This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/we-believe-in-creation
Prof. Bube’s conclusion is fine:
“But let us avoid either posing creation and evolution as intrinsically antithetical alternatives, the acceptance of one demanding the rejection of the other, or presenting creation as a scientific mechanism alternative to evolution, as though good science must ultimately lead to the verification of fiat creation and a falsification of evolution.”
- See more at: We Believe in Creation - Article - BioLogos
But I don’t think it would make much of a dent in the YEC mind or heart. And perhaps nothing really can. BioLogos exists to give encouragement to those more moderate folks who look for confidence in resisting something that appears to be a little illogical or unscientific… and justification to those non-YEC’s who want to re-visit the science and logic of God-led natural selection and speciation.
The kind of narrative that most makes a dent in YEC arguments, in my view, is to highlight the 4 or 5 basic problems with the Bible, and wait for them to rationalize the problems away. And then you can say, Gee, that’s my explanation for Genesis!
It may be time to focus on the cultural assumptions we all bring to bear in reading the Bible, especially the historical ones. Why is it the assumption that a book written several millennia after the events it describes is written as an eyewitness account? We would expect that out of no other chronicle. Why is the case for Isaiah having more than one author so unpalatable or an unoriginal addition to the end of the gospel of Mark? How does our historiography of our modern world contribute to these biases? I definitely don’t have all the answers, but I believe the problem extends beyond the reading of modern science into ancient texts.
The Ancient Persians tell the creation story that humans were made of rhubarb (because of all the red veins). How would they know?
Greek philosophers relay (Persian?) stories about humans once being dual-gendered… and then a God ripped them asunder … and humanity spends millennia looking for their soul-mate opposites.
And how would the Greeks or the Persians know?
Embarrassing for them isn’t it.
The article asks us to accept evolution as a scientific phenomenon, and yet to reject the philosophy of evolution. While can understand that those who have tried to establish a philosophy using evolution as a world view have experienced problems, this contradiction raises real problems.
Christianity at the present time does not provide a sound philosophical basis for understanding evolution and the evolutionary changes we see taking place all around us. This is an important reason why many Christians feel the world is going to Hell, and react with fear, anger, and despair.
Because Christianity stands for change it is only faith that can develop a philosophy of change to show us the way to God’s future. Evolutionary change is not only basic to nature. It is basic to society and faith.
I revisiting this superb piece by Bube yet again, I’m reminded of something that happened inside the ivory tower many years ago that reflected what was going on almost everywhere outside the tower.
It took place at a nerd party–in other words, an academic conference–held at a convent in California. Many top nerds were present (the nerd writing this disavows membership in that group), and one of the best (the late Ernan McMullin, whom I wrote about here http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/is-creation-from-nothing-obsolete/) rose to his feet during one of the sessions and made an important point. Because of the way the word is being used by some, he said, I can’t just say that I’m a “creationist” and leave it there–I’d probably be misunderstood. But, I’m a creationist in the classic sense of that word, and I resent the way in which it’s been co-opted by a narrow view.
I didn’t put any of that in quotation marks, b/c I’d be overplaying my hand to imply that he said any of that just as I have it here. But, this is the point he was making, whatever words he actually used to utter it. Indeed you might say that he took the words out of my mouth.
Ernan was a great scholar and a very fine person. If I were a Catholic, I’d have wanted him to be my priest.
The wind is going out of the YEC balloon. Why waste time arguing with an interpretation that ignores what the Bible says about Abraham and his ancestors?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.