Barry Setterfield?

Faith & Science Conversation
41

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
42

And Lennox supports pseudoscience how?

43

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 :slight_smile:

2 Likes
44

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.

45

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.

6 Likes
46

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. :slight_smile:

Best,
Chris

4 Likes
47

Gosh, I never knew that either, but it makes sense now you mention it. Fascinating! And a great example.

1 Like
48

[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?

1 Like
49

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?

50

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
51

Does he criticize science with pseudoscience?

52

That is never a claim for evolution, or Newtonian physics, or Quantum Theory or any scientific theory. Science never to my knowledge has claimed to know everything about anything, but it does try to develop a framework that explains what is known, and modifies that framework if need be to better align with the facts. . YEC tends to ignore what does not fit rather than addressing it, bending the facts to fit the framework. It is really not a criticism of the science, because it is not science, but rather is a worldview and theology.

By showing that it is wrong. It happens fairly frequently in medicine, a field where I am more familiar. Ulcers were once thought to be caused by acid, now we accept that bacterial infection (H. pylori) has a major role. Decongestants used to be given to help prevent children’s ear infections, now we do not. Antibiotics used to be used for all ear infections. Now we realize many are viral and do not need antibiotics. The list is long. That is the beauty of science, especially in times like today where we are looking for answers to Covid-19 treatment, and while the science may not tell us what we want to hear, it can point us to truthful answers.

3 Likes
53

No-one is asking YEC to meet a standard that “current evolutionary theory” cannot meet. We are only asking YEC to meet the standards that “current evolutionary theory,” as you put it, does meet.

YEC standards routinely present tiny samples with huge error bars as “overwhelming” evidence for radical new laws of fantasy physics which, by their own admission, would have vaporised the earth if they had any basis in reality. To get round the problem of the Earth being vaporised into oblivion, they then propose more layers of fantasy physics for which they present no evidence at all. No other scientific discipline – and certainly not either geochronology or evolutionary biology – would consider such shenanigans as that to be even remotely acceptable.

So let me get this straight. You are citing a controversy that took place five hundred years ago – at a time when scientific instruments were primitive at best, when the telescope had only just been invented, when error bars were huge by today’s standards, and when even the scientific method itself was still in its infancy, as justification for dismissing hundreds of thousands of modern results made with the benefit of technology that can measure things with a precision of up to nine significant digits and with computers that can apply techniques such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to spotting patterns in petabytes of data?

That line of reasoning is like making a video claiming that the Internet can’t possibly work because people once believed that the earth was flat. And then posting it on YouTube.

3 Likes
54

Lennox rejects common ancestry - or “macroevolution” as he sometimes has called it, and as such it has always been difficult for me to appreciate his work. When one rejects very well-established science it - for me at least - signals that there may be other issues. He’s a fine mathematician I’m sure, though I’m not really competent to evaluate that area. On basic evolutionary biology his work is lacking.

5 Likes
55

Thanks Dennis. I started to watch a video of him on my son’s recommendation and he used special pleading. Never again. [content deleted by moderator]

56

Wow, pseudoscience is a highly charged word and response. The best argument against Lennox’s assertions is that he doesn’t support “well established science.” It seems that the current evolutionary consensus, in your view is unassailable, so we can dismiss out of hand what anyone might have to say in opposition to it.

I have found Lennox’s arguments to be thoughtful, logical and compelling. As a matter of fact, it seems that one of his strengths and areas of expertise is in assessing and evaluating arguments and linguistic features. He has, if I read his bio accurately, three PhDs and several master’s degrees–mathematics, bioethics, and the philosophy of science. He also speaks several languages. He is 76 years, is continuing to learn, and is a keen intellect. His latest book is on his studies in AI. I only mention these because it seems that folks in this BioLogos forum seem at least appreciate credentials.
I find the dismissive comments about Lennox to be incredible. You may disagree with him, but to dismiss his positions without serious consideration seems strange to me.

57

Yes, the controversy that took place five hundred years ago is still instructive today. There are still people and groups of people who dismiss dissenting points of view because they are inconsistent with current scientific consensus.

I have just started re-reading John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One. In his introductory chapter, he makes an observation that I think enlightens the point I have made using a valid illustration from history. Walton’s point is that it is foolish to try to make scripture fit with the current scientific understanding because science is always changing. I agree

58

Actually, you and I may be close to agreement on this point. Did you fail to note that I was responding to and quoting form someone that was doing precisely that–saying he (or she) would only listen to YEC if their arguments were well argued and fit ALL the existing data in ALL relevant fields, a standard that likely no scientific discipline reaches.

59

Science is not about “points of view,” @cewoldt. It is about reproducible results. If all you have in opposition to the current scientific consensus is a “point of view,” then of course it should be dismissed. Otherwise you would be granting everyone a free pass to make things up.

The correct way to challenge the current scientific consensus is through evidence. From multiple independent studies. That is how Galileo’s position was accepted then, and it is how new positions are accepted now. Other people made their own observations and confirmed his results.

3 Likes
60

Wow, a post here at BioLogos about Setterfield and the speed of light initiates an avalanche of responses on a plethora of issues which I cannot easily digest let alone respond to—some more thoughtful than others. And I guess I must take some responsibility for getting off topic. So let me get back on the topic of Setterfield and the speed of light.

I did seek input on Setterfield’s studies. Thank you for these responses. First, let me comment on some of the various issues and responses to Setterfield’s work.

I will not document the sources because to do so, I would need to watch his videos again, rather than browse through a book, and I am not sure even which video to start with. I have not spent the money to buy his book. But I will represent his position to the best of my memory.

Setterfield was given a book that identified that the speed of light seemed to be slowing down based on historical data. He thought he could easily dismiss that anomaly with a brief study. The study took several years, and rather than dismissing this anomaly, his studies seemed to validate it. But he still did not understand what would cause light to slow down.

Later, he found studies that showed that energy existed in a vacuum even at absolute zero—and this is called zero point energy. And zero point energy, these studies stated, has been measured as increasing over time. He decided to study this issue as well.

Why was zero point energy increasing? Setterfield posited that this was related to the expansion of the universe. When a balloon expands, energy is stored in the fabric of the balloon. When the universe expands, energy is stored in the “fabric” of the universe, and this is the source of zero point energy.

Then it occurred to him that the decreasing speed of light and the increasing amounts of zero point energy could be related. Light is slowed down as it interacts with zero point energy. The more zero point energy that light encounters, the slower it travels. Therefore, as the universe expands over time, zero point energy increases, and light slows down. But the heat involved by light travel remains constant. The heat is not generated by the speed of light, but by the amount of interactions with zero point energy.

First issue—Setterfield dismissing date contrary to his hypothesis.

There was a comment that Setterfield discounted historical studies that did not support his conclusion that the speed of light was slowing down. Setterfield states that an independent search/audit was done by academically qualified researchers to assure that all the historical data on the speed of light was in fact included and represented. On his account, due diligence was done to assure integrity in this respect. And if he is telling the truth, at least he did not intentionally leave any data out. If anyone has evidence of studies that Setterfield did not include, I would be interested in seeing such.

Another comment talked about the error bars on the historical speed of light measurements being too great.

Again, Setterfield states that the statistics that he used were submitted to professional statisticians to calculate the error bars. Their expert assessment was that the data Setterfield used to support his conclusions was within generally accepted standards, and that we cannot discount Setterfield’s study because of the older instrumentation and methods.

Another related comment was that Setterfield ignored the fact that more recent measurements with more sophisticated and precise instruments show that there is no decrease in the speed of light.

Setterfield does not ignore that. His explanation is that the earlier measurements were done using the “orbital clock”—measuring by orbital time. The more recent measurements are done using the “atomic clock” or the speed of molecular processes. And if atomic or molecular processes are related, a measurement of the relative speed of one to another will remain constant even if they are all slowing down relative to orbital time. It seems this proposition could be easily tested by someone who has expertise in this area and if Setterfield’s thesis is correct, there would be significant implications of this.

Finally, there were comments about how much more heat would be generated by light travelling at much faster speeds, and of course, the obligatory dismissive comments of how ignorant a person must be to not acknowledge that. And then there are the comments, again dismissive, that attribute a “god of the gaps” attitude to Setterfield—“God just took care of this problem.” I have never found Setterfield to use a “god of the gaps” argument.

I don’t recall that Setterfield directly addressed the issue of heat. Maybe he did, but here are my thoughts based on some of his conclusions

Setterfield does suggest that Plank’s constant is not in fact a constant, but rather that Plank’s constant times the speed of light is the real constant. So the heat generated by light travelling is not related directly to the speed of travel, but rather by how often it interacts with zero point energy. If the distance between interactions was 10 times as far at some point in the past, then light can travel 10 times as fast and create the same amount of heat (not more) than it does today.

If the heat is created by interactions between light and zero point energy, among other things, then with much less zero point energy, light could travel much faster resulting in the same amount of heat generation. That is not likely the entire solution to that problem, but it does bring up other questions. Are there likely underlying constants and physical laws that remain unchanged, but the constants may not be what we have identified as such, but some that underlay what now seem to be constants? That is at least one implication from Setterfield’s studies.

I also ponder—I don’t know much about Setterfield personally. It was intimated that his not being degreed was an indication that he had not done the hard work necessary to validate his scholarship. Well, I don’t know how hard he works. Again, it is his work that needs to be assessed. Then there are the issues of formal expertise, education and academic authority, peer review, and the related issue of accepting scientific consensus. But these are issues for another post.

Thanks again for your posts in response to my request for your input. And thanks also for the anticipated response to this post.