Your friend seems not to be well acquainted with Biblical scholarship. According to the framework view, Genesis 1:1 depicts the earth as already existing in a chaotic state when God begins 6 days of setting things in order. According to the functional view championed by John Walton among others, Genesis 1:1 depicts a world without function. God brings function into the world with 6 days of work and makes it a place for his “rest,” which is not the opposite of work.
In my opinion, arguing that the concordist interpretation is the only game in town is an argument based on ignorance. If you want to argue that it is a better interpretation than ones based on cultural context and literary forms, feel free to make that argument and I will listen respectfully. But to claim it wins by default is just … an argument from lack of scholarly study.
I do want to thank you for working so hard on summarizing Behe’s argument. Very effective writing! Behe’s argument that the frequency of protein fold mutations is identical to the frequency of the regulatory gene mutations involved in CR seems suspicious to me. Since I am not a biologist, though, I do not trust my feelings on the matter. I will have to read Behe’s book alongside critiques by other qualified biologists to see what emerges. I have no time to do so for several weeks, if not months, so I will have to bow out of the conversation for a while.
May this Advent season prepare you and yours to proclaim the coming of our Messiah!
Hmmm… I’m surprised to read you say that. You come across as if all scholars agree on your position, but I know that’s not true. Is that what you think? Surely you know scholars disagree! You can’t claim “Biblical scholarship” is on your side. Some is, some is not.
And asserting that Gen 1:1 has nothing to do with the beginning of time and creation ignores a bunch of New Testament statements: Eph 1:4, Titus 1:2, 2 Tim 1:9, Heb 1:10, 1 Pet. 1:20, John 17:24. Seems pretty clear Paul, Peter, and John thought there was a real “beginning.” Where do you think those Jewish boys got that? Not from ANE texts!
Let me push back with just a bit of simple logic: Why could God not allow crumbs of truth to fall from his table into the text? After all, God knows what he did! It happens with prophecy (future stuff), and could it not happen with other kinds of things? So even if the text is Framework or Functional, could there be NO hidden gems? Did God ever say, “This has nothing to do with actual things I did!” No, this is all our human attempt to sort out what it means.
I’m certainly not trying to suggest that concordism is the only game in town. But my friend’s comment was unsolicited, and in spite of his Walton/Biologos preferences, he apparently thinks that a complete and utter dismissal of any and all concordism is just too forced. I agree, and if you don’t that’s OK.
But let’s just agree to disagree on this. Let’s enjoy the discussion and have fun, but let’s avoid things like “ignorance” and “lack of scholarly study.” In appealing to authority, well, there are several to choose from!
Does Marty have to prove anything to believe, even if by faith alone, that God had a hand in making a difficult evolutionary step (or a possibly impossible step) into a reality?
@Marty, aren’t you done arguing that science can “control for God as an independent variable”? It seems like a terrible use of time… the only people who will dispute you are those who think Evolution works without God. Why would you want to spend much time in the same “dives” that they hang out in?
I have no trouble with agreeing to disagree. However, I think you misinterpreted my statement. I was not claiming that all Biblical scholarship agrees with me. Instead, I was stating that the concordist hermeneutic is far from the only game in town, which is what the quote you ascribed to your friend seems to be claiming.
