I came across an article that hits all of the BioLogos beats, and I don’t think I have seen anyone else mention it here (apologies if there is already a thread discussing it).
It is co-authored by Todd Wood who is probably familiar to many people here. I have a lot of respect for Todd Wood because of his honesty and forthrightness, and that really comes through in this article. While I disagree with some of the basic arguments made in the paper, I do think the article presents really important points we should all consider.
I am curious to hear what others in this community have to say about the article.
I came upon this article while checking out Panda’s Thumb. They have a review of the article, but I found it to be a bit . . . let’s call it overenthusiastic. The review isn’t wrong, per se, but it clashes with the spirit with which the article was written.
With that being said, this point stood out to me.
I do think the article was written by Christians for Christians. I don’t think it was written for scientists, Christian or otherwise. This narrowness of vision actually works against some of their claims, but I don’t think they were trying to make waves in any philosophical society or communities with the profundity of their conclusions. This is why I am trying my hardest not to rant about the science stuff, at least not yet.
I do think the article can be seen as an olive branch that can lead to some healthy dialog, so that’s what I am hoping can happen.
The first thing I noticed was that it assumes that Evolution is a fact, within the parameters it gives for acceptance. IOW it is claiming that the dialogue is necessary to persuade the doubters rather than to discuss the validity.
The arguments against evolution are only theological, there is no science involved.
The mechanism for evolution is very vague and non-comital although it seems to shy away from Natural Selection.
The conclusion that the mechanism does not have to be certain for the theory to hold would seem to me to be contrary to logic and possible Scientific methodology. My arguments have never been theological although there is a theological underpinning to my reasons for not wanting a Godless evolution.
So it is not whether there should be dialogue but what the intentions of the dialogue are. If the only intent is to browbeat skeptics into submission it is doomed to failure.
The main problem is to “simplify” the arguments to a level where the nonscientist or amateur scientist can understand and participate. It is no good blinding people with algebraic representations of genomes and expecting everyone to follow it. Neither does it help to chorus
“you do not know what you are talking about!”
It is this “leaving your own paying field” that causes most difficulties
The scientist claims you can only defeat it with science and the Christian claims “you can only prove it with Scripture”. As long as those two dichotomies exist there can be no profitable dialogue.
Todd Wood is the one author out of the two that I am familiar with. He is a young Earth creationist, but he has a scientific background and training in the evolutionary sciences. From what I am reading he has a BS in Biology from Liberty University, a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia, did postdoc work at Clemson University, and published five papers on molecular phylogenies (i.e. straight up evolution stuff or “algebraic representations of genomes” as you describe it later in the post). So he is quite the walking contradiction.
Todd Wood also wrote this on his blog in 2009:
It may be a bit self serving to say that I appreciate Wood’s honesty, but he has my respect nonetheless. Wood has seen the evidence that the rest of the scientific community has seen, and he agrees that it is convincing from a scientific point of view (which you are free to disagree with). So this is the viewpoint of one of the authors of that article, and I think it is heavily reflected in many of the points that are made.
I don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if this thread turned into a debate over the scientific status of evolution. I think it is enough to simply point out that Todd Wood is coming from the position that Christians and scientists have good reasons for accepting evolution from a scientific viewpoint. As Wood said on his blog, “There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true, and it doesn’t mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives.”
Since Wood has spent time in the scientific community I also think he empathizes with Christians who accept evolution in ways that Christian non-scientists may not. He gets why they accept evolution, and I think he also accepts that they have good reasons for feeling justified in accepting evolution, even if he ultimately disagrees with them. This may be why he is calling for congregations to be more accepting of different views on science and how it interacts with theology.
I agree 100%. This is why I and others have come to the conclusion that the article is not meant for scientists, Christian or otherwise. It’s meant for congregations. The article is also focused solely on Christianity which blinds the authors to larger theological issues, but again, this article isn’t meant for a wider theological discussion.
In my estimation, the article is heavily flawed in some areas, but it does do a great job in other areas. Specifically, it does a good job of talking to creationist leaning congregations and how they might want to create a more inclusive approach to how they relate to one another.
Neither do I. It is not about whether scientists accept the theory it is about the wider ramifications. By now you should know that I do not dispute the existence of evolution only its scope.and ability to perform the complete change from single cell to complex creatures such as ourselves. I also freely admit my Biblical bias for that not happening.
I am not sure that, even if I fully understood the derivation of the DNA proofing I would be any more convinced of complete ancestral lineage. It is one step too far for me.
The problem, as I see it is that the middle ground of God influenced creation is also beyond scientists, if only because it admits the existence of God which science cannot prove or include in their theories. Therefore only a scientist with faith can be comfortable with it.
The other point is the one I made elsewhere that probably 90% of Christians do not give it any thought at all, one way or the other. Engaging them may be self defeating, or causing a problem rather than solving it.
What I have observed with Christians who practice science is that they manage to separate the two so that there is no conflict. They just do not identify the contradictions between their faith and scientific Evolution or Cosmology for that matter. I have listened to one discuss multiverses and theories of abiogenesis without any reference to the Bible at all.
Not that I wold encourage such blatent division.
The point being that it is only in places like this forum that the debate rages out of control. Perhaps the problem does not need addressing? Science goes on its way and Christianity does its thing and never the twain shall meet.
you see this is where straw plucking leads one to think things that are contrary to the writers intentions…
What Todd Wood actually claims, and if you would actually listen to his videos and read him more widely, is that evolution is responsible for adaptation/mutation. He is of the belief that God built into all creation the ability to adapt, to mutate. Given sin enterred this world, we are in fact extremely fortunate that this functionality if you like, is there. Even so, many animals have not survived the changing world as a result of sin…as extinction of many species clearly demonstrates.
Almost all YEC accept that evolution is true (even i do). The problem is, you as an evolutionist take that to mean, natural selection is responsible for all of the different “kinds” of creatures on this earth. What Todd means is that evolution/mutation is responsible for the genetic variation within “kinds” of creatures (adaptation). YEC’s generally believe that the genetic information pool was such that all variations we see today come from that original gene pool within not only the animals, but also us humans. Science even shows that the ancestors of modern humans (such as neanderthals) were contemporary peers and even inbred.
One of the signficant scientific issues that i have with the darwinian model in Christianity is that of God being racist. If Christ came to save man from his sins, why did he choose to wait until we all looked like we do now? Wouldnt it seem rather racist to not come sooner to save primitive mankind? Are we really going to be happy in believing in a God who only saves the “arian” race? Isnt that a rather NAZI driven view?
Some here may counter the above with the argument, Christ healed the sick and made whole those with physcial afflictions…trouble is, he did that by restoring them to what other contemporaries standing around looked like…so that argument exascerbates the problem rather than fixing it.
Back to the article…it makes what i would argue is a false claim from the get go…that the movement is towards TEism. The concurrent rise in membership of Seventh Day Adventism, Creation minstries, Answers in Genesis is huge (SDA’s alone are a group of in excess of 22 million worldwide members since 1860’s)…i think the articles first premise is utter rubbish, nothing more than propaganda. Also the theological view does not support TEism…i have shown many times with different examples how the opposite is true biblically.
The fact remains, individuals believe in the naturalism view of origins simply because that is what they see…nothing more. The biblical version is not seen and therefore it cannot be right or we must be interpreting it wrongly.
Anyone who has read the 3 chapters of 2 Peter cannot subscribe to the old age earth view as Peter categorically rejects the ideas that the earth is old, and that we are doing to interpretation ourselves, that the flood was local, and that what the prophets wrote is not also the interpretation that Christians held in the New Testament.
The apostle Peter, the founding leader of the Christian church, clearly believed in a literal Seven Day Creation, Global flood, and literal destruction of Sodom and Gomorah.
Seeing Todd Wood as an author tipped my scales towards reading this.
My first serious reaction was, “Whoa, I’d forgotten about orthogenesis!” and then realized it’s actually used by some creationists.
Second item:
It is far more difficult to caricature and stereotype people you have actually met. Have a few conversations over lunch or during breaks at conferences, and suddenly they are no longer abstractions or types. They are no longer de-fined by a few odd beliefs you have heard that they hold. They become actual people, with depth and personality and reasons for the things they believe.
I have to challenge this somewhat, on two grounds: First was meeting Henry Morris. My friends and I tried to be neutral – which wasn’t hard because we really didn’t have anything invested in the whole creationist situation – but the moment Morris realized that we thought the Flood might not have been global and that we had no opinion on evolution he treated us like little kids who needed straightening out (and it quickly became evident that in terms of both science and the scriptures he was out of his league) and when we sought actual evidence for his statements he treated us like the enemy. Second was at a conference, sitting at a lunch table with several YEC advocates who practically attacked us when we described the first Creation account in Genesis as ancient literature.
Not really. It’s like people long ago had the “theory” that things released above the earth would move downward. Arguing whether they had an affinity for the earth itself, or small things move towards big things, or angels move them wouldn’t affect the original theory.
Or consider lightning: Ben Franklin had a theory that it was the same energy that could be gotten by rubbing certain materials together. That much was true whether the energy came from clouds rubbing together or some other mechanism, or whether the bolts start from the clouds and go down or start from the earth and go up – the question of the mechanism doesn’t affect the theory that lightning is electrical energy.
And I keep saying that “the text doesn’t say that”.
That’s where I know the name from.
I didn’t have any science professors who did what you say; every Christian among them saw the glory of God in science.
But not a one of them would have mentioned that in a discussion of what they studied if it was on a scientific setting because it isn’t science. And if I’d had one who constantly referred to the Bible in science courses I would have sought another – better – professor.
Why would you say that? The two go together well except when someone tries to make the scriptures teach science.
While God designed genetic potential for variation within each kind, animals reproduce according to their kind rather than changing into different kinds, as evolution would require.
Survival of the fittest is not evolution. It is a fact of life in a world that has been tainted with death and bloodshed, but only since Adam rebelled against his Maker.
How about “Almost all evolutionists accept that creation is true, they just think that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for the creation of species over millions of years.”
This strikes me as totally incoherent. The only thing I can make sense of is “why did He wait”, and the scriptures tell us that: the “fullness of time” had to come, which among other things meant He had to come in a situation where pretty much regardless of what He did He would end up being killed.
No, He ‘restored’ them to what their individual DNA dictated. Why would you want Him to change that – especially since He would have to transform their entire body to do so?
I don’t know about TEism, but the text of the scriptures does not support YEC in the least.
We’ve been over this. You’re reading things into the text that aren’t there. Peter says absolutely nothing about the age of the Earth.
No, he doesn’t – see above.
Except all of that comes from reading things into the text that aren’t there.
YEC starts with the false premise that scripture teaches science. Until that is abandoned it will be impossible to actually understand the message.
Regarding YEC and TEism (or if you prefer young earthism and EC), one of the major differences in how they relate to the Bible, is that TE/EC does not claim that the Bible supports evolution or speaks to it, though when combined with T of TE or the C or EC does seek to integrate God’s creation and providence with evolutionary thought. In contrast, YEC claims the Bible speaks directly to and supports its naturalistic or pseudoscientific claims, and those claims are part of God’s message to mankind.
As such, YEC is really a religious and philosophical movement, and deserves the -ism label as part of the young earth part as well as the creationist aspect.
If you want the answer you could have read the rest of the post. It was not a stand alone statement, it was the conclusion after several other points. This is what I mean by splitting down a passage too far and getting the wrong understanding.
A man goes to the Doctor
Man " It hurts when I do this"
Doctor “Then don’t do it”
A zoo has two alpha males of different species. The are not in competition but when ever they meet they fight. So the zoo made sure they never met.
This strikes me as totally incoherent. The only thing I can make sense of is “why did He wait”, and the scriptures tell us that: the “fullness of time” had to come, which among other things meant He had to come in a situation where pretty much regardless of what He did He would end up being killed.
No, He ‘restored’ them to what their individual DNA dictated. Why would you want Him to change that – especially since He would have to transform their entire body to do so?
I don’t know about TEism, but the text of the scriptures does not support YEC in the least.
We’ve been over this. You’re reading things into the text that aren’t there. Peter says absolutely nothing about the age of the Earth.
No, he doesn’t – see above.
Except all of that comes from reading things into the text that aren’t there.
YEC starts with the false premise that scripture teaches science. Until that is abandoned it will be impossible to actually understand the message.
So the ideology of asserting that scripture teaches science and then using that to put scripture over science (and thus not doing science) earns it the “-ism” designation?
I had to think that over and I think it’s pretty much on target. YEC definitely doesn’t do science, but from the perspective of the actual biblical text it isn’t doing theology, either, which makes it an ideology – YECism (and if someone notes that this makes it an -ismism, I think that’s appropriate because it’s putting a certain philosophical position above two different systems of thought).
I never thought of it quite that way, but seeing it as an ideology makes a lot more sense of why its adherents so stubbornly cling to it.
your point is? Im not arguing against that claim…it was this topic that attempts to claim that Todd Wood is furthering TEism in the article referenced. that is a false inference and im miffed that people here so quickly produce absolute lies in order to further this forums founders agenda.
Wood does not promote Darwinian naturalism, this paper is simply investigating the divide between the two. The conclusion of the academic paper in which Wood co-authored states the following:
*data are not self-interpreting; they are framed within the broader non-scientific, philosophical, and theological commitments that * we bring to them
We have presented two options. We can discuss the epistemic status of
evolution exclusively within our respective tribes and affirm what we al-
ready “know” to be true, or we can bridge ideological divides and ask the
more difficult question of why our ideological opponents see evolution
so radically differently. The former road is easier in the short term, but
the latter journey yields more lasting benefit—despite all its travails—not
only for Christians and their ecclesial communities, but also for the com-
mon good.4
References
Allchin, Douglass. 2013. “C
Isnt the probability of the universe creating itself something like 1:400 quadrillion?
The number is so ridiculously unlikely that it gave rise to the theory of multiverse did it not? That only exascerbates the problem…what created the multiverse?
Given you follow the Darwinian model whose followers largely also believe that the universe created itself, i would argue that is problematic for you st Roymond.
YEC Christians are not worried that God will reject them because their science is wrong, they are worried he might reject them because their theology is wrong. The gospel is that Christ died to save us from the consequences of sin, brought into this world via Adam, and that he will restore us and this world to its former glory.
You dont appear to agree that physcial death and physcial ressurection are in the gospel. Even though, if following the Bible narrative, even you must agree Christ died physcially, was resurrected physcially, and ascended physcially into heaven.
It has nothing to do with probabilities, it has to do with making chromosomes too large to fit in a nucleus, possibly even a cell.
Stop lying.
So stop demanding that the scriptures teach science and then making up science fiction to make that work.
Or show me where the scriptures claim to teach science.