And YEC folks would argue that they start with biblical data–not a philosophical human opinion-- rather than trying to shoe horn biblical truth into “scientific” data. And YEC scientists look at real data as well, and come to much different conclusions.
And it is pretty hard to believe that “peer review” is always unbiased. Somehow, that is the one place where everyone is completely honest and the human weaknesses are suppressed? The evidence just doesn’t support this.
So scholars such as John Walton make erudite biblical arguments which are lauded in the BioLogos Forum. But others such as John Lennox point out what he sees as serious problems with Walton’s positions, and his observations make a great deal of sense.
And let me add, if an OEC or a Evolutionary Creationist can genuinely come up with a scientific framework that is well argued and fits ALL the existing data in ALL relevant fields, that will be exceedingly remarkable. Are you claiming that EC is anywhere close to that?
Truth isn’t dependent on hard work and a degree. Finding truth quite often is dependent on hard work. (The degree is just a marker that you’ve put in some of the hard work.)
Science is the methodology that defeats common sense and laymen’s arguments. The notion that “makes sense to me” == “scientifically plausible” is 100% false.
From my layman’s standpoint, I intuitively sense that space is uniform and time is universally constant. But my common sense is 100% wrong, and relativity is right.
From the layman’s standpoint, I intuitively sense that I can predict the future state of a particle given its current state. Quantum mechanics says my common sense reasoning is folly.
From the layman’s standpoint, a photon should only be able to travel through one pinhole at a time. Quantum mechanics says it can travel through two simultaneously (and the experimental evidence proves it).
From Aristotle’s common sense standpoint, denser objects fall faster than lighter objects. A science experiment on the moon showed his common sense was wrong.
This doesn’t sound like an accurate formulation to me. The velocity of light in a vacuum is related to zero-point energy via Maxwell’s Equation AFAICT, but the physics sources I have read do not depict light as “slowing down” due to ZPE.
This is wrong in 2 different ways:
ZPE “appears to be of a constant density everywhere and always” (source). This means that whatever interaction a deep space photon had with ZPE on April 21, 1020, it has with ZPE on April 21, 2020.
The sum of ZPE in the universe is constant. “Observations from many lines of evidence — including the cosmic microwave background, distant sources of light (like supernovae), and the clustering of galaxies in the Universe — all point to the same tiny, non-zero value of the amount of dark energy in the Universe. It appears to be a form of energy inherent to space itself, it appears not to change with time” (source)
There’s a reason for that.
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein (plasma) cosmology, writing that “there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds”. In his book he also showed that Alfvén’s models do not predict Hubble’s law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted." (source)
Admittedly, there are some dismissive comments in this thread. However, you have overlooked numerous very specific critiques, Craig:
If Setterfield were right about the speed of light, the earth would have been about 30 times hotter at the time of Noah. Post #28
Setterfield’s hypothesis does not take into account the large error bars on early measurements of the speed of light. Post #20
Setterfield’s data stops 60 years ago, when instruments became sensitive enough to detect any real changes in the speed of light. This, in spite of the fact that plenty of measurements continue to be made with extraordinarily sensitive instruments. Post #20
Setterfield omitted some older data that contradicted his hypothesis. Post #15
Setterfield’s radioactive decay change hypothesis is contradicted by the relative quantities of Pb207 and U235. Post #15
Setterfield’s radioactive decay change hypothesis implies that the earth was 115,000o C on day 6. Post #15
If conservation of energy is correct, Setterfield’s physics imply that the Earth was rotating 5.7 million times per second (non-relativistically) on Day 1. Post #15
No fluctuations in the speed of light have been observed over the past 60 years. Post #10 Note: the universe has continued to expand over the past 60 years at basically the same rate it was expanding the previous 200 years.
As a professional in the field of natural language processing, I can affirm to you that a text, no matter how sacred, does not translate itself. Accurate translation requires an deep understanding of grammars, vocabulary, explicit cultural references, and a tremendous amount of implicit context in which a text is embedded.
Therefore: “I am relying solely on biblical data” is basically the same as “I assume that my context is very close to the original context, if not identical. Therefore I can go straight to the text without giving serious credence to cultural considerations.”
Consequently, the stance can be effectively summarized as follows:
“I am relying on Biblical data plus my own culture’s understanding of context.”
I would be interested in Lennox’s arguments–could you provide a link or two? Bear in mind that Lennox’s expertise is in formal mathematics, not Ancient Near East culture or languages.
In his recently published book, Seven Days that Divide the World, Lennox sets out to prove that Christians can believe in the theories of science and maintain the truth of Scripture.
“I think that sometimes people have been taught there are only two possibilities: Possibility one is that if you are being faithful to Scripture, you have to be a young earth creationist. Otherwise you’re an evolutionist or a theistic evolutionist, and you’re not faithful to Scripture,” he explained to the Christian Post. “I don’t think that is the case … the whole point of the book is to explain that in some detail.”
The review cites Lennox on Genesis (emphasis is mine).
“If the biblical explanations were at the level, say, of twenty-second century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone, including scientists today. This could scarcely have been God’s intention. He wished His meaning to be accessible to all.”
Lennox then considers the writings of Old Testament scholars such as John Walton and the late Frank Derek Kidner to express the possibility that the seven days of creation were written as a framework that "might then indicate that there is more to the text than ordered sequence."
Of course not everyone agrees with Walton, @cewoldt. However, I’m not sure why you think Lennox is a strong critic of Walton’s work.
Best,
Chris
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
39
Chris, “The velocity of light in a vacuum is related to zero-point energy via Maxwell’s Equation AFAICT” is that due to the affect, resistance to propagation of an electro-magnetic field, of the constant ZPE’s electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in the vacuum?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
40
Correct. That’s right. Well done. See if you can work it out. I’ll give you a clue: ignoratio elenchi. That’s your fallacy.
Read appendices A and B in Lennox’s book, Seven Days that Divide the World. He questions Walton’s “conviction that Genesis 1 does not refer to material creation at all, that it is, rather, a functional account of the cosmos as a temple.” Later, he summarizes, “The linguistic evidence cited by Walton seems, therefore, to undermine his case, rather than support it.” Lennox also cites John 1 to refute Walton’s view.
Then Lennox addresses Walton’s statement, “Without hesitation the ancient reader would conclude that this is a temple text and that day seven is the most important of the seven days. In a material account seven would have little role, but in a functional account . . . it is the true climax without which nothing else would make any sense or have any meaning.” Lennox finds this sweeping statement lacks any supporting citation, and also that Walton’s using a quotation from Isaiah, a much later time, as evidence, just does not support the conclusion.
Lennox’s conclusion on this topic: “Finally, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the climax of Genesis 1 would appear to be, not God taking up residence in a cosmic temple, but human beings, created in the image of God, taking up residence as God’s vice regents on earth.”
Lennox addresses other issues that Walton brings up as well, but I will refer you to these appendices rather than reiterating what he has written.
I was determined to give a fair reading to Walton in my exploration of the various views. But I found it difficult to believe that I could find little or no basis for his conclusions in the text, and indeed, that much of what Walton posited seemed contrary to the text and my understanding of scripture as a whole. So if Walton is correct, I and most other readers must rely on Walton’s understanding of the ANE to come anywhere close to understanding the Genesis text. Somehow, that hints of a gnostic special knowledge.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
42
John Walton isn’t the only one saying these things. You might be interested to know that the Literary Framework approach to Genesis 1 has been a common staple of academic discussion for some time. What John Walton did was make it more accessible to the layperson.
For example, Meredith Kline argues for a similar view of Genesis 1 in his posthumous book Kingdom Prologue (2006) , as does Richard Lints in Identity and Idolatry (2015). Others include Old Testament heavyweights, Gordon Wenham and Bruce Waltke in their commentaries on Genesis. To name a few
Yes, read Appendices A and B in Lennox’s book, Seven Days That Divide the World. Lennox has also lectured in Science and Religion at Oxford. His expertise is rather broad. Neither you nor I have to be an expert in ANE history or languages to assess Lennox’s criticisms.
Right. Because the support for his conclusions is based in the context, and the meaning of the text is relative to the context, based on all current theories of how language and meaning work. Those theories about language and meaning are part of Walton’s premises. You essentially are not rejecting his conclusions, you are rejecting his premises and assuming his arguments, if they are valid, should work with your own premises. But that’s not how reasoning works.
Lennox is locating a literary climax on the numbered day that is not climactic, given the context. Everything we know about the context says seven has to be the climax.
That is a commonly cited write-off, but it’s not based on an accurate understanding of gnostism, or an understanding of the relationship between communicated meaning and the shared cognitive environment of speaker and hearers. It appears your “understanding of Scripture as a whole” is based on the outdated code model of language that sees meaning as encoded in words and grammar. We know from decades of study in cognitive linguistics that model does not describe how human language actually conveys meaning. The code model has essentially been replaced by the inferential model, which is based on the idea of recognizing communicative intentions based on shared context. Walton has done a great job keeping up with scholarship and current thinking in the area of translation theory, whereas some other Bible scholars have not really revised their views at all over the years and still very much operate with code model derived premises.
Lennox has no expertise in Ancient Near East literature and cultures.
That you would say this shows that you do not understand how language and literature work in a cross-cultural setting. It’s kind of like saying neither you nor I need to understand the Einstein-Friedmann equations or the peer-reviewed astrophysics literature in order to judge between Setterfield and the consensus astrophysics community.
I’d like to give you a small example of the importance of understanding context in order to understand literature. Have you read The Cost of Discipleship by Bonhoeffer? I read it decades ago and was very moved by his spiritual insights. On Monday I attended an online lecture/Q&A on Bonhoeffer and learned for the first time that Bonhoeffer directly aimed his book against the national church’s acquiescence to the Fuehrer’s agenda.
How did I miss this obvious-in-retrospect insight? When I first read Bonhoeffer, I didn’t understand the context of 1937 Germany. I didn’t realize that Nachfolge was the sharp alternative to “Wir folgen sie, Fuehrer!”
This is not entirely accurate: It does not depend entirely on Walton. Walton’s understanding of the ANE is not private knowledge or gnosis. Such knowledge is available to anyone who is willing to invest the very long hours in understanding the languages, literature, history, and culture of the ANE. That’s not a huge group of scholars at the moment, but it’s certainly not restricted to Walton. Moreover, membership in the group is not barred to anyone who is willing, as I said, to invest the effort.
It’s important to note this: It’s not a badge of shame to not understand the implications of linguistics for cross-cultural translation, of course! Your salvation, spiritual well-being, and gifting in the areas where God is using you to bless others are entirely unimpeded. Your fellowship with other believers remains strong, even with those of us who happen to disagree with you on the topic of this thread.
[quote=“gbob, post:11, topic:42493”]
Morton, G. R. (1982). It’s No Light Criticism. Ex Nihilo. 4(1982):4:77-78
[/quo
How did 2 Peter 3:8 turn you from YEC to OEC?
Well, okay. Then has the evolutionary “scientific consensus” genuinely come up with a scientific framework that is well argued and fits ALL the existing data in ALL relevant fields. I think the answer to that is a resounding “NO.” My point is that you are asking YEC to meet a standard that current evolutionary theory cannot honestly meet, even with nearly unlimited resources compared to YEC researchers.
And “scientific consensus” is not all it is cracked up to be, as the Catholic Church found when it supported the scientific consensus of the day in opposition to Galileo. And then you end up with the “reformer’s dilemma.” How does one every overturn the consensus?
What data do you think cannot be explained by current consensus science?
In order for the scientific consensus to be overturned, we would have to find out that for many years, a huge number of observations, measurements, and tests in multiple fields of study have been significantly misinterpreted by very large numbers of people with extensive preparation and experience in their fields. There is no conspiracy in science to protect the consensus from challenge.
Consensus science may not as complete as it could be or may not have yet arrived at the best possible explanation, but it is far more likely that future scientists will refine and add to the consensus than they will overturn it. Compared to the days of Galileo, we have many more orders of magnitude of data, and far better instruments and equipment and tests to generate it.
7 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
51
