On Living in the Middle
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk serves as president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.
This has been an interesting week for The BioLogos Forum. From the atheist camp, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and P.Z. Myers noticed Daniel Harrell’s essay, "Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary", and had a few choice words for us. From the young earth creationist camp, Pastor John MacArthur’s team (see here and here) at Grace to You responded critically to our series on geological history.
When you’re trying to speak to both of two groups on opposite ends of the spectrum and trying to help each see there is middle ground, the forces tugging from opposite sides can be a little painful. Here are some of the responses we got this week:
From Richard Dawkins:
The Biologos Foundation was founded by Francis Collins, who was also its first President until he was nominated by President Obama to head the National Institutes of Health. It would be nice to think that, when Dr Collins was President of Biologos, an article as ridiculous as this could not have been published. Let us hope at least that, if he sees it and has time to read it, he will be profoundly embarrassed.
Jerry Coyne wrote something similar:
…If you accept apparent age to save the Bible, where does it stop?
More important: isn’t BioLogos embarrassed to have this kind of stuff on its website, which purports to accept the findings of science?
On the other side, Philip R. Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You had the following to say in reference to our critique of some of their young earth propositions:
If BioLogos is willing to throw away so much at the very foundations of our faith and at the very beginning of God's revelation, I can't imagine why they would want to keep up the pretense of being Christians at all. Selectively admiring the Bible's moral teachings is not the same thing as actually believing the Bible.
And Travis Allen, Director of Internet Ministry at Grace to You, offered this:
It’s time for Christians to return to the self-attesting authority of God’s Word and forsake the “vain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called.”
At times like this, I think of Kermit the Frog’s song: “It's not that easy being green…When I think it could be nicer being red or yellow or gold / Or something much more colorful like that.”
The problem with being in the middle is that both sides think they understand you, when neither does at all. Take Daniel Harrell’s outstanding essay for example. Those who are regulars at the BioLogos site all know what Harrell was doing in this essay. There are Christians whose very sense of purpose and meaning in life depend upon the historicity of Adam and Eve. For such persons, the non-historical approach of Pete Enns or Alister McGrath simply will not do. And when it comes to a historical Adam and Eve, Harrell lays out our only two options. Option #1 is that Adam and Eve were created with apparent age; Option #2 is (in Harrell’s words) “Adam and Eve exist as first among Homo sapiens, specially chosen by God as representatives for a relationship with him.”
Option #1 is the standard argument put forward by those who believe in a young earth created by God in six twenty-four hour days less than 10,000 years ago. BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view from the Church. A fundamental part of our mission is to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Daniel Harrell knows this. All members of the BioLogos community know this. And the leaders of powerful young earth organizations like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and, Grace to You know that BioLogos exists to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Reasons to Believe (RTB) knows that we are diametrically opposed to Option #1, just as we are diametrically opposed to their untenable position that there has been no macroevolution. Finally, the folks over at the Discovery Institute know that we exist to remove “apparent age” from the lexicon of evangelical Christianity. Such a view makes a mockery of the entire scientific enterprise and its ability to reveal truths about nature.
Speaking personally, Daniel Harrell has written some of my all-time favorite Science and the Sacred essays. I was especially pleased to post this one, since it makes clear that, for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve, Option #2 is sound—both scientifically and theologically. There is nothing in science which would say that God could not have begun his interaction with humankind by entering into a relationship with a particular couple. After all, Christians believe that God interacted with a whole nation of people a while later, and then after that with all humankind through the coming of Christ. Science, I think we all know, is silent on these issues. Option #2 is a place where many Christians can rest comfortably, both theologically and scientifically.
To accept Option #1, however, is to reject the richness of the fossil data; the millions of genetic fingerprints which point to the common ancestry of all life forms; the premises of nuclear physics which allow us to date minerals in multiple ways; the heart of astronomy which tells us how stars and galaxies are still being born; and the science of geology where we can relate events that are taking place now to ancient events from the deep past. BioLogos exists to show that whereas Option #1 runs into trouble with modern science, Option #2 is still a possibility for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve. The only other option for Christians who hold to historicity is Option #1, which smacks of a God who is deceptive (as Harrell points out). The entire context of Harrell’s article—let alone the context of BioLogos’s hundreds of other posts—ought to make it clear that we do not believe Option #1 is viable…not in today’s world.
As scientists—as eminent scientists—who hold truth in the highest regard, I wish Coyne and Dawkins had had a better grasp of the “data” before they sat down at their computers to write. Popping in, reading one article, and then pulling that article out of the context of all that BioLogos is trying to do is not fair practice. I want to quickly add though that I am fully aware that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne do not have time to be regular readers of the BioLogos Forum. We cannot expect them to know that none of us would give Option #1 a moment of our time, except to contrast it with a position that we do believe is a viable option, or to know that many of us at BioLogos do not take a literal position on Adam and Eve at all. However, if they are only going to drop in on occasion, read a single article and then not understand the point of the article, perhaps it would be appropriate if they would let the thousands in their audiences know when they have misunderstood. It would be good for them to tell their readers that they have posted something which unintentionally distorts our views.
So that is my message to the atheists in our audience. To the rest of us, I would like to say that these are folks that Jesus would be inviting in for dinner. He loved interacting with people like this and he loved them. Some of my favorite speaking engagements have been with atheists. They really need to know us better and we need to make them feel welcome in our midst. The God they are unable to acknowledge, loves them; indeed He especially loves them. My prayer is that we will always see them through his eyes.
So that addresses those who are violet in contrast to BioLogos’s Kermit-the Frog-green. What about those who are on the other end of the spectrum: the red end? What I wish to say to them is that they interpret the early chapters of Genesis one way, and we interpret them another—but we both interpret. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling himself.
I do wish though, that we would not be put forward as those who, according to the above quotations, live under the “pretense of being Christians,” or that we be represented as “vain babblers.” At various times, we have written respectfully that we understand why this issue is so important to you. We love and respect you for the sincerity of your position, but please don’t call us “vain babblers” any more, and please don’t imply that we are only “pretending” to be Christians.
If I were red, I would end this essay with a somewhat preachy Scripture verse, and if I were violet, I would offer some witty, cynical statement to put all of this into a nutshell. However, I’m not red and I’m not violet, so here’s the best I can offer:
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.It isn’t easy being green…
But green is the color of Spring…
And green can be cool and friendly-like…
And green can be big like an ocean…
Or important like a mountain, …
Or tall like a tree…
It’s beautiful…
And I think it’s what I want to be.
June 28th 2010
norm - #18641
Carol Hill has written some valuable papers on specific subjects, but her background as a geologist is not always adequate for more general papers. There are significant academic problems with her overall view. See her paper at http://www.asa3.org/asa/pscf/2007/PSCF6-07Hill.pdf and my response to her overall view at http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2008/PSCF3-08Seely.pdf
Dick Fischer’s work, which you also originally mentioned, is informed about ANE literature, but suffers, in my opinion, from too much pure speculation.
Reply to this commentPaul
June 28th 2010
Paul,
Thanks for your response. However I’m very familiar with yours and Carol’s interaction at ASA which you linked. Your point is noted that Carol is not a Theologian and I do not agree with some of Dick Fischer’s implication nor all of Carol’s. The point I’m trying to emphasize is that yours and Denis Lamoureux’s theological position that there is no historical Adam is a challengeable position as well on theological grounds. Dr. Falk brought up in this post that there is a reluctance by many to accept the non-historic Adam and Eve presented by some such as yourself and he specifically mentioned Pete Enns. This is a discussion/debate that needs to happen in the scientific community. ASA’s own recent newsletter stated that a survey revealed there was no consensus on how the scientific community at large viewed Adam’s historicity at this time. I would venture that Carol’s lacking in the theological letters does not disqualify her from presenting some valid positions that may have good theological merit when investigated. However by not allowing her recent discussion to go forward the ASA community may not be able to enjoy this debate that has potential for discernment.
Continued
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
I have already posted her article (with permission) on a private forum for some here at Biologos to read and received some favorable feedback from those who seem disposed to Carol’s understanding of Adam as the historic forerunner of Israel. The idea that Israel considered Adam as a non person does not appear consistent even under the ANE mindset.
Here is the link again for those who are interested in reading Carol’s article; the full article is a PDF attachment at the end of the introduction.
http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-worldview-approach-to
One thing I would like to mention concerning Paul’s response to Carol on ASA is that there is an attempt to paint her as a “concordist” which IMO is not entirely accurate. Carol accepts much from the “accommodationist” point of view but simply believes that a mistake is being made to declare a historical Adam as classic scientific “concordism”. Would believing Abraham’s historicity be considered concordism?
Paul it would have been nice to see this discussion carried on ASA’s site but since it is being restricted under the guise of an “academic lacking” then perhaps Biologos should be the site in which it should be posted and debated.
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
continued
Carol makes the point that there is commonality in her presentation with the “accommodationist” approach which I would agree with. Many of us are highly indebted to Paul Seely, Denis Lamoureux and Pete Enns and the work you put forth. However not everyone buys the non-historic Adam as a legitimate Jewish understanding but then we could be wrong. It would be good to see a strong and vigorous debate on these theological ramifications “academic letters” or not. Viewers should read Carol’s piece and judge for themselves.
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
I should remind the readers that Dr. Falk seems to have basically endorsed the premise of Carol Hill’s article with the following excerpt. Just another reason one should make themselves acquainted with her presentation.
Dr. Falk ... “I was especially pleased to post this one, since it makes clear that, for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve, Option #2 is sound—both scientifically and theologically. There is nothing in science which would say that God could not have begun his interaction with humankind by entering into a relationship with a particular couple. After all, Christians believe that God interacted with a whole nation of people a while later, and then after that with all humankind through the coming of Christ. Science, I think we all know, is silent on these issues. Option #2 is a place where many Christians can rest comfortably, both theologically and scientifically.”
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
“With many of the comments by new posters to BioLogos in the past couple of weeks, there is no sense of connection with the mission of the BioLogos Foundation: to engage in communication between science and religion in a potentially fruitful way.”
This seems to be a correct analysis. Those who simply point out that it seems hopeless for science and religion to communicate in a potentially fruitful way are here to laugh and point at the ridiculousness of an opinion like:
“Option #2 is still a possibility for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve.”
That opinion seems quite irrational to me. So links from sites like Pharyngula have attracted people like me to express the opinion that your “mission” really is “impossible”.
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
It’s a sin to work for common ground with pagans, which is what you say your mission is. Repent and believe on Christ and stand on His word, not the failed wisdom of sinful men (which includes you and me).
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
Norm wrote to Paul:
“The point I’m trying to emphasize is that yours and Denis Lamoureux’s theological position that there is no historical Adam is a challengeable position as well on theological grounds. Dr. Falk brought up in this post that there is a reluctance by many to accept the non-historic Adam and Eve presented by some such as yourself and he specifically mentioned Pete Enns. This is a discussion/debate that needs to happen in the scientific community.”
I agree with Norm´s point here. My question is: where in the ´scientific community´do you think this discussion/debate should happen? I agree that it should happen too.
What I mean is, if you could choose representatives from a few fields who can best address or represent the topic of historic vs. non-historic A&E, which fields would you choose?
If your list leaves out anthropology, sociology or psychology, it could turn into a pretty flat (horozontal) discussion/debate, even if theologians are involved. This is exactly the same point I return to time and again in a conversation about ´science and religion´ that really means ´natural-physical sciences *only* and religion´. Do you hear where I´m coming from on this?
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
Norm,
The ASA does not exclude papers on the basis of a lack of formal education. I publshed a paper on the GISP2 ice core (no formal education in that area) but I documented everything from professional journals, conferred with glaciologists, and had a leading glaciologist review it before submitting it for publication).
The ASA journal rejected one of my papers for no good reason that I could see. I sent it to a similar journal in England (Science & Christian Belief), and they were glad to have it. The ASA rejected another paper that no one would publish. That’s just the way it is.
If it is discussion you want, Carol could break her paper into parts, e.g., Genesis 1, Adam , Pre-Adamites, Flood, Overall view, streamline the parts and present them one at a time on “ASA Voices” This might get her the criticism she might need to make the paper better. Terry Gray very recently wrote there with concern that the ASA should not let the “errantist” view of such as myself and Lamoureaux dominate; so you are not alone.
Paul
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Paul,
Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Also again I want to emphasize that I do not want to lessen the respect that I have for you, Denis and Pete. Believe me your work is foundational toward much of what many of us need and so keep up the good work. The reason I’m taking up the cause for Carol though is that I believe her latest article needs to be heard sooner rather than later and not broken up. What Carol has laid out is a systematic framework in which further work and discussion can proceed from. By setting the bar so high it may be too difficult to instigate the debate. It would be nice if all of ones scholarly ducks could be put in order before the discussion begin but if the issues were fully fleshed out then what would be left. It simply doesn’t always work that way in theological discussions. Putting heavy burdens upon allowing new ideas sometimes comes across as a way of limiting the discourse to those who are selectively trained. It may be what it is but wisdom needs to be exercised in seizing the moment and the debate between the historical Adam and the non-historical may be a happening that the Lord wants to occur. Paul I believe you have influence at ASA so I appeal to you.
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Gregory,
I will confide with you that I find Biologos not always the best place for theological discussions. I’ve been immersed in forum debates for several years and the interest here theologically is not what I am used to. The science minded person tends to be one who often gravitates to the philosophical and metaphysical in lieu of the theological. In my experience one should set their mind to understanding Hebrew theology first and then they are prepared better for the philosophical regarding scriptures. Otherwise one can get carried off into the Greek mind instead of the Hebrew and IMO it makes a huge difference. Now having stated my preference of discussion let me say also that I get very frustrated with the typical evangelical theological forums as well because they don’t grasp Genesis even as well as those who frequent Biologos. There are just not that many out there that have equipped themselves to discuss both ends of the Bible extensively.
continued
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
From my experience one needs to have a solid grasp on Pauline Theology especially how he delves into Romans 5-8 and 1 Cor 15. Second to that one needs to grasp apocalyptic literature such as Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation because those books explore aspects of Genesis more than any other. The 19th century Theologian Milton Terry viewed Genesis closely relating to the apocalyptic form of literature due to its poetic nature. Revelation seems to confirm that view by picking up many of the symbols.
Reply to this commentWho then can bring coherence to such a discussion? I would begin with someone like our Pete Enns and scholars that have pursued paths that should allow them to speak broadly and have remained immersed in the discussion. However we know what happened to Bruce Waltke so there are limitations upon scholars that open the door to those that are more autonomous.
Where should these discussions/debates take place? Anywhere you can get them going with interested parties. Only the interested will exert the effort and passion needed to help reveal the truths lying out there, which hopefully will gradually help turn the cultural religious climate in the foreseeable future if not for us perhaps our children and grandchildren.
July 2nd 2010
@Mike Gene: “Essentially, the two extremes of New Atheism and Young Earth Creationism represent mirror images of a fundamentalist mindset.”
If that’s what you believe, fine. To me, a “New” atheist is just an old atheist who decided to speak up. I can understand religious people feel threatened by this attitude and try to accuse us of fundamentalism.
As for the crux of the matter, if anyone thinks the historicity of Adam & Eve merits a serious discussion, I will gladly invite them to discuss the historicity of Gilgamesh next time.
Reply to this commentJuly 2nd 2010
Knowledge Puffs Up… The “BEGINNING” of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.
For instance; The Unibomber was full of knowledge in bomb making and US Mail. Though he had been a professor and was full of great knowledge he had little wisdom. So, people were
hurt.
Here is the kicker for all sides that remains FACT.
Knowledge comes from the head and often moves to the heart.
Wisdom comes from the heart and always moves to the head.
I’ll take Wisdom over Knowledge in this matter as well as most others.
Reply to this commentJuly 3rd 2010
I really feel BioLogos and Theistic Evolution in general is a real lifesaver, it certainly has been for me. I thank God for this ministry, don’t listen to the loonies and keep up the good work.
I’m guessing most advocates of Theistic Evolution realise how untenable the position of a literal Genesis is but they also see how Naturalism inevitably leads to the utterly hopeless positions of Nihilism and Moral skepticism.
Reply to this commentJuly 3rd 2010
Shouldn’t Darrell Falk post a retraction since his premise regarding the atheists was entirely wrong? That is, PZ, Coyne and Dawkins have all said, no, we think option #2 isn’t scientific either? Further, that there is another possible option, namely that Adam and Eve weren’t historical people?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/biologos-is-hurt-really-hurt/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/thats_not_a_shoehorn_its_a_sle.php
Reply to this commentJuly 6th 2010
Please Biologos
The organisation must not revert to pre-scientific type. The science aspects of the organisation must not play a subjugate role to theology. The middle is the middle. Indeed there is general consensus among the majority of christians around the world that the Bible should be read largely allegorical, for its messages becomes more powerful as a story of the human condition. Part of that story of the human condition is the pursuit of science in many fields, of which 99% is compatible and sits comfortably with the daily life experiences with all people, both believers and non-believers. The other 1% seems to that which seems to conflict with the literal interpretation of eg. Genesis; of course, that being biological evolutionary science. But even here the majority of believers are comfortable with accepting evolution as consonant with their theism.
So, Biologos, don’t pander to the literalists, for that view is the principal constituent of the Dark Ages.
Reply to this comment