I address these questions to everyone:
How would a “supernatural creation” leave behind a different universe than one that did not have a supernatural creation? Either way, the laws of physics would operate as we observe them today. Right?
I just don’t understand how the methodological naturalism of the scientific method would operate any differently based on how a universe got its start. (Yet, it appears that some people assume a major difference between them.)
I would assume so as well. You are making my point for me: that methodological naturalism would be intentionally blind to whatever supernatural processes may have preceded the operation of natural processes.
Nor do I. And for this reason, I do not understand those who say from the standpoint of science, “If the earth had been created in six days by supernatural processes instead of over 4.543B years by natural processes, we would see the evidence of it.”
Even if you correct me and say, “No, what we’re saying is that we do see evidence that the earth was created over 4.543B years by natural processes and therefore we know by this that the earth could not have been created supernaturally in six days.” My response to that would be “On what basis can you claim to know that the two are mutually exclusive?” Methodological naturalism - by design - cannot tell you. The most common answer I receive is a theological one: “Because otherwise God would be deceitful.” But I think this has been demonstrated to be a questionable conclusion (see Things are not as they seem).
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:543, topic:36256”]
And for this reason, I do not understand those who say from the standpoint of science, “If the earth had been created in six days by supernatural processes instead of over 4.543B years by natural processes, we would see the evidence of it.”[/quote]
I hope I can explain why I would also say what you quote above.
Perhaps the word ‘deceitful’ is not necessary. Deceitful or not, a dichotomy is still created which can’t be papered over. Science didn’t pull the idea of an old earth out of a hat. It was developed gradually using methodology which has yielded a great amount of other verifiable information about reality over generations. Disregarding that portion of it calls the entire edifice into question–yet that edifice demonstrably describes reality more and more completely all of the time.
I believe that I understand your position. Would you agree that such a dichotomy is at least a problem which can not be totally resolved through your view of scripture?
I would agree that the dichotomy is an issue that must be addressed - and I came to BioLogos for the express purpose of addressing it. I have not yet resolved it. In my current state of thinking, the issue seems to turn on “appearance.” That is, is it possible for the earth to appear old (I’m using age of the earth as a simplified proxy for evolution and other attendant issues) without being old and without God being deceitful. In other words, could there be a good (valid) reason for God to have made things this way. This sends my mind immediately to this: Can there have been a good reason for God to make the earth appear immobile to our naked eyes when it is actually moving very fast according to scientific measurements? Beyond this, my thinking is incomplete.
Do you really think that if I go to their websites and ask this question they are going to say, “You know, we never thought of that!”? On the contrary, they’re going to have an answer that they speak with as much conviction and confidence as you display. And being scientifically limited, I am not going to be able to discern and compare the quality of their answers to yours. I learned a long time ago the truth of “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and “The first to tell his story seems right until another comes along.”
To you, groups like AiG, ICR, and CMI are scientific “kooks,” but to them you are “disregarding God’s word.” Obviously, I’m finding it hard to easily decide whose epithet for the other is more appropriate.
The way I would put it is that they are different, but they are not mutually exclusive.
I think this is obvious on its face. However, I will also give an example. John Walton seems to adhere to biblical inerrancy. Your view, by contrast, seems to be informed by at least some commentators who adhere to some form of the documentary hypothesis (e.g. JEPD). Those who sign up for the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy are usually not Wellhausen fans.
You are arguing with a straw man. My point about those passages is that they are all cases of Moses telling us that creation took place in six days. One of the benefits of your view is that removes the problem by declaring Gen 1-2 to be a vision and Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 to be allusions to it - and none of the passages to be the words of Moses but rather someone in the 6th century BC. The downside of adopting your view is that I have to give up Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch which it seems clearly to me that Jesus held. I know that you dispute this, but Mosaic authorship has been and continues to be a contentious issue for many people. For you to act as if that war is over and I should lay down my arms is unwarranted.
If that were the case, I would not have come to BioLogos as I did.
Actually, the irony is that you are the one who is importing extratextual material into the text. For while Ex 20 is presented as a seemless recitation, you read its 11th verse as an insertion that came from another writer almost a millennium later and without anything in the text of Ex 20 to identify it as such. This does not ipso facto mean you are wrong, but it does ipso facto mean you are getting your information from some source other than Ex 20.
No.
Also see my answer to @Socratic.Fanatic here.
I would put it this way, “I think you could agree with various aspects of all four of them in a logically coherent fashion.” (A reason I say this is shown here in the comment about inerrancy and JEPD.) Can you accept this refinement to your sentence?
Nor do I. What I do see is a historical timeline for creation implied by those passages when combined with the genealogies - a timeline which would date the universe in the thousands of years. Thus when scientifcally-generated history (SGH) comes along with a conflicting timeline of billions of years, a choice is forced.
If I could in good conscience lay aside my worldview glasses and put on John Walton’s (yours) instead, I could indeed see past the conflict between the biblical timeline and SGH. But make no mistake: we’re both wearing glasses.
A Comment on “A List of Proposed Biblical Reasons to Accept the Scientific View of the Age of the Earth (and Evolution)”
I don’t recall anyone saying, “I hold to the gap theory” or “My view is the day-age view” per se. In other words, few of the traditional biblical accommodations to science were proposed as solutions - though some were mentioned in passing or alluded to. Such views include:
I don’t know quite what to make of the fact that none of these seems to have distinct constiuency at BioLogos promoting it, but I can’t help making the observation.
Good observation. I think it has to do with the problems with some of those proposals that have been recognized since the time they were formulated.
I gave you a multipage argument for the vision day/revelation day interpretation, one of the few which can be said to precede both the YEC view and any views attempting to reconcile science with the Bible. The vision day view preceded all attempts to reconcile Genesis with science.
I should re-label the view in my list accordingly. We should also point out that some hold to Revelation Day believing Moses - not someone from the 6th century - to be the recipient of the revelation. Do you know what percentage of adherents hold your view of authorship versus that one?
I don’t think we can be putting ideas into the mind of God, but that fact that the earth appears to be immobile is due simply to the laws of physics. Given the size of the planet and the force of gravity it is going to seem like the earth does not move. Of course given God created the laws of physics I guess you could say He did make it appear to be immobile, but for what purpose? But remember the Greeks worked out that the earth was a sphere around 300 BCE and a moving earth was proposed back in 400 BCE. So it actually is possible to determine from the evidence that the earth is not immobile without using scientific measurements. You just have to use the eyes and the brain God gave you.
At some point, it becomes easier to discern truth when it is fully unpacked.
The common sense interpretation of fossils is right there in front of us…
… while, in contrast, the YEC examination of Truth in scriptures is still based more on Hopes than on Facts.
BioLogos teaches Faith with Facts… Truth without Myth… the Divine with the Natural.
6 Day Creation and the rejection of Natural Facts is a contraption of Zeal and Blind Hope.
Walton and I both adhere to biblical inerrancy, with the exception that my view is more strict than his. Consequently, it is not a surprise to find that the book “Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate” (edited by Farnell and Geisler), considers Walton’s views to be in contradiction with both The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI, 1978), and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH, 1983).
I think you are unaware of Walton’s actual views on the authorship of both Genesis and the Pentateuch. If you read “The Lost World of Scripture : Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority” in particular, you will find that Walton believes that a number of books of the Bible, including some bearing the name of a single person, were actually the product of multiple scribes and various processes of oral transmission, compilation, and editing. He believes in a form of the Documentary Hypothesis.
You may not be aware that Walton never refers to Moses as the author of Genesis, and that when writing of Genesis he carefully only uses the term “the author of Genesis” without identifying who that person might have been. Note what he says here.
“I do not know when Genesis reached its final form. Some still want to associate it with Moses; others insist it was at least edited during the exile.”, John H Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (IVP Academic, 2015]).
Would you agree with that? How about this?
“We should be more interested in Moses as the authority whose words are represented in the Pentateuch rather than as the author of the Pentateuch or any of its books.”, D Brent Sandy John H. Walton, The Lost World of Scripture : Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013).
Would you agree with that? How about this?
“In contrast, whatever role Moses had in Genesis would be the role of tradent as opposed to the role of authority since Genesis never invokes Moses’ authority for the traditions that it contains.”, D Brent Sandy John H. Walton, The Lost World of Scripture : Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013).
Would you agree with that? How about this?
“Earliest tradition associated the work [Genesis] with Moses, and given the stature of Moses that is not unreasonable, but we need not decide the matter. As discussed above, his role is best understood as tradent, not likely that of actually generating the traditions (though he may have generated some of them—we particularly think of the creation accounts in this regard).”, D Brent Sandy John H. Walton, The Lost World of Scripture : Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013).
Would you agree with that? How about this?
“As a final problem, the very nature of the genre raises questions about what we mean when we assert inerrancy. Does that mean the law is the best law—legally without flaw? If so, why do we not keep many of them anymore? Does it mean that the law really was a law of Israel? That would seem to be of minimal importance. Does it mean that the law really came through Moses? We would have to determine if that claim is really being made.”, D Brent Sandy John H. Walton, The Lost World of Scripture : Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013).
Would you agree with that? How about this?
“It is not possible at this time to put Genesis 1–11 into a specific place in the historical record.”, John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 4.
Would you agree with that? Here are the facts.
So do you agree with Walton or not? Walton of course accepts the historico-critical method (what you may know as “higher criticism”), which is standard teaching in mainstream seminaries in the US, including the Southern Baptists.
‘Historico-critical principles of interpretation are generally known and practice in all six Southern Baptist seminaries. The rigor with which historico-critical principles are taught and applied may differ among individual instructors, but the fact of the awareness of and instruction along the lines of these principles is indisputable.’, Hendricks, ‘Scripture: A Southern Baptist Perspective’, Review and Expositor (9.2.251), 1982.
‘This has been our theological position in these decades—the historico-critical approach conjoined to the conviction that the Bible is the inspired testimony to and vehicle of the divine revelation.’, Rust, ‘Theological Emphases of the Past Three Decades’, Review and Expositor (78.2.266), 1982.
‘Harrisville and Sundberg and Ladd would all agree that “historical-critical” study is “a necessary component of responsible theology.”’, Bock & Dockery, ‘Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues’, p. 508 (2001).
In what way?
But you never provide evidence for this.
Your language here is telling. You don’t want to give up Mosaic authorship because you believe Jesus held to it, despite the fact that Jesus never even says this. So your adherence to Mosaic authorship is based on nothing in the actual Bible. you talk about war and laying down of arms, which demonstrates that you do not actually want to change this belief of yours at all, and will fight to preserve it. So you are not open to the idea that you might be wrong on this issue, regardless of evidence.
The issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is typically only controversial among very conservative circles. Elsewhere in Christianity is is widely accepted that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Within Judaism it has been recognized for over 1,000 years (well before the modern era), that Moses did not and could not have written the Pentateuch. It is a long settled issue, just like the age of the earth.
Of course you would. And right here, at Biologos, you are repeatedly telling everyone that all their views are wrong, and that the scientists are wrong, and that your view is correct. You approach the text having read it in English translations, without a knowledge of its deep socio-historical context and without an understanding of how the Bible itself interprets the text, and then when people patiently show you evidence demonstrating (for example), that the Bible never says Moses wrote Genesis (let alone the Pentateuch), you simply claim they’re wrong. You haven’t shifted on a single point the whole time you’ve been here.
This is not true at all. The facts are the complete opposite. I described in lengthy detail how the textual evidence within Exodus 20 itself indicates that Exodus 20 is not a “seamless recitation”, and how the textual evidence within Exodus 20 itself shows that Exodus 20:11 was a later addition. A study of Genesis 1-11 provides evidence for the most likely author.
Most of them, since the Mosaic authorship of Genesis is a minority view these days. I strongly recommend Margaret Barker’s works, “The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1”, and “Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11” as important background works for this subject.
Are you suggesting that Jesus shared your beliefs about authorship of the Torah?
Yes, I believe he knew full well that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. So he never attributes the Pentateuch to Moses, nor does he attribute Genesis to Moses.
You’re going to have to make a positive biblical case for this. It’s a claim that is incredulous on its face.
It isn’t incredible (people are incredulous, things are incredible), since (as I have already pointed out), he never attributes the Pentateuch to Moses, nor does he attribute Genesis to Moses. This is noteworthy given that he actually quotes Genesis and does not attribute it to Moses, even though elsewhere he clearly attributes the Law to Moses. So we have positive testimony that when Jesus wanted to attribute a text to Moses, he did so explicitly.
Additionally, Jesus differentiates between what Moses wrote and what Moses said. That’s precisely what I do. And significantly, he cites Moses’ words in Exodus 3:6, saying “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush where *he says “the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob””. Why didn’t Jesus say “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised up in the passage about the bush where he wrote”?
What is incredible is your insistence that he held the same view as you, even despite the fact that he never attributes Genesis (let alone the Pentateuch), to Moses. When are you going to make a positive biblical case for this?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.