EC and Romans 1:19-20

Faith & Science Conversation
21

EC isn’t an apologetic tool, nor is it an argument. It starts with Christian faith claims as givens, not proven conclusions. It’s an interpretive lens for Christians who already believe the Christian faith claims and also accept evolution.

Why would EC ever be compelling to science? It’s essentially a theological position. I think you are confused about what the whole endeavor of harmonizing evolutionary science with Christian truth claims is all about. It is to help Christians make sense of their faith in light of scientific facts. It’s not to convince scientists there is a God.

6 Likes
22

If we look at the examples that Paul uses in Romans, he goes on to invoke the conscience, not bacterial flagellae. He also goes on to say that no one actually benefits theologically from that knowledge that we can get from observing the world; instead, we go astray into idolatry and legalism. In Athens, Paul invoked the seasons as pointing to God’s good providence, yet few would deny that we have a good natural-law explanation of them today.

Romans 1:19-20 is not the only passage on the topic. Ecclesiastes specifically investigates what you can conclude by investigation of the physical world, and finds merely vanity. Job 28 acknowledges that you can get useful knowledge from science, but that it doesn’t get you to wisdom.

The assumption that Romans 1:19-20 is talking about science, and therefore constitutes a proof text for ID-type approaches, is incorrect. In science, we are trying to work out physical patterns, causes, and effects. That alone can’t get us anywhere spiritually. Rather, it is an appreciation of the wonder of creation that can point us towards God. For example, science tells us that the universe is vast. Do we see in that hostility (most of it is highly unsuited for our survival) or indifference (we’re just a chance outcome one one speck) or an example of God’s power and wisdom? Other possible philosophical interpretations exist as well; the science does not distinguish among them. A similar error is found in those claiming that evolution supports their deterministic or indeterministic philosophy, whether it’s people claiming to be the better Marxist than others, or claims that open or process theology is supported or contradicted by evolution, among others.

Overall, the biblical approach is that if we know God, we can discern His hand in all that happens. We may often not understand why He’s working things the way He does, but we can trust that He knows what He’s doing. James Hannam (The Genesis of Science) argues that medieval emphasis on the fact that God knows what he’s doing but we don’t was an important impetus to the development of modern science. Because we can’t intuitively figure out how things should work, we must rely on empirical observations rather than armchair philosophizing to determine how the world works.

5 Likes
23

Hi MarkE

In regards to Romans 1:18-32

Quoted from Warren Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament

“Condemnation 1:18-32

We now begin the first section of the letter, which discusses sin (1:18-3:20 see outline).

In these closing verses of chapter 1, Paul explains how the Gentiles got into the awful darkness that engulfs them and how God’s wrath was revealed against them. Note the steps downward in Gentile history:

A. They knew God (vv.18-20).

God had given them a twofold revelation of Himself “in them” (conscience) and “unto them”

(creation), v. 19. Man did not begin with ignorance and gradually work his way up to intelligence; he began with a blazing revelation of the power and wisdom of God and turned his back on it. God had revealed Himself from the very time of creation, so that people who have never heard the Gospel are still without excuse. ( How God judges such people will be taken up in chapter 2).

They glorified Him not as God Romans 3:21-23

Vain thinking and foolish reasoning turned men from the truth to lies. we see indifference leading to ingratitude, resulting in ignorance. People today bow before the Greek and Roman philosophers and honor their words above the Word of God; but Paul calls all of these philosophies “empty imaginations” and “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30)! The next step was idolatry, honoring the creature (including man) rather than the Creator.

C. They changed the truth of God (vv. 24-25).

This word “changed should really read “exchanged.” People replaced God’s truth with Satan’s lie! What is Satan’s lie? Worshiping the creature and not the Creator; worshiping man instead of God; worshiping things instead of Christ. Satan tempted Christ to this (Matthew 4:8-11). Note that in Romans 1:18, the Gentiles “ held down the truth ,” and now they “ exchange the truth ” for a lie! The truth believed and obeyed sets us free (John 8:31-32); the truth rejected and disobeyed makes us slaves.

D. They rejected the knowledge of God( vv.26-32). These people had begun with a clear knowledge of God (vv. 19, 21) and His judgment against sin (v. 32); but now they research the lowest level of their downward fall: they did not even want to have the knowledge of God! “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalms 14:1)

It is sad to see the tragic results of this decline. Evolutionists wants us to believe that humans have “evolved” from primitive, ignorant, beast-like forms into the marvelous creature they are today. Paul says just the opposite: man began the highest of God’s creatures, but he made himself into a beast! Note the three judgments of God:

God gave them up to uncleanness and idolatry, vv. 24-25

God gave them over to vile passions, vv.26-27

God gave them over to a reprobate mind, vv. 28ff.

God gave them up! This is the revelation of the wrath of God (v.18). The sins listed here are too vile to define or discuss, yet they are still practiced today around the world with the approval of society. People know that sin will be judged, yet they take pleasure in it anyway. Were it not for the Gospel of Christ, we would be in this slavery to sin ourselves. “Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift” ( 2 Corinthians 9:15).”

Quoted from Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament

pg. 364-365

24

I think evolutionist should be exchanged with basic 8th grade earth science and biology understanding. Even cough kids younger can definitely understand the gist of it.

This is why Young Earth Theists, and not Evolutionary Creationist, are changing the word of God.

-. They ignore genre context in order to fatten the story up with ignorant beliefs that fits another genre style.

  1. They confuse hyperlinks for historical and autobiographical support for some unknown illogical reason.

  2. They lie about the basics of science in multiple fields.

  3. They create conspiracy theories based on those lies in an attempt to self justify their position.

  4. They practice concordism.

For example the verses in question. They add modern science into the definitions of the words there. “‘Invisible” becomes something like dna.

25

Better, but what is the connection to EC? I could cut and paste sermons from Mathew Henry but they would have nothing to say about EC.

26

[Apparently quoting from Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament]

I feel like that is a relevant claim and one that could be productively discussed around here since it does involve a potential difference of outlooks on history.

It has often been characterized as a tussle between the “ascent” of man vs. the “descent” of man (probably significantly playing into a title of Darwin’s book.) The “evolutionist” (at least according to detractors - and perhaps accurately so) sees an emergence that evolves to where we are now. From no intelligence to intelligence to (presumably) greater intelligence. Whereas some Creationists see an initial perfection, from which we’ve been in decline ever since (with the biggest tragedy being the initial ‘fall’).

It seems to me that history and scriptures don’t let us rest easily on the “descent” narrative (nor “ascent” either). For one thing we have God working through history, and if God’s work isn’t “progressive”, then I’m not sure what else one ought to call it. Neither pattern fits as some sort of consistent overlay onto how our history (as known from scriptures or otherwise) has unfolded. There have been so many ups and downs (and those overlapping with each other geographically and historically), that it seems to me if one wants to traverse a model that fits all that, you’d better come equipped with an all-terrain vehicle prepared to do some off-roading. But even so - we could still productively ask ourselves: Did Jesus come finally at a low point? Or did God work progressively on prophets and people in an ascending preparation for Christ? Is there any improvement after Christ as a result of what He did? Some of us are inclined to think so - though one had better still be belted in to their ATV.

Thoughts?

3 Likes
27

And it better have a sturdy roll bar. ; - )

1 Like
28

And include a sign saying “If you can read this please turn me over.”

1 Like
29

I should have elaborated for clarity. Yes, EC is not an apologetic tool. As you say, its purpose is “to help Christians make sense of their faith in light of scientific facts.” Or more correctly: in light of the prevailing scientific theory.

One might concede that even if EC bolsters a charge of god-of-the-gaps by some, so be it. Christians are nevertheless liberated from defending the formation of the Grand Canyon as Flood run-off, and the decay of the speed of light to explain why we can see distant stars. Tension resolved; go in peace.

If EC is correct, that is a worthy endeavor, and probably all that can be reasonably expected.

But is there potentially a sting in the tail? There’s discomfort at the notion of the possible need for God to create the appearance of age with a YEC model. In a similar but different way, a disquieting question for EC is, why did God conceal his creative actions from modern science? That is, employ a process that is deemed by science to explain the formation of all lifeforms according to natural laws alone, but then guide that process with ongoing supernatural interventions that are undetectable to human observers?

I admit, one asks “Why would God…?” questions at their peril. I’m not saying this is an inherently invalid option for God, logically, morally or in some other way. But as a model it seems like an almost incoherent doubling-up to me. One way around this might be to completely front-load biological information at the Big Bang to avoid the need for ongoing tweaks, but that creates its own problems. On the other hand, the hybrid of a supernatural backdoor drip-feed of information in tandem with the (claimed) generation of information by the natural process of evolution does not sit well—with me anyway…

30

What makes you think God did? EC tends to see all of creation and its processes as a showcase of God’s work. “What concealment?” they might ask.

One of those problems is that determinism seems to have been rendered pretty much dead (at least as far as we can conceive it) by QM, and chaos theory. Not proof of anything in an ultimate sense I don’t suppose - but it doesn’t seem a very satisfactory or even convincing philosophical alternative for those of us who think that free will and moral responsibility doesn’t easily sit well with the absolute determinism that would be required for front-loading to be a complete solution.

31

But it doesn’t. That’s ID. EC is never saying, we don’t have an explanation for X so therefore God did it, and where we do have an explanation for Y, nature did it. They are saying God did all of it, but we can’t scientifically describe God’s action.

It isn’t about God concealing anything, it’s about the nature of science. God is outside nature, supernatural. Science only has the tools to study the natural and by its own definitions and established methods, cannot posit or study supernatural causes and effects. This is an epistemological limitation that science has put on itself, not something God did or didn’t do.

You still seem to be viewing God’s creative agency as primarily some kind of information-loading activity, which is not how God’s interaction with his creation is described in the Bible. It’s pictured as parenting, shepherding, ruling, managing, directing, designing, not programming or engineering. Granted programming and engineering were not viable metaphors in the ANE, but still, if we have revelation that points to a certain picture of God, why chuck all those in favor of a different picture?

2 Likes
32

The hiddenness of God is a problem we all, including YEC, face.

1 Like
33

I think that you are asking some legitimate questions. If you ever resolve the tension of God’s revelation and transcendence, please pass that wisdom on to me. In the ancient but timeless book of Job, it strikes me that the one’s with pat answers were Job’s accusers.

Facts are synthesized into theories, but they also stand independently. The progression and segregation of the fossil record is properly a fact, not a theory. I cannot make sense of that in terms of YEC scenarios. What would be the sorting mechanism? Size does not work, because many mammals and dinosaurs are the same size, and does not even address microfossils. Agility does not work because there are cheetahs and sloths, and fast and not so fast dinosaurs. Biodiversity is a fact, not a theory. Why so many marsupials in Australia, penguins in the southern hemisphere, and lemurs in Madagascar? So while theories can possess tremendous explanatory power, and in that sense be beautiful, it is the underpinning facts which compel.

2 Likes
34

This is I how I expressed it in a hymn I wrote a few years ago, and engaging with the last few chapter of Job:

O Lord, where were we when you laid the foundations of earth?
When morning stars harmonised song, when the oceans burst forth?
When you played your dice, when you planned that through chance life evolved?
In mere mortal span, still your mysteries remain unresolved.

Acceptance of mystery has always been a vital, essential part of our faith. (And I additionally ensured that the hymn overall was fully Trinitarian, to reinforce quietly that element of mystery within the Godhead.)

2 Likes
35

Yes, how God orchestrates timing and placing is a wonderful mystery (among others ; - ).
 

I’m a little uncomfortable with that phrasing, though.

But maybe that covers it.
 

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
Proverbs 16:33

36

And along the same line, I just read this in The Language of God:

    With those discouraging thoughts [about why he even went to Africa in the first place, with all the dire circumstances], I approached his bedside the next morning, finding him reading his Bible. He looked at me quizzically, and asked whether I had worked at the hospital for a long time. I admitted that I was new, feeling somewhat irritated and embarrassed that it had been so easy for him to figure that out. But then this young Nigerian farmer, just about as different from me in culture, experience, and ancestry as any two humans could be, spoke the words that will forever be emblazoned in my mind: “I get the sense you are wondering why you came here,” he said. “I have an answer for you. You came here for one reason. You came here for me.”

    I was stunned. Stunned that he could see so clearly into my heart, but even more stunned at the words he was speaking. I had plunged a needle close to his heart; he had directly impaled mine. With a few simple words he had put my grandiose dreams of being the great white doctor, healing the African millions, to shame.

Timing and placing.

37

Yet worse are thousands upon thousands of immobile, or nearly so, organisms above dinosaurs: oysters, plants, corals, tiny snails, etc., etc.

The fact that I can find clams larger than my hand and clams about the size of a pinhead in the same deposit also discredits that one.

For habitat sorting, there is this problem:

,

2 Likes
38

Thanks, @Dale! That Proverbs ref. resonates well. I have included it in the commentary about the hymn.

Hymn/song: In chaos and nothingness
Commentary: Commentary on ‘In chaos and nothingness’

1 Like
39

No, in the light of scientific facts.

The word “theory” does not mean the same thing in science as it does in everyday colloquial usage. Scientific theories are not mere “prevailing opinion.” They are explanatory frameworks that account for the evidence that we see around us to a considerable level of detail, and that have a proven track record for making accurate and precise testable predictions. In many cases, they even find application in practical or commercial settings. Once a scientific theory gets put to work in real-world commercial or practical situations, it is, to all intents and purposes, a fact.

Conventional geology and geochronology, and evolutionary biology and paleontology, play a key role in finding oil, for example. The theory of evolution even finds application in areas of science beyond biology – for example, in computer science and software engineering. It is used in all sorts of areas, from image recognition to calculating routes in your sat-nav to optimising cloud computing costs in the face of fluctuating demand.

That’s because the formation of the Grand Canyon cannot be defended as Flood run-off. Floods do not produce tight, meandering bends for example:

image
image1920×1080 314 KB

As for the decay of the speed of light, I’m sorry but that’s science fiction. The speed of light isn’t just some figure that you can tweak at will to get round any and every scientific discovery that you don’t like. It’s one of the most fundamental properties of nature, and there are a whole lot of other fundamental properties of nature that depend on it. If you changed the speed of light, you would change everything else along with it. If it had been different in the recent past, even slightly, it would have had extreme and very far reaching effects that would have left very clear and indisputable evidence everywhere. For starters, we would not be here to observe it because life as we know it would not have been possible.

The problem is that we’re not just talking about the appearance of age. We’re talking about the appearance of history – 4.5 billion years’ worth of evidence of specific events happening at specific times with specific causes and specific effects. It’s not just a case of God creating Adam and Eve with twenty year old bodies. It’s as if God had created Adam and Eve with scars from skateboarding accidents that they’d never suffered, diaries that they’d never written, and memories about journeys to places that they’d never visited.

2 Likes
40

I wonder if being a gravityist is heretical. I confess, I am one. ; - )