Actually, @Swamidass, all of those quoted statements belong to @Mike_Gantt, not me. I was responding to him in post #33.
1 Like
You can ignore the computer overlords if they seem to be giving bad advice.
Part of this assymetry you observe is because science and theology/Bible scholarship are very different ways of arriving at truth. Although I donât think any human knowledge is free from the subjective biases of our worldviews and conceptual frames, some kinds of knowledge more closely approach objectivity. Much of the âtruthâ claimed by the evolutionary model can be verified by calculations and those calculations can be cross-checked using various methods. So that gives a different degree of certainty of âcorrectnessâ than when you are trying to recreate an ancient cultural context in order to understand a divinely mediated human communication (or a humanly mediated divine communication?) to a different audience in a language no one speaks anymore. You canât cross check your exegesis with math. So I donât think what you are observing is indicative of anyone intentionally prioritizing science over theology and going from there. Itâs more just a reflection of the different kinds of knowledge we are working with.
4 Likes
Thanks for your insightful analysis of my book. I can understand your hesitation about my statement that scientific truth has approached absolute truth (the Bible). It appears that I make this statement based on my subjective adjustment of Guyotâs interpretation and thus I am subjectively fulfilling my own desire for concordism. However, the sequence was different from that. I wrote a book (Designed to Evolve) and attempted to copyright it many years ago, before I had ever heard of Guyot or his concordist interpretation. I had only heard of Hugh Ross, and while I have great respect for Hugh, I didnât agree with many of Hughâs interpretations; however, when I compared my interpretation with Guyotâs, the same interpretation was better 130 years after Guyot.
You make the point that it is pseudoscientific to claim that mammals were created and then allowed to evolve. Maybe if I explain my philosophy, then it will make more sense. My philosophy is âdirected evolution,â which is that God designed natural processes to evolve in a certain direction (strong anthropic principle) but that God also steps in adjusts the natural direction of evolution if it is not proceeding in the direction that God desires. For example, 65 million years ago (65 Ma), the earth was ruled by the dinosaurs, and there were no placental mammals. Mammals would never have never evolved to become humans or any of the other placental mammals that we all know and love. You can believe it was divinely orchestrated or not, but an asteroid 65 Ma hit the earth and killed all the large dinosaurs and most of every other species on earth. This allowed the placental mammals to evolve. According to the directed evolution perspective, God adjusted the bioreactor and eliminated the dinosaurs so that placental mammals could evolve. My belief is God also adjusted mammal DNA at that time in order to create certain placental mammal characteristics such as two or three orifices, divided brain, etc⌠I would not adamantly argue for this, but there is a major problem with the molecular clock and the origin of placental mammals. According to my philosophy of directed evolution, if an adjustment needed to be made to placental mammal DNA in order to result in the animals that we all know and love, then God would be free to make this change.
You are correct that photosynthetic organisms needed to appear after the continents, but I donât see a problem with this. Photosynthetic organisms arose after the Late Heavy Bombardment ended 3.85 billion years ago (Ga). There is much debate about the intensity and timing of the Late Heavy Bombardment, but many models have it causing a molten surface of the earth or at least causing molten regions of the earth. I think that most geologists agree that the type of continents and seas with plate tectonics that we have today were not established until the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. The first possible fossil (chemical and microbial mats) evidence of photosynthetic life is 3.83 Ga, but these fossils are very controversial.
I looked up the book you referred to but it was written by Walter Alvarez, and I didnât see the chapter title inside the book. Is this the astronomer Sean Carrol or the biologist Sean Carrol that you are referring to?
I was reading an article by William Dembski the other day and came across this:
As Phillip Johnson has rightly observed, science is the only universally valid form of knowledge within our culture.
Whether or not you would agree with Johnson on this point, I do not know. However, what you write here (e.g. âsome kinds of knowledge more closely approach objectivityâ) certainly leans that direction. I donât share the view because I donât think the matter is that simple. For example, I donât think scientific knowledge more closely approaches objectivity than biblical knowledge. Rather, I think that some scientific facts lend themselves more readily to certainty than others (e.g. the results of a properly-controlled experiment versus a complex theory). Likewise, I think that some biblical facts lend themselves more readily to certainty than others (e.g. âJesus is Lordâ versus the identity of â666â). To say, therefore, that scientific knowledge overall lends itself more readily to certainty than does biblical knowledge strikes me as a muddying of the water.
It is clear to me that your degree of certainty about evolution is so great that all that is necessary for you to reconcile it with the Bible is to know that there are viable biblical interpretive options available to you. You donât even need to exercise one of the options. In fact, it seems best to you to leave all the good ones on the table, drawing the best from each while resisting any negative aspects. As for why this approach will not work for me, I refer you back to the post I wrote above at the launch of this topic.
Thanks for trying to help, but you and I just have different ideas of what it means to âreconcile the Bible and evolution.â
1 Like
Thanks for your posts.
Please tell me more. I thought YEC people were the only ones who took Genesis 1-2 non-figuratively.
No, but I read the article to which you linked, and Iâd have to say it flies in the face of Genesis 2:1-3.[quote=âSwamidass, post:38, topic:36078â]
Evolution is a multistage process!
[/quote]
I thought evolution was survival of the fittest by random mutation and natural selection. (Go easy on me here, as I am neither a scientist nor the son of a scientist.) What stage includes more essentials than this? What stage includes less?
The original air and water creatures came on day five. Land animals and humans came on day six. I thought evolution taught a common ancestor for all living things.
I hear you saying that you have a non-figurative interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that you believe is compatible with evolution. Could you please explain it to me in nutshell fashion?
1 Like
Thanks for jumping in. I began your book over on Amazon, but I am afraid it is too scientific for me to comprehend.
You see, I am very much a layman when it comes to science. My ignorance of the field knows no bounds. You might then ask, how do you ever expect to resolve your questions about evolution? Well, I would not be concerned at all about the issue except that as it is popularly understood, it makes claims about history that contradict my understanding of the Bible. By âhistoryâ I mean how we and the universe of which we are a part came to be. I am willing to have my understanding of the Bible changed so that it is not in conflict with evolutionâs historical claims (or, you could say, truth claims), but itâs got to be an interpretation that makes sense to me. Thatâs what Iâm searching for. Your interpretation might indeed make sense to me, but I lack the vocabulary and education to understand what you are saying. Thanks just the same.
Hello @Mike_Gantt, thanks for your thoughtful engagement here. I see you are trying to understand people who are different, not just win an argument. That is a great example for everyone. Thank you.
This article is a helpful summary that shows how some look at this.
I should add that most OEC are literalists, see reasons to believe http://www.reasons.org/. Hugh Ross actually affirms the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that insists on a literal interpretation wherever possible. Iâd also point out that most YECs take the seventh day âfigurativelyâ as an age of time, not a 24 hour day. Also leading TE scholars like @JohnWalton and Dennis Alexander affirm that Adam and Eve are real figures in our past and the Fall was a real event. They are not talking of a figurative couple or fall.
Literal vs. figurative is not really a clean distinction between YEC, OEC, and TE.
I suppose you disagree with traditional interpretations of Scripture then. There is long theological history, totally predating evolution of Godâs continual work of creation. This is rooted, for example, in God work to complete his work in us. Or to make us into a ânew creation.â God clearly continues to create things in this world. You might also appreciate @Jon_Garveyâs several posts on this topic: Conceiving creatio continua via Genesis 1 | The Hump of the Camel
To be clear, this is the traditional interpretation and theology of our shared faith. None of this is invented as a response to evolution, but rather it springs from a full reading of Scripture.[quote=âMike_Gantt, post:46, topic:36078â]
I thought evolution was survival of the fittest by random mutation and natural selection. (Go easy on me here, as I am neither a scientist nor the son of a scientist.) What stage includes more essentials than this? What stage includes less?
[/quote]
Without going down the rabbit hole, Iâll just say youâve been misled about the mechanism of evolution. There is a whole lot more to it than this. Setting that aside, the history of evolution on earth has stages
The image at the top is a good view of this. We see eras and ages in the history of life here. The story for the evolution of human is similar.
There are stages. Each era enables the next.
The order changes in Genesis 1 vs. 2, so that is a clear indicator that the specific order is not the message. See here for a comparison: 2 Biblical Stories of Creation There is debate if Genesis 1 and 2 are in parallel or in sequence, but this should make clear that the ordering is not a simple as one things from reading YEC creationism. For what itâs worth, RTB and Hugh Ross map out parallels between Genesis and the history of life, though I am not convinced the purpose here is to give us a clear chronology.
Evolution does teach a common ancestor of most living things. I see God asking the land and see to create many kinds in Scripture. In the Scriptural account, they all share common ancestry in the dust. The kinds are created by a process of evolution.
To what I have already explained, I will add that I affirm that Genesis tells us real story about Adam and Eve, two people from whom we all descend. Their Fall that brings death to all mankind, including us. Iâve done a lot of work to show that this is compatible with the evolutionary story, even if they lived as recently as less than 10,000 years ago:
2 Likes
Joshua, while I accept your explanation of a genealogical Adam and Eve as plausible and in fact lean toward it in my personal belief, I wonder about one aspect. You state that all living humans can easily have Adam as a genealogical ancestor, but it would still take quite a few generations for that to occur. What about the people who lived and died without being in his genealogy? Any difference for them, or do we just live in the mystery? Any speculation?
1 Like
Thanks.
I am aware of these arguments against a completed creation, but I have not found them persuasive. I am not suggesting that Godâs been a neâer-do-well or a Deist since creation, but rather that all He has done since then has been the outworking of a completed creation, not the ongoing work of an unfinished creation. Genesis 2:1-3 is too pronounced to mean nothing. It might be figurative, but a figure has to mean something. If it doesnât speak to completion in some sense, then I donât have any hope of ever understanding the Bible.[quote=âJay313, post:34, topic:36078â]
Likewise, your second point is not quite so clear-cut as it seems. I can look at a continuous process, such as a child growing from infancy to adulthood, and define many âstagesâ to it. I can even look at the continuous process of evolution and define it by the same stages as Genesis uses: the appearance of plant life, the appearance of life in the sea, the appearance of life on land, the appearance of birds, and, lastly, the appearance of mankind. Honestly, this sounds like an anti-evolution polemic that actually has little to do with the text of Genesis. Itâs certainly not a conclusion that seems to flow from the text itself.
[/quote]
Your criticism of me on this point was sharp (âanti-evolution polemicâ) so I went back and re-read Genesis 1 to test its merit. What I find in the text is a heavily-punctuated narrative: âAnd there was evening and morning, one dayâ and so on. Yes, we may assign stages of growth to a human being, but such assignments are arbitrary and hardly punctuated at all. Even if one regards the days as ages, you still
have to ask yourself, âWhy is the text drawing such sharp distinctions between one set of activities and another?â Indeed, the separated and differentiated stages do flow from the text.
I honestly cannot figure out how to read Genesis 1 and arrive at common ancestry. If you say you can, I believe you; I just canât understand how you think. Help me figure out how to think like you do.
I have not contrived these three conflicts I have spelled out. They are ones that stare me in the face when I consider the subject of the Bible and evolution. I am asking for help to resolve them. What you seem to be offering is not a way to reconcile them, but simply a declaration that I have imagined conflicts between the text and evolution which do not exist. If thatâs the route I have to take, itâs one that makes me feel like Iâm being asked to deny reality.
Mike, I suspect you are just being modest about your science knowledge, but in reflecting on how my understanding of evolution developed, the base of my understanding was seeing the evidence of an ancient earth. Some of that reLization was from looking at fossils, but other independent lines of reasoning from erosion patterns, geologic formations and layers, and astronomical observations all led to the same conclusion of an ancient creation.
Once I came to accept an ancient earth, it then became necessary to reconcile that with the God of truth, believing that all truth is Godâs truth. That of course leads to examining how you look at scripture and how that affects your theology. From there, evolution justâŚevolves.
Phil,
If you were to consult with my junior high science teachers (who were the last science teachers to have to endure me) they could assure you that none of my modesty on this subject is false.
Thanks for the outline of your own progression in thinking. May I ask when and how your view of Noahâs Flood was affected by this progression?
I think that my thoughts on Noah came later, though I still feel a local flood is possible with a literal Noah. I do not hold a global flood as possible, and my leaning is toward an entirely allegorical or symbolic reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Maybe I have slid down the slippery slope, but the other option is to fall off a cliff!
1 Like
According to the Septuagint chronology of the Bible (Catholic, Orthodox, and all other churchesâ version prior to Luther in 1500 AD), Noahâs flood took place in 3500 BC. The major flood in Mesoptamian history was in 3500 BC, according to radiometric dating. It was dramatically larger than all other floods and was probably a hurricane and storm surge from the Persian Gulf in addition to major river flooding. When Leonard Wooley discovered it, he assumed that it was from Noahâs flood. A secular paper recently postulated that a storm surge was the cause of shells 100 miles north of the present gulf shoreline. Otherâs have had the same conclusion. It wiped out the original occupants of southern Mesopotamia, the Ubaid, and a new group (that built tall ziggurats) replaced them.
Joshua, thanks for the heads-up. Your use of that spiral graphic reminds me of a piece I did way back in 2010 (when a newbie at BioLogos) about how even in science mythic representation is used to convey factual truth. That picture was the example I used, and though my thinking has moved on I still believe it can cast light on how one should view Genesis 1, at least.
Phil - a quick and very incomplete speculation (since what we are not told in revelation we cannot hold as doctrine!).
Genesis 1-11 is all about a genealogical succession of âGod-knowersâ from Adam, including some kind of regional spread in the table of nations over, on a literal understanding perhaps, nearly 2 millennia. Itâs interesting to see in the news yesterday that ancient Egyptian DNA from Middle Egypt has shown Western Mediterranean rather than African genes predominating - genealogically the table of nations may not be implausible after all.
The canvas for Abraham, and then for the nation of Israel, with various spiritual interactions with outsiders from Melchizedek to Nebichadnezzar, is restricted to nations in that region. Theologically at that time covenant is restricted to Israel and those becoming part of Israel through local events.
The New Testament, for the first time, brings a promise of covenant salvation to âthe whole worldâ (even in those days far bigger than that of Genesis, extending to India, to Britian etc) - and Paul specifically says that until that time the gentiles were âwithout hope and without God in the worldâ.
Christian Mission since, in the nature of things, has gone where people, and genealogy, have gone, usually (according to an esteemed church historian who used to post here), through the spread of empires.
So as a matter of fact the increasing scope of âbiblical faithâ has corresponded with the kind of timescales predicted in MRCA studies. In a real sense the question âWhat about those who arenât descended from Adam?â is no more or less difficult than âWhat about those who have never heard the gospel?â Firstly, they might be broadly the same people on the asumptions of the MRCA theory, and secondly, God no doubt has his own answers to both questions, which will become clear in due time.
1 Like
Thanks. Youâve said a lot. Let me focus on one area of your comments which seems to be foundational to your thinking.[quote=âSocratic.Fanatic, post:32, topic:36078â]
Why? Because chronology wasnât something they were worried about. As I mentioned, the Hebrew language doesnât even have our type of past/present/future tense inflection verb inflection system! (I intentionally and whimsically worded that statement to express the beginning Hebrew studentâs typical frustration with a language and culture which doesnât share our priorities----and doesnât necessarily consider chronological order and time spans central to a descriptive text.)
I understand your frustration. Why donât other cultures share our priorities? To us, it seems obvious that a creation account should tell us how long ago or how long it took. It is very frustrating for us to notice that the text speaks of DAYS (YOM) well before the Day #4 when the sun appears. And how can there be evenings and mornings before there is a sun? How is that conceivably possible?
[/quote]
I am aware of the temptation to expect modern sensibilities to be reflected in ancient texts, so while itâs possible I have fallen into this temptation itâs not as if Iâm as unaware of the possibility as you make me out to be.
As for the limitations of biblical Hebrew, it did not prevent biblical authors from speaking of the âancientâ past. Moreover, to suggest that they werenât interested in chronology is belied by all sorts of passages - not least of which are the genealogies and historical narratives. Where I can agree with you is that they did not write with the time-stamp precision to which weâre accustomed in a digital ageâŚbut Iâm not looking for that.
I am aware of the problems with the sequence of activities in the days of Genesis 1, but, as Iâve said from beginning of the discussion in this topic, Iâm leaving aside entirely the issue of how long the days of Genesis 1 were.
Iâm prepared to accept an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that regards the sequence and timing of events according to ancient rather than modern sensibilities, but I just canât accept the notion that biblical authors were random in their assignment of sequence and timing to these events.
I thought I saw an initial post from you in this discussion, and I have come around to responding to it. However, I can no longer see the post from you that I thought I read here. Could you please re-post itâŚor tell me why I think I saw something here from you to me that I did not actually see here.
(The vast variety of perspectives offered in response to my initial question combined with the scientific vocabulary that inevitably creeps into such a discussion are taxing my mental faculties such that my circuits may have become temporarily - we hope temporarily - over-loaded.)
As I recall, in that initial post of this topic you said something about an article on âthe appearance of age.â Iâd definitely be interested in reading that.
@Swamidass (Joshua),
Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
I think I now understand the reason for my confusion about your ânon-figurativeâ claim. In this discussion I have been using the term âliteralâ or ânon-figurativeâ to describe a view that, generally speaking, interprets âdayâ in Genesis 1 as 24 hours. Since I took you to be a believer in evolution, I thought youâd consider your view âfigurativeâ or ânon-literal.â However, your latest response has brought back to my mind the fact that Hugh Ross and some other OEC proponents (perhaps many or all of them) do not consider their interpretation of âdayâ as an âageâ or extended period of time as an abandonment of a âliteralâ or ânon-figurativeâ view. I was equating âliteralâ with YEC and that was too broad an assumption on my part. Consider me corrected on this point, though I canât promise I wonât get confused again.
As for creatio continua, I accept your point that it preceded the evolution debate and that it is familiar to theologians. However, I cannot accept that it has long been known and is widely-accepted in the pew. Nor can I accept that anyone who believes in the new creative activity in Christ (including Isaiahâs new heavens and earth) is ipso facto a proponent of creatio continua. There are plenty of preachers and believers throughout Christian history who have believed that Genesis 2:1-3 marked a completion of the original creation, but not an end of Godâs creative abilities or activities - as evidenced in His procreative and redemptive enterprises.
My question for you on this point is this: If Genesis 2:1-3 does not mean that the original creation was completed, what does it mean?
As for the stages of evolution, I donât deny that there is more to evolution than âsurvival of the fittest by random mutation and natural selection,â but - help an ole layman out here, ok? - does that phrase not describe the sine qua non of every stage of evolution? And, if not, what phrase that a layman can understand and use does?
1 Like
Though some of you may have picked up on it already, let me say that I have within me an aversion to evolution. I hasten to add, however, that I also have an attraction to it. I am trying to overcome both of these to be sure I take the right position in Godâs sight.
My attraction to evolution is that if I could come to a conviction that it is truth, it would remove a formidable obstacle faith for many people. Who wants to argue with unbelievers about evolution if we can agree with them about it and then move directly to discussions of the Lord Jesus?
My aversion to evolution has mainly to do with the other things that its primary proponents believe and do. Think Richard Dawkins. Think also of how evolution seems to be part of the justification for many of todayâs moral aberrations, even if only at a subliminal level - including the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism.
I chose to discuss evolution at BioLogos because I assume at least some of its adherents care very much about biblical authority. (I say this because I recognize that people can subscribe fully to theistic evolution - embracing the theism as energetically as the evolution - while having differing views about what âcaring very much about biblical authorityâ actually requires of us.)
Therefore, while I donât deny my aversion and my attraction, I try to keep them both in check. What matters to me above all is truth.
1 Like
Hi Mike. Havenât posted as far as I know till now - but if the thread was hived off from another, who knows? I did PM you, though, with a link to this.
What do you know - it mentions Joshua!
1 Like