishful reasoning from data to results. This is also what I found when I arbitrarily picked one of the 5 topics most related to my interests out of the 101 in the links you sent.
- Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
In this claim, the doubts about possible contamination cast on Vreeland et al 2000 (expressed in the “Salty Saga” post) do not acknowledge that the Hazen and Roedder 2001 criticism actually states that “the Permian age of these well-documented deposits is not in question” and instead goes on to conclude that “The geological formation is indeed only a few thousand years old, not 250 million.”. “Evidence #2” also does not address several other important publications that were available at the time that the “101 evidences” were written, such as Paabo et al 2004, which clearly shows enthusiasm for sequencing DNA at least 100,000s of years old. Of course, there are many other recent publications along the same lines but those are not included in the discussion either (i.e., the article seems static at this point and it’s unclear whether it’s still relevant).
But I wonder - have you actually read the primary research on these matters and found there to be fundamental flaws? If yes, what were they and on what page?
Nuno, I have not read the primary research. I did not make up the list. So I expect that there may be occassionally a valid response to one of these 101 objections. But for the ones I have looked at, the rationalwiki responses so far, are inadequate, and display incomplete calculations or wrong logic.
I am a bit lost in your statement about the Lazarus bacteria. I have not really examined this one, since I had no heard it before. The objection is that because we find bacteria in the salt, that this salt is not 250 my old. You seem to be suggesting that the bacteria were contamination, rather than actual remnants from the salt? And then you are suggesting that Hazen and Roedder claim the salt is Permian age, while the critique claims this is not true, that the salt must only be a few thousand years old.
Vreeland et al claim no contamination of sample, while Hazen and Roedder claim the bacteria entered the formation later through some type of inclusion. There is no doubt they need to get their stories straight. But do Hazen and Roedder maintain an inclusion simply because they cannot perceive the salt to be non-permian, or because of actual evidence of inclusion? One or the other of these papers is missing something, or making an incorrect assumption. I will try to read a bit more about it.