This current discussion, initially focusing on Ken Ham, has been instructive, not so much for the “information” that is presented, but for the nature of the discussion and insight into how various individuals think and present arguments.
Valuing Truth
Can we agree that there is an increasing shortage of truth in our nation? Our leaders do not speak the truth; the academy (research universities) often do not speak the truth. So how can we sort ideas out to know what is true and what is not?
Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life?”(John 14:6)—Truth is a person. Again, Jesus tells us, “Your Word is Truth”(John 17:17)—God’s Word, the Bible, is truth. I submit that in a crisis—the lack of truth telling—it is necessary to seek truth from scripture.
Is God’s Word a source of knowledge in todays world.
Does academic theory trump God’s Word? What is the basis of knowledge—Jesus Christ or the academy?—a question asked and answered by Dallas Willard—Jesus is the source of all truth.
The example of a previous discussion on Critical Race Theory
I recall an earlier discussion on Critical Race Theory in the BioLogos Forum. I interjected some thoughts from a pastor-Bible teacher into the discussion. Then a maze of academic theory was erected though which I certainly could not navigate—only critical race theory proponents in the discussion could navigate it. In this way, the biblical insights of this pastor-teacher were negated. The academy trumps God’s Word, or so it seemed for at least some in that discussion. (I realize that there is a broad diversity of views in the BioLogos forum, even among those who support evolutionary theory.)
Note too that critical theory is derived from Marxism which in its most prevalent manifestations is anti god and anti Christianity and vastly destructive to human flourishing. Here is Britannica’s definition: “critical theory (is a) Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School.”
In the context of this discussion of Ken Ham’s views, it may be instructive to note his views on Critical Race Theory (CRT). Ken Ham observes that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve, so there is only one race, the human race. The biblical distinction is not “race,” but people groups. Genetics backs this up. There is very little genetic difference between so-called races. The genetic differences within “races” is actually greater that that between “races.” This is an example of how Ken Ham, and we also, can use God’s Word to navigate through the otherwise confusing morass of competing ideas, in this example, racism. As believers—Christians—we must embrace Jesus as the primary source of knowledge in today’s world.
Thoughts on the current discussion—and disputes about the meaning of words
How do I see this same confusion and obfuscation in this current discussion? I noted three areas where design in nature is apparent—the fine tuning of the universe, the incredible complexity of the cell, and the information basis of life. I also noted that early on, the genome was considered by many evolutionists to be largely “junk DNA,” jetsam and flotsam left over from millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. I further noted that currently, most of the DNA has been found to be functional. Yet several responses denied that functionality.
I learned that there is a dispute in the evolutionary community of what the meaning of “functional” is in respect to DNA. Really? How can the meaning be so debatable? If we remove sections of the DNA, what happens? It almost always becomes non-functional or at least less functional.
Some of the genome may code for nothing, yet is needed to allow the gene to fold properly. So rather than debating the meaning of the word “functional,” we can substitute the word “necessary.” Then perhaps we can agree.
There are also massive discussions about what biological information is. How about “the instructions for life?” Could it really be that simple? From the view looking down from “30,000 feet,” it certainly seems so.
Observations about how sources of information are viewed
I quoted from Casey Luskin who was quoting from various sources including evolutionists. One response in this discussion was that Luskin is a lawyer and a geologist, so why should we take anything he says seriously? Well, because he is an aggregator of evidence, rather like the sometimes well respected science communicator Bill Nye. It is not what Nye has learned personally from the laboratory that he communicates, but his overall aggregation of knowledge on the subjects on which he speaks. But when Luskin does the same thing—aggregates knowledge from various sources including evolutionary scientists—his statements are met with hand waving dismissal. (It seems that Luskin’s training as a lawyer should be recognized as good preparation for being an aggregator and interpreter of evidence gleaned from others.)
Aggregation is a valid and necessary function that benefits all of us, and seems to be the best way for those not otherwise qualified—the lesser non academic mortals—to participate in discussion and gain the insight necessary to do so. We all depend on aggregators of knowledge in areas for which we lack expertise, which is almost everything.
Speaking of “confirmation shopping,” another response to my post. (Of course, that is a weakness that does not affect the person who made the comment.) In 2006, Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos, in his book, The Language of God, promoted the idea of junk DNA, calling it “jetsam and flotsam.” But by 2015 he abandoned that idea, saying that there is no jetsam and flotsam in DNA.
Is my reference to this authority’s statement to support my view diminished by the fact that I am the one quoting him? In referring to Collins, am I “confirmation shopping?” If so, then any authority I reference can be dismissed, even if otherwise accepted. And, curiously I ask, before he made that statement, did Collins not also read the rest of the ENCOCE papers? I suspect he did, and made the statement anyway.
An important thought on the interpretation of evidence
And then there was the comment about research that demonstrates the necessary conclusion that common descent is true—“most of genetics makes no sense if common descent isn’t true.” Well, the evidence is the same for all of us. But that conclusion is an interpretation of the evidence. It is important to understand that all evidence should be subjected to various interpretive methods or views in considering which interpretation is best supported. Undoubtedly, this referenced evidence can be interpreted by evolutionary theory and deemed to be supportive of it. But I have little doubt that the same evidence, viewed from a (non-evolutionary) creationist position will also fit well and even better with the explanation of common design rather than common descent.
This multiple hypothesis consideration is the process to which all data must be submitted for a conclusion to be valid—not simply “can I fit it in” to my particular viewpoint, but what is the best explanation for the data in evidence.
God’s creation as evidence for the nature of the creator
I see God’s creation as incredible evidence for his eternal power and divine nature. As skepticism increases, so does God’s revelation of evidence about his creative power through what he has made. I believe that God has given us for this time the knowledge of the fine tuning of the universe, the incredible complexity of the cell, and the information basis of life to confirm who he is by what he has created. Romans 1:20 NIV, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Without excuse. But when so called science excludes evidence for design, this evidence God has given us through creation about who he is and what he is like is obscured.
Observations about weaknesses in argumentation and a positive conclusion
When I observe weaknesses of argumentation in the BioLogos forum, it is difficult for me to attach much validity to many of the conclusions that are reached. So yes, to a great extent, those with different views are talking past each other, and there is minimal value in the discussions. Nobody’s minds are being changed.
I am often called out in the BioLogos forum for what is perceived as poor argumentation or bad data. And when I find this to be valid criticism, I take that as instructive and helpful. I would encourage others in this forum to do the same.
Just because we may agree with a person’s conclusion shouldn’t mean that we should give a pass for a flawed argument. I think more constructive criticism of arguments for all participants from all participants would be helpful to all of us. The resulting valid arguments increase the value of our discussions for all of us.
Appreciation
And by the way, there were several thoughtful responses to my posts, and I appreciate them.